Lords Sitting of 13 December 1906

PRIVATE v BILL BUSINESS.
  URE ELDER FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHINA, No. 2 (1906).
  Further correspondence relating to the decree issued by the Chinese Government on 9th May, 1906, respecting the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs.
  NAVY (DISTURBANCES AT PORTSMOUTH).
  Admiralty Minute in regard to disturbances at Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, on 4th and 5th November 1906, and courts-martial and other questions arising thereon.
  GUNNERY.
  Result of test of gun layers with heavy guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1906. Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, confirming certain by-laws made by the Tyne Pilotage Commissioners for the River Tyne in substitution for the by-laws hitherto in force.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND ACT), 1898.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, further altering the scale of light dues to be levied under the Act of 1898.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSION ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December 1906, directing that any pay, half pay, &c. of officers of His Majesty's Navy or the Royal Marines may be abated to meet mess debts or other similar debts or liabilities.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
  Account of the fund under the Acts, 57 & 58 Vict, and 61 & 62 Vict., showing the income and expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1906.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 27th November 1906, granting a retired allowance to Edward Aldridge, William Henry H. Butler, and Charles Gough, overseers and senior telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments disagreed to, together with a reason for such disagreement, the said reason to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 237.)

LAND TENURE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My first two Amendments are of a purely verbal character.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'his' and to insert the word 'a."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 24, after the word holdings,' to insert the word 'England."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwished, before this Amendment was put, to raise a point in regard to which he hoped the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture would be able to give the Committee some information. He desired to know the exact position

523
in which they were now that all reference to the inherent capabilities of the soil had been struck out.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)thought that the proper time for any general observations oh Clause 1 would be when the question was put that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to leave out "determined by" and to insert "referred to" in sub-section (2). This was, he explained, the first of three or four Amendments to this sub-section. They all hung together, and were designed for the purpose of clearing up a point which was at present obscure. If their Lordships would look at sub-section (2), they would find this provision—
"All questions which, under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, or this Act, or under any custom or contract of tenancy, are to be determined by arbitration shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of the Act, be determined by a single arbitrator."
If the questions had been limited to those under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, there would not be any obscurity at all. But by adding the words "or under any custom or contract of tenancy" doubts had been raised in the minds of land agents both in England and in Scotland, and in the minds of many of their Lordships, including himself, as to whether it might not be supposed that the Government were intending to do away with mattesr of valuation and similar things of that kind contained in any contract of tenancy. Lord Carrington had told them the other day that that was not the intention of the Government, and, therefore, he had drafted these words in order to put more clearly, as he thought, the intentions of His Majesty's Government. He would deal with the Amendments as he came to them. The first one, which he now moved, was to strike out the words "determined by" and to insert the words "referred to."
524
It was true it was only a drafting Amendment, but at the same time it was to a certain extent a matter of substance. Where arbitration was mentioned in the present Acts the words "referred to arbitration" and "reference to arbitration" were applied, and he thought they should use the same terms in this clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words 'determined by,' and to insert the words referred to."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I think my noble friend and the Government mean the same thing. I am advised that the words "determined by" are correct, inasmuch as in the present Acts, with which this Act should be read, there is a provision that questions shall not only be referred to arbitration but that they shall be determined in that manner. I think it will be better to use the same phraseology when the same thing is intended. I am advised that "determined by" are the better words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that if the noble Earl was so advised he would not insist on the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAYmoved an Amendment providing that these questions "may," instead of "shall," be determined by a single arbitrator. He had put down this Amendment because there seemed a great deal of doubt owing to so many references to other Acts as to exactly what the effect of the sub-section would be. The question was whether it was intended compulsorily to require all questions of valuation between the outgoing and the incoming tenant to be settled by one arbitrator or whether the provision referred only to the question of improvements in sub-section (1). In the past the outgoing and the incoming tenants had always been able to arrange these details satisfactorily themselves. If the sub-section as it stood did away with the liberty of each of the parties to appoint his own valuer, that was a serious matter. It ought to be left optional.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may."—(Viscount Galway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Amendment which Lord Galway has moved is a very important one, and I regret I am unable to accept it. I think, however, I shall be able to explain my action satisfactorily to him. It is very desirable when Parliament enacts that certain questions should be determined by arbitration that they should state clearly and precisely what the form of arbitration should be, so that expense and litigation may be avoided. Our great object in the Bill is to make the settlement of differences between landlord and tenant as inexpensive as possible. What we want to insure is that the arbitrator should always act judicially and not as the advocate of one side or the other. As it is at present, the two valuers—they are called arbitrators—meet, and when unable to come to a decision, bring in a third person who is called an umpire. What we want is that instead of "umpire" you should read "arbitrator." Our object is to bring about an improvement in the arbitration work and in the position of the arbitrator now that his duties are considerably increased. I can assure the noble Earl that there is no intention whatever of interfering in any way with the present arrangement by which two valuers are appointed. There is a good deal to be said for the present arrangement, and there is nothing to interfere with it except that the arbitrator will not be allowed to go behind the back of the tenant and the landlord to select the umpire. If, and only if, they fail to agree, these two umpires then refer the matter to a single arbitrator, whose decision will be final. That is the object of the Government. Our endeavour is to simplify and cheapen the procedure in settling cases of difference which must arise, and to do away with the old difficulties that have often come before the Board, sometimes to such an extent that disputes have gone on for two or three months at a cost of several hundred pounds, and not on the main question but on the question of whether or not the matter was to go to arbitration.
526
Noble Lords will surely agree that that procedure needs improvement, and therefore it is that, after due consideration and deep thought, we have come to the conclusion that the appointment of a single arbitrator on the conditions I have named is the proper course to pursue. As I have said, I cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not feel quite sure that the noble Earl fully appreciated the point which his noble friend who moved the Amendment had endeavoured to enforce. In the case of a difference between landlord and tenant, that difference might be settled under the Agricultural Holdings Act by two arbitrators and an umpire, or by a single arbitrator. What Lord Carrington desired to do, as he understood, was that when reference was made to the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Agriculture should appoint only one umpire.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount has put the case in a nutshell. That is exactly what is intended.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that in every case of an outgoing and an incoming tenant there must be a valuation, in which two valuers were appointed. If they differed in such a case an umpire had to be called in to settle the matter, but, as a rule, they were able to agree. They did not want that system interfered with. They did not want all these matters referred to the Board of Agriculture for them to appoint an arbitrator. He thought the words as they stood did seem to preclude the ordinary course of valuation between an outgoing and an incoming tenant, because the noble Earl had inserted in the clause the words "under any custom or contract of tenancy." He did not think the subsection as it stood was at all sufficiently explicit to make it quite clear that the system he had referred to would not be interfered with. He was quite sure that the general wish of the agricultural world was that it should not be interfered with. He thought the Government might reconsider the point.
EARL CARRINGTON: We are quite prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Earl of Camperdown, to insert, after "1900," the following proviso—
"Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought this would meet the case, subject to the reconsideration of the words, if necessary, on Report.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHhad no desire to interfere with a harmonious arrangement, but he did not think the insertion of the words proposed would meet the point. That proviso apparently was for a valuation which would not require to go to arbitration at all. Their point was that if they had to go to arbitration they should preserve the preliminary consideration of the matter between two friendly valuers, and should not be cut out of that method of procedure.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that after the explanation of the noble Earl he was quite prepared to withdraw his Amendment, provided it was clearly understood that in no way would the old custom of each party having their own valuer be interfered with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to alter the position of the words "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." This was, he said, little more than a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: If I understand the noble Earl correctly, we are quite prepared to accept his Amendment. As I understand, the sub-section, as he proposes to amend it, would read as follows—
"All questions which, under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900 or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or this
528
Act, or under any custom or contract of tenancy, are to be determined by arbitration shall, whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of this Act, be determined, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, by a single arbitrator," etc.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is what I move.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not in the least object to this re-arrangement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,who had several Amendments on the Paper, said they were all designed with the object of carrying out what he believed had now been achieved by the acceptance of Lord Camperdown's Amendment. He did not intend, therefore, to move those Amendments.
*LORD HENEAGEquestioned whether the proviso which Lord Carrington had expressed his willingness to accept would secure the retention of the custom in the various counties. He was not altogether satisfied that Lord Carrington clearly understood what the custom in some counties was. The present mode of procedure was that when there was a change of tenancy one valuer was appointed by the outgoing tenant, and one by the incoming tenant or the landlord, as they might choose; but under the present Act he was not an arbitrator and could not be an arbitrator. He could only be appointed as an agent, and his decision would only be able to be determined under the law of agency. That was to say, if two people agreed either by themselves or by their agents, under the law of agency that was a determination of the fact and was as good as law. But under this Bill they would not be able to do what was now the custom. The custom was for the two valuers to appoint an umpire beforehand, and if there was any single item upon which any difference of opinion arose, that item was referred to the umpire, whose decision the valuers were bound to accept. This was done at very little expense, and only the one item in dispute was arbitrated upon. If in the case of a valuation fixed at £500, one valuer thought there ought

529
to be another item added, and that it should be £550, what would go before the arbitrator for decision would be that solitary item; but, as this clause stood, if the two valuers did not come to an agreement, the whole question had to go before the arbitrator. The noble Earl had said that the object of the Board of Agriculture was, as far as possible, to lessen expense. He was afraid the contrary would be the result. What he wanted to be assured of was that if the Committee accepted the proviso to be moved by Lord Camperdown, they would retain the Lincolnshire custom and the other customs in the different counties. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had received a deputation from the midland counties tenant right valuers and the tenant right valuers of the neighbouring counties, and when they asked whether or not the custom was preserved he only referred them to the Memorandum of the legal advisers of the Board of Agriculture. That Memorandum simply stated that two people might agree if they could, but if they could not, then the matter must go to arbitration. Therefore, he was not at all certain in his own mind, even if the proviso were accepted, that they would retain their present system and the legal rights they had had for generations.
EARL CARRINGTON: Unfortunately I was not brought up in the law. Therefore, I dare not give a legal opinion myself, and must take the opinion of our legal advisers. I am absolutely assured that all the points that the noble Lord has put before the Committee will be met. At any rate I can say that that is the object of His Majesty's Government. We do not want to interfere with any custom. All we want to do is to cheapen and simplify the process of arbitration, and to raise the status of the arbitrator. I think I can ease the noble Lord's mind about the single arbitrator's having to decide the whole question. The whole question may be brought before him, but if the two parties agree on every other question except one, I do not think even the most litigious person would wish to interfere with them. All he would have to arbitrate about would be the single question which it would be necessary to have decided. I believe the noble Lord
530
can rest perfectly assured that there is no intention, and there will be, I hope, no possibility of any of the customs referred to being interfered with. The whole system of arbitration will go on in the same way, save with the difference I have tried to point out. I hope Lord Heneage will be satisfied with that assurance.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid this was so important a point that he hoped the noble Earl would excuse him for pressing it. The noble Earl said that the usual custom was to be preserved intact, but the custom, as he understood it from Lord Heneage's description, was two-fold—that two valuers were appointed, and that they appointed an umpire. Now, the umpire was done away with by the noble Earl's clause. Therefore, the clause, while not interfering with the custom so far as the appointment of valuers was concerned, did interfere with the custom in regard to the appointment of the umpire. If he was not right in that, he hoped the noble Earl would correct him. They were getting into a little confusion between the words umpire and arbitrator. As he understood, the noble Earl meant when he used the word "arbitrator" the same thing as Lord Heneage meant when he used the word "umpire." Lord Heneage's umpire was appointed by the parties without any expense and without any fuss, but the arbitrator under the noble Earl's clause would be appointed in the most expensive and operose way, and in his opinion to the detriment of the tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: The custom would only be interfered with in this small point. The two old arbitrators or valuers if they do not agree cannot under this Bill appoint an umpire off their own bat; they can appoint an umpire if, and only if, they are authorised so to do by the landlord and the tenant respectively. That is the only difference between our proposal and the present custom.
LORD BELPERpointed out that if the agreement between the landlord and tenant was such as Lord Heneage

531
had mentioned, it was saved by the acceptance of Lord Camperdown's proviso to the effect that nothing in this section should interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation. It seemed to him that the case was entirely covered by the acceptance of this proviso.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HILLmoved to delete from sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the words, "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of this Act," and to insert in their place the words, "unless the parties agree to appoint their own arbitrator or arbitrators according to present usage." He found himself much in the same position as Lord Heneage. Even with Lord Camperdown's proviso he could not see but that the clause did away with the old custom in this matter. It had been the custom in nearly every county in England for the outgoing and incoming tenant each to appoint his valuer independent of the landlord, and before these gentlemen entered upon their valuation they themselves appointed an umpire to be called in if necessary. This system had worked most satisfactorily, and he would be within the mark in saying that95 per cent. of tenant right valuations had been satisfactorily decided without resorting to the umpire. He wished to retain that part of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which gave an appeal to the Board of Agriculture should the two valuers not be able to decide upon a satisfactory umpire. As the old system had worked so well it was better to retain it. Under the clause as it stood there was considerable complication in the matter, and the appointment of an arbitrator by the Board of Agriculture would involve expense to both the outgoing and the incoming tenants. The Bill, instead of, as the President of the Board of Agriculture had declared, cheapening matters, would, to his mind, considerably add to the cost of valuation, and, even with Lord Camperdown's proviso, the present right of the tenants to appoint their own valuers would be done away with.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the word 'be' in line 3, and insert the words 'unless the parties agree to appoint their own arbitrator or arbitrators according to present usage"—(Viscount Hill.)
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was quite certain that what the noble Viscount desired would be effected by Lord Camperdown's proviso; it was the same thing. He therefore hoped the noble Viscount would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL FORTESCUEmoved to amend sub-section (2) so that it would read that the arbitration should be determined "either" by a single arbitrator, etc. His object in inserting the word "either" was to enable people to avail themselves of the present practice, and to use Part II. of the Schedule to the Act of 1900 in the way they had been accustomed to for a great many years. Inconvenience would, he thought, be caused in many cases if this permission were not given.
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 3, after the word 'determined' to insert the word "either"—[Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand that my noble friend proposes that the clause should read in this way, that all questions shall be determined either by a single arbitrator, or by two arbitrators, and an umpire, in accordance with the provisions set out in Parts I. and II. of the second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. It might in some ways improve the existing arrangement, but it would perpetuate the dual system contained in the Act of 1900 which it is our declared object to simplify.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: The object of my next Amendment, which is really of a drafting nature, is to make provision as to the mode in which the amount awarded under any of the provisions of the Bill shall be recovered.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation".—(Earl Carrington.)
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid this was not merely a drafting Amendment. There was a point of substance in connection with it to which he would like to call the noble Earl's attention. In addition to compensation to be awarded to the tenant there might also be compensation in respect of a counterclaim by the landlord against the tenant, and he submitted that whatever facility was given to the tenant for recovering his compensation should also be given to the landlord. Obviously both parties should be on the same footing.
EARL CARRINGTON: My attention has not been drawn to that point. I will make a note of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthen submitted his proviso which the President of the Board of Agriculture had already signified his willingness to accept.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation.'—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD KNARESBOROUGHmoved to insert at the end the following new sub-section—
"(3) Any award made under this Act shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or improvements or matter or matters to which the award relates."
He said that this Amendment was obviously necessary to carry out the intentions of the Legislature. This Bill
534
went much further than the Act of 1900, for it awarded compensation for damage by game and other incidents, so that it was necessary to add some words to the clause to bring it into line with the Act of 1900. Their Lordships would be unanimous in hoping that if the Bill became law it would work smoothly and cause as little friction and discomfort as possible. There was, however, nothing more likely to cause friction than any trouble with the arbitrators. He did not mean so much that they should necessarily be suspected of corruption or of leaning to the one side or to the other, but they might get into the way of giving slipshod decisions and guessing at a lump sum instead of carefully deciding on every point submitted to them. The arbitrators were entrusted with an arbitrary power, a power without appeal, of handing over to one man the money of another man. When a lump sum of money was awarded, they wanted to know exactly on account of what matters the arbitrator had awarded it, how much he had awarded for compensation to the tenant on each separate claim, and how much he had deducted for the counter-claim of the landlord. They wanted as much light as possible. Any one who had anything to do with arbitrations knew perfectly well that it was most difficult to get any light at all. Dolus latet in generalibus was a very good maxim in these affairs. In this matter there was no assistance from the common law, while under the old system of choosing two arbitrators, and their choosing an umpire, they had a safeguard in the fact that in the terms of reference to the umpire they could stipulate for any particulars wished for, even as far as a detailed valuation. A further safeguard was that, as the umpire had to be agreed on by both parties, if it got known that an arbitrator would not give the amount of information which the parties concerned wished for he would get no employment as an arbitrator. This safeguard was now entirely swept away. The arbitrator would now look for his appointment to the Board of Agriculture, and he would look for his instructions to the Act, so that it was absolutely necessary that in passing the Bill their Lordships should make it clear what the intentions of the Legislature were.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after "1900,' to insert the following new sub-section:—(3) Any award made under this Act shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or improvements or matter or matters to which the award relates.—(Lord Knaresborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the hope he has expressed that the Bill, if it should become law, should work smoothly. He has explained his Amendment so very clearly that I think it only remains for me to say that I am personally obliged to him for having brought it forward, and that I accept it in its entirety.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that there was a point upon which he wished to have some information. This clause having abolished the elements that the valuer had to consider, he would like to know on what basis the valuer would proceed in assessing the value to the tenant of any improvements or any action he might have taken on the holding. He would put an extreme case By way of illustration. It was a case where a road was endangered by the sea. A tenant, through some action that he took, not very serious in character, had been able to save that road. Would the tenant be entitled to the value of the road? This was a case of the ordinary determination of a tenancy, not a case of disturbance. Was the tenant to be repaid the value of the improvement, or was he Merely to be repaid the expense to which Be had been put in taking the course that led to the improvement of the road? If the tenant were to receive more than his outlay, they would be giving to the tenant not that which he had a right to be compensated for, but something which was the landlord's. Although legally the landlord was responsible, primarily the charge fell on the incoming tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the noble Duke to ask me whether, in the
536
event of a tenant resisting the ravages of the sea, by which I suppose he means if he mended the bank and kept the sea back, he would be able to claim that he should be paid for the land he had saved. Curiously enough, I know a case of that kind within my own experience, It was not, however, a case of the sea, but of drains. There was on one occasion what in Scotland, I suppose, would be called "a heavy spate," and great anxiety was shown as to the safety of the banks of one of those large drains in Lincolnshire. One of my own tenants saw that the water was beginning to trickle over one of the banks, and if the water came over the bank in any quantity it would flood the fen, which was below the water level. This tenant of mine wisely placed his curt on the top of the bank and get a lot of stones and strengthened the bank. The result was that the bank broke on my neighbour's side, to his great discomfort and annoyance; but I never heard of a claim being made by that worthy tenant of mine that he should be compensated for having saved, not only his own farm, but the farms of other tenants from being flooded. I think the case cited by the noble Duke was rather an extreme one to take. No Amendments of any kind have been put down on the Paper in regard to such a point, and I hope, in the circumstances, the noble Duke will be satisfied with having raised it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcomplained that in the interesting and amusing narrative of the noble Earl no attempt had been made to answer the noble Duke's question.
*EARL EGERTONpointed out that if a tenant carried out work in respect of roads or banks which he was not under contract to carry out he should be compensated by the landlord for the amount of work done, but he acquired no proprietary right in respect of the road itself.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had not answered in the least the question put to him. He thought, therefore, that perhaps the best course to take would be to move

537
on Report the addition of the following words at the end of the subsection—
"and that such sum shall in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by the outgoing tenant."
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I have two drafting Amendments to this clause. The clause as it stands reads—
"Where a tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game that neither he nor anyone claiming under him other than the landlord has the lawful right to kill, he shall be entitled to compensation," etc.
My Amendments would make the clause read—
"Where a tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in anyone claiming under him other than the landlord he shall," etc.
The Amendments are designed to make it clear that the tenant has a right to compensation for damage done by game during the close season.
Amendments moved—
"In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words 'that neither he nor" and to insert the words 'the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in," and in line 9, to leave out the words 'has the lawful right to kill."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEmoved an Amendment to provide that the compensation for damage done by game should be claimed from the person in whom the right to kill the game is vested. He said the Amendment was an exceedingly simple one. It did not affect the principle of the Bill, nor did it affect the principle of the clause. If the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would not be one penny poorer in any matter of compensation which the Bill might give him. The only thing he desired to do was to simplify the method by which he could obtain that compensation. The principle he desired to establish was a very just one. It was that the person who inflicted the damage should pay the compensation. He could not see why the landlord should be called in as
538
middleman between his tenant and the person who had inflicted the damage. He knew he would be told that the tenant had only his landlord to look to. The tenant had in many matters besides this looked to his landlord in the past, and, as Lord St. Aldwyn had pointed out on the Second Reading, he had not looked in vain. On the other hand the landlord had received at the hands of his tenant great sympathy in many and various circumstances. It was an ideal relationship which at present existed between landlord and tenant, and anything which went to upset that good feeling would, to his mind, be disastrous to the tenant and inconvenient to the landlord. The Amendment simply desired to avoid friction and to simplify the method of obtaining compensation. If the landlord was to stand between the tenant and any other person, they would be creating new friction and new difficulty in country life. His opinion was that it would be as simple for a tenant to get his compensation direct from the man who had injured him as to obtain it by the intervention of the landlord. This intervention would raise ill-will between the landlord and the shooting tenant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'his landlord' and to insert the words 'person in whom the right to kill game is vested."—(Lord Redesdale.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has put his case very clearly, and I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. The Amendment is that the tenant should recover from the shooting tenant. On the face of it that certainly sounds fair enough, but the difficulties would be very great in working. The principle embodied in the Bill is that he tenant should be entitled to claim from the landlord direct, and I will try and explain why. The noble Lord said that his plan would avoid friction and that he wished to simplify the procedure. Of course, we quite understand that; but I would ask him to consider the case of the shooting that I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, where, though the weight of pheasants was only 5,000 a year, in the

539
announcement of the letting it was said that the property would easily carry 15,000 pheasants. Again, I tried to show the difficulties that a tenant would have in running all over the country to find the shooting tenant so as to recover from him. The shooting tenant would undoubtedly say, "I have taken this shooting and paid a large sum for it, and I ought to be clear of all liabilities." And I think very justly so, too. But there is another case. Suppose the shooting were let to a syndicate. What chance would the tenant have there? I know of a shooting that is let to a syndicate including an admiral, a parson, a doctor, a solicitor, and two other people. What earthly chance would the poor tenant have of bearding the admiral in his den, or of rushing after the other professional people? I do not think it would work at all. Since I have entered the House I have heard of a shooting tenant who went bankrupt, and the shooting was taken by someone else for ten days. What would be the position of the tenant in such a case? There is a great diversity of opinion among landlords on that point. I met a friend at the Cattle Show who pointed out that if these obligations were put on shooting tenants it might choke them off, or they would not pay such good rents. More-ever, the landlord can always make arrangements with the shooting tenant at the time when the shooting is let. I believe I shall have the Committee with me when I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT ST.ALDWYNhoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment. He did not think that shooting tenants were quite such men of straw as the noble Earl opposite would make them out. Many of them, he thought, were better off than the landlords. He would point out that shootings were often let for very short terms. He had heard of a noble Lord who offered to let his shooting for five days. In such a case it would be almost impossible for a tenant to know to whom he was to look. He believed that the noble Earl opposite had promised that the date of the commencement of this clause should be postponed so as to enable fresh agreements to be made with regard to it, and if that was done he thought
540
their Lordships would be well advised not to accept the Amendment.
LORD REDESDALEcould not see that the reasons given by the noble Earl for not accepting the Amendment were at all valid. He did not himself attach very much importance to the difficulty of recovering from syndicates. Shooting tenants did not run about the country any more than other people, and he had heard of quite as many cases of bankrupt landlords as of bankrupt shooting tenants. But as it was apparently the wish of the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to amend Sub-section 2—
"The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of intention to make a claim for compensation is given to the landlord,"—
by omitting the words "intention to make a" and inserting the word "the.' Your Lordships will see that this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'intention to make a,' and to insert the word 'the."—(Earl Carrington).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought this was more than a mere drafting Amendment. It had to be taken in connection with Lord Carrington's Amendment which followed later on, to insert, after the word "landlord" the words "as soon as may be after the damage was observed by the tenant." As the sub-section would then appear it would read—
"The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of the claim for compensation is given to the landlord as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant."
What he suggested was that notice should be given to the landlord as soon as

541
the tenant observed the damage being done, and before he made any claim at all. That was important. According to the Amendments to be moved by Earl Carrington the claim would be made at the same time as the landlord would be informed that the damage was occurring. He thought that a mistake. He suggested that these words should be inserted—
"unless notice in writing is given to the landlord forthwith upon the discovery of damage occurring, and unless notice in writing of the intention to make a claim for compensation is given to the landlord."
LORD HYLTONsaid he had an Amendment on the paper to meet the very point Lord Camperdown had raised. The words he proposed to insert were—
"and unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced."
He thought their Lordships would recognise that when this Bill became law and a successful action had been carried through by one tenant, claims of this sort would arise all over the country. The point in question, therefore, was one of the most important in the clause. He hoped that his words, or words to that effect, would be inserted.
LORD HENEAGEsaid that one of the greatest difficulties that would arise under this clause, which necessitated that the notice should be given as early as possible, was the enormous amount of damage done in the spring by wood pigeons and crows. If the notice was put off until the autumn it would be absolutely impossible to say whether the damage was done by the wood pigeons and rooks or by the pheasants.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the case will be met by the later Amendment which I have on the Paper. It is in page 2, line 20, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant." I placed this Amendment down to meet Lord St. Aldwyn's suggestion. It is designed to give effect to what is, I believe, the general view on both sides of the House, that the tenant should give notice to the landlord as soon as he discovers that damage by
542
game is being done. Will those words satisfy the noble Lord?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN dissented.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I would ask the Committee to accept my Amendments provisionally, and allow me to consider the point between this and the Report stage.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked why the tenant should not be required to give information at once. The damage would be immediately observable. A tenant who did not go over his farm every day was a tenant he would not like to have on his land.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that Lord Carrington had intimated his willingness to insert the words "as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant." Did not that meet the point raised?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid notice of the damage was a thing by itself and ought to be given first. Then notice of the claim, if any, should be sent in. He wanted the two things to be separate.
EARL CARRINGTON: Will the noble Earl allow me to consider the point, and endeavour to meet his views if possible?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Certainly; but in the meantime it would not be advisable to insert these words.
EARL CARRINGTON: They can be cut out afterwards, if necessary.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that Lord Carrington would probably lose his Amendments if he insisted upon them now. He suggested that the Amendments should be postponed till the Report stage, when the noble Earl could bring up fresh words.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN:urged the Committee to agree to the clause in the shape the Government desired to amend it, which was certainly better than the clause as it stood.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdid not think the clause as proposed to be amended would be better than the clause as it stood. If the Committee inserted the words proposed by Lord Carrington, and left the other part unsettled, they would be getting into a difficulty.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the Committee accepts these Amendments, the Bill will be reprinted with the Government Amendments in, and it will then be open to noble Lords on Report to move Amendments if the clause does not meet their wishes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid if this was the wish of the Committee he would raise no objection. It should, however, be understood that they would expect the noble Earl himself to propose an Amendment on Report. On that understanding he would agree to the insertion of the Amendments now.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think I ought to be asked to give that undertaking. I will promise to give the best consideration I can to the point. After all, noble Lords opposite have the matter in their own hands, for any Amendment they move can be carried.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words' as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 22, after the word 'raised' to insert the words 'or where the crop is intended to be consumed without being reaped or raised, at least three weeks before the crop is begun to be consumed."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD HYLTONsaid his point had not been met by the Amendment which had just been accepted, and therefore he moved the insertion of the words "and
544
unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced." He regarded this as a perfectly clear provision, for unless words to this effect were inserted neither the landlord nor his agents would have any opportunity of preventing the very damage which might afterwards have to be dealt with under the clause. The words in his Amendment had been framed after consultation, and he was very disinclined not to take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'and unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced."—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): Has the noble Lord considered the meaning of his Amendment? As it reads, the tenant would be barred from compensation unless he gave notice at the first moment that the damage began—that is to say, at the first moment that the first pheasant ate the first grain of corn. I really do not think that is an Amendment which we can accept.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDagreed with the view taken by the noble Marquess. As he read the Amendment, if it could be proved that the tenant had not seen the first symptoms of damage the tenant would be debarred from claiming compensation. He did not think the provision in the Amendment was one which could be reasonably enacted.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNexpressed a hope that Lord Hylton would not press his Amendment. Already words had been agreed to that notice should be given "as soon as may be" after the damage was first observed by the tenant. He thought that met the case.
LORD HYLTON: That only relates to the claim for damages.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that Lord Camperdown wished to raise this point on Report, and he thought they

545
had better see the clause in the shape the Government proposed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDhad an Amendment to sub-section (3). This sub-section provided that—
"Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just."
The noble Duke moved to vary the two first lines of the sub-section so that they would read—
"Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act," etc.
As the words at present stood there was some doubt whether the sub-section referred to the future. His Amendment would make it clear that in all future agreements the same arrangements might be made between landlord and tenant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'tenancy,' to insert the word 'whether' and after the word 'before,' to insert the words for after."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very glad to accept that Amendment. We think it a very good one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,on behalf of the Earl of Powis, moved an Amendment to provide that the arbitrator, in assessing compensation for damage by game, should make deduction where the landlord proved that in fixing the rent an allowance in respect of such damage had been expressly made. The clause at present said where an allowance "to an agreed amount" had been made in fixing the rent. He moved to omit those words "to an agreed amount," because in many cases, while the farm was let at what was called a game rent, the amount of reduction from the full rent was never expressly mentioned, and consequently the amount
546
of allowance for game damage was not an agreed amount. If these words were left in the sub-section a tenant might claim under this Act to be paid twice for any damage by game. These arrangements for allowances in the rent for damage by game were generally made in a friendly way and not expressed in the leases. Lord Powis had let a farm of 191 acres, the original rent of which was £180 a year, for £150 a year, in consideration of its being a game farm. There was a clause in that agreement, signed by the tenant, which ran as follows—
"It is acknowledged by the said…that the within-named rent has been fixed at a lower sum than the actual annual value of the land on the understanding that in the event of any damage being done by game the said…shall make no claim against the Earl of Powis for any damage so done."
But in the case of farms which he (Lord Pembroke) treated on the same lines, the arrangements for allowance were not expressed in the agreements. He hoped his Amendment would be agreed to. He felt that the provision as it stood would be more harmful in many cases to the tenant than it ever would be to the landlord.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words to an agreed amount."—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I readily acknowledge that there is a great deal to be said for the case which the noble Earl has made out. It certainly would be a monstrous thing if, after the landlord had made a reduction in rent on account of any damage to crops from game, a litigious tenant should take advantage of the absence of any direct proviso in the agreement, and make a claim under this section, contending that there was nothing in his agreement to show that the reduction he had received was in respect of game and game only. I cannot, however, go so far as the noble Earl and say that I am against the express amount allowed for game damage being stated. Noble lords must think a little of the protection of tenants on estates that are not so well managed as their own. Therefore we press the provision that in all future agreements of this character the express amount of

547
allowance for game damage must be mentioned in the agreement. I am ready to go as far as this, that in existing cases the agreements should be taken as intended. But in all future cases I submit that it is imperative that the amount of rent reduction on account of game should be stated specifically.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: Will the noble Earl move words to carry that out?
EARL CARRINGTON: If the Committee would permit me I would propose to move the following proviso to meet those cases—
"Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and, for the purpose of this proviso, a tenancy from year to year shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant by giving notice could immediately after the commencement of this Act have caused the tenancy to determine."
Although that is rather involved, as I am afraid many of these clauses are, I think the Committee will understand the spirit of the proviso. If, by any alteration of the words, I can make it clear that in all cases where the landlord has behaved in a gentlemanly and proper way, he is to be absolutely protected from paying twice, I shall be very pleased to make that alteration later. It must be understood that as soon as the tenancy becomes a fresh tenancy then the landlord must put into the agreement the express amount allowed for game damage.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEthought the words proposed by the noble Earl would meet the case, and suggested that they should be inserted in the Bill at this stage so that noble Lords could see them in print when the Bill was reprinted and judge of their effect.
LORD BURGHCLEREthanked the President of the Board of Agriculture for having expressed his willingness to insert the proposed proviso, which, as he understood it, carried out the suggestion he ventured to make in the course of his observations on the Second Reading. He thought then, and he still thought,
548
that there would be a certain amount of injustice if a tenant had secured a farm at a rent which had been reduced on account of the weight of game carried, and then claimed under this Act to be paid again for any damage by game. He understood that Earl Carrington's proviso met that point, and he was much obliged to him for drafting it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagreed that the words suggested by Earl Carrington met the case of fresh yearly tenancies, but they did not appear to meet the case of leases.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is just what the proviso does. All existing leases will be protected by the proviso. The only thing is that I ask the permission of the Committee to make it distinctly understood that when these leases are determined an express provision for game damage shall be put in.
*THE EARL OF LICHFIELDasked whether it would be necessary under the proviso in the case of yearly tenancies to give notice to every tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think that would be necessary.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE THE EARL OF PEMBROKE then withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: I now beg to move the insertion of the proviso which I read to the Committee a few moments ago.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following proviso—'Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and, for the purpose of this proviso, a tenancy from year to year shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant by giving notice could immediately after the commencement of this Act have caused the tenancy to determine."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move to amend Sub-section 4, so that it will read—
"Where the right to kill and take the game is vested in some person other than the landlord the landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation under this section."
The insertion of the words "and take the" is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'kill, to insert the words 'and take the."—(Earl Carrington.)
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHasked whether this Amendment did not rather confine the operation of the subsection to a shooting tenant only. A case might occur where a landlord owned a small property and did not have any game of his own upon it at all, but where damage was done to the tenant by the game belonging to a neighbouring owner. In that case the tenant would have to claim against his own landlord. Was it quite clear in the sub-section that in that case the landlord would be entitled to be indemnified by the other owner? It seemed to him that there was a considerable difference in the case of damage being done to a tenant by game which had nothing whatever to do with his landlord.
EARL CARRINGTON: This question of game coming from the property of a neighbouring owner is one of great difficulty. We have fully considered it, and on the whole we think it is the fairest way of dealing with it to make the landlord responsible for all the game that is on his property. Honestly, I do not see how any other way could be arrived at. Game, when on a man's estate, is his own property and he is responsible for what that game does.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid that if a tenant suffered damage from game coming from an adjoining property and then claimed compensation from his landlord, his landlord in turn could claim compensation from the adjoining landlord under the common law.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so.
LORD BELPERasked Earl Carrington to explain the meaning of his Amendment. It appeared to him that the words proposed to be inserted restricted the right of the landlord to recover from the shooting tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: The words mean to kill with a gun and take with a trap or net game that he has a right to kill or take in any way. You can take partridges with a net and you would not kill them. I believe a very lucrative business is done among the crofters in Scotland by netting grouse.
LORD BELPERexpressed the hope that if this was the explanation the noble Earl would alter his Amendment to read "or take the" instead of "and take the."
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The object of the next Amendment is to clear up any ambiguity about the meaning of the word "year."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 41, after the word 'game,' to insert: 'The expression "year" means the calendar year or such other period of twelve months as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought this was the wrong place to put in a definition of a word which applied to the whole Bill. It had no particular reference to this section, and therefore ought o be dealt with in the definition clause at the end.
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot see any objection to putting it in the definition clause at the end of the Bill if the noble Earl desires.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYmoved to amend sub-section (1) by omitting

551
the word "Notwithstanding" at the commencement of the sub-section, and inserting, "Except in the case of." The sub-section would then read—
"Except in the case of any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of arable land, or the disposal of crops produced upon the holding, a tenant shall have full right to practise any system of cropping of the arable land and to dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any penalty, forfeiture, or liability contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement, provided that he shall previously have made, or, as soon as may be, shall make, suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, and provided also that he shall return to the holding, as soon as may be, the full manurial value of all crops sold off or removed from the holding."
The effect of his Amendment was, he said, to retain the law of contract which had been the foundation of our commerce. He could understand that, in cases where a man was of weak intellect and incapable of making a fair bargain, or where a contract was detrimental to the public service, the State should step in and declare that such a contract should not be upheld. But this was not the case in regard to the contracts in question. He asked their Lordships whether it was not the fact that the tenant farmers of Great Britain were well able to take care of themselves. In entering into these contracts they knew perfectly well what they were about, and he was convinced that they intended fulfilling them. Therefore why should the Government at this stage step in and tell them they need not comply with their contracts? It was immoral for the Legislature to declare to a free man in a free country that he was not compelled to fulfil a contract he had entered into. According to the public Press, his noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture had been having some agreeable little parties during the week with the tenant farmers of Great Britain, and he would respectfully ask the noble Earl, if those gatherings had not yet come to an end, to put to those tenant farmers the question whether they were unwilling, or considered themselves unable, to fulfil the contracts they had made. He was quite certain that the tenant farmers would treat with scorn any idea that they were not willing to
552
carry out those contracts. But, human nature being what it was, it was quite natural that if a gift was offered to them they would not cast it away; but they would, he was quite certain, at the same time feel that they had not acted fairly by their landlords. A contract was generally made, so far as Scotland was concerned, for nineteen years; and if in the middle of that period the Legislature stepped in and declared that the tenant was at liberty not to carry out the conditions of the contract, great injustice would be done to the landlord. Certain provisions had been made in the original lease which had to be fulfilled and which were the cause of the rent's being fixed at a lower rate. In every lease upon his own estate there was a clause under which no tenant could claim compensation for game until after £25 worth of damage was done. That meant that under every lease upon his estate the farms were £25 under-rented, because it was expected that there would be damage done by game to that extent. His estate had been held by his family for 300 or 400 years, and the best of relations had always prevailed between them and the tenancy. He might mention that on several of his moorland farms the tenants planted a bit of cropping in order to allow their landlord to have some sport. He would like to know where this sort of legislation was going to stop? Were they going to have the law of contract continually thrown in their face as worth nothing? It was quite possible that noble Lords sitting on the Government benches might not have as much land as other Members of this House, but as business men they were making contracts of various kinds every day, and what would they think if in commercial contracts made three or four years ago the Legislature stepped in and cancelled them? Simply because this was a question of the land an exception was made. He thought this was a point which ought not to pass without the few observations he had made, and he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 1, to leave out the word 'notwithstanding' and to insert the

553
words 'except in the case of."—(The Earl of Galloway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Committee would hardly wish me to go minutely into the law of contract, but I have in my possession all the precedents for this proposal, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them in detail. If any South of Scotland farmers come to see me on Friday next I shall certainly ask them the question whether they approve of freedom of cropping, or whether they wish the old system of restricted covenants to be carried out. If they happen to be the noble Earl's tenants I feel certain what the answer will be. They would say that having been for 300 years on the ground they were perfectly happy, and their only wish would be to remain under so good a landlord during the rest of their lives. The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think the noble Earl will agree with me when he examines how the clause would be altered by his proposal. I will just read to the Committee how the clause will read when the alterations suggested by the noble Earl have been made in it. It will read—
"Except in the case of any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of arable lands."
If the noble Lord had such a great objection to the clause he ought to have moved its omission at an earlier stage. I I hope that the Committee will not support the noble Lord in his Amendment, because it would practically stultify and emasculate Clause 3.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYdenied that his Amendment destroyed the clause, and all it did was to make it not retrospective. It did not affect the principle of the Bill at all.
Amendment put, and negatived.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit, in line 3, the words "of arable land."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words 'of arable land."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the Government considered it was very desirable that the drafting of those words should be changed, and in order to make their meaning quite clear they would be pleased to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment to the effect that a tenant should have full right to practise any system of cropping of the arable land provided it was "consistent with the rules of good husbandry." This Amendment was one of considerable importance, and the question for the first time brought them face to face with one of the difficulties of dealing with England and Scotland within the terms of one Bill. This clause was designed primarily to give freedom of cropping to yearly tenants. It was obvious from the history of the Bill that the authors of it intended it to apply to the customs of the country with which they were acquainted, and it was apparent that they had scarcely heard of the existence of Scotland, of the customs or of the leases which prevailed there. What they did in this clause was apparently to give complete freedom of cropping, with a claim for damages if bad cropping was resorted to. That might be all very well in this country, because it could not go very far in the case of a yearly tenancy, and only one or two years bad cropping at the most could possibly go on. If, however, they gave absolute freedom of cropping under a nineteen years lease, which was the custom in Scotland, the whole farm might be absolutely ruined before the landlord could stop the damage going on. It was perfect nonsense to offer the landlords a claim for damages for this set of thing, because it was utterly impossible to estimate the damage in money. It was a matter which could only be put right by long and careful management of the farm. He suggested that his Amendment was quite reasonable, because he did not suppose that the Government in their wildest moments desired to give freedom to their tenants to do a bad thing. Under the clause as it stood there was nothing to prevent a tenant taking as much as he

555
could out of the land. He might have eight or ten white crops in succession if he liked, and if that were done it was obvious that it would ruin the whole farm for a long series of years, and under the clause as it stood Scottish landlords would have no remedy at all. Surely the Government did not wish to give a tenant power to do anything which was not consistent with the rules of good husbandry. If that was their view it was only reasonable that the words he suggested should be inserted in the Bill. He did not deny for a moment that in some cases the rights of the landlord might be carried too far. In some instances there might be in operation useless relics of past practices, but nevertheless he thought some restrictions were absolutely necessary, and those which he wished to retain by this Amendment were universally admitted by every practical man, whether tenant, landlord or agent, or anyone connected with agriculture, to be absolutely sound and in the interests of everybody concerned. It was obviously not in the interests of the landlord to have his land run out, and it was not in the interests of the community that the land should be impoverished. The only person interested in such a matter as that were the small minority of rascally tenants who wanted to take everything they could out of the land and give nothing in return. It was only bad tenants who had recourse to that kind of thing and not the good tenant, and bad tenants who resorted to that practice would be sure to be men with no means which could be got at in order to compensate the damage done. At any rate, in his opinion prevention was better than cure. He hoped his suggestion would be adopted if only for the credit of their Lordships' estates. He was sure there was nothing more unpleasant than to drive past one's estate and see the land being impoverished and their friends and neighbours saying to them "Look how badly your property is being managed." Under this clause the only reply they would be able to make would be that they were powerless to prevent it. He did not want to keep up obsolete restrictions, but when this great change was being made he thought they were entitled to have satisfactory
556
safeguards, and they ought to impose a condition that only such departures from their bargains should be made as were consistent with the rules of good husbandry.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land,' to insert the words 'consistent with the rules of good husbandry."—[Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HENEAGEasked whether the noble Lord who had just sat down would not prefer the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Penrhyn. The Amendment which had just been moved was no doubt extremely good for Scotland, but in England they had different kinds of husbandry and different customs in various parts of the country, and what they wanted was that the land should be cultivated in such a way as to bring about the best results according to the nature of the soil and the rules of husbandry in those particular districts. Whilst he did not wish to oppose Lord Balfour's Amendment, he thought if the noble Lord would accept the next Amendment on the Paper it would be much better for England than the one which he had moved.
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he thought they were entitled to have some reply from the Government.
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand from Lord Heneage that he wishes Lord Balfour's Amendment to apply to England. [Cries of "No."]
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH:I think my Amendment is equally applicable to England.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he did not think it would be so good for England as the one standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn, which proposed to insert in Clause 3 the words, "generally recognised in the district ns good husbandry in respect of land of a like character." The Amendment of Lord Balfour proposed to insert the words, "consistent with the rules of good husbandry," and he did not think that provision was

557
so suitable for England as the words suggested by Lord Penrhyn's Amendment.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I understand that the noble Earl objects to Lord Balfour's Amendment. I listened very attentively to Lord Balfour's speech, and although the Government would not object to his contention, we do strongly object to and cannot agree to his words. We think his Amendment is undesirable on the ground that it tends to restrict the freedom of cropping proposed to be given by this Bill, and it will give rise to difficulties as to what good husbandry really means. Of course any departure from the custom of the country would be regarded as contrary to good husbandry. At the same time, as your Lordships are aware, provided land is properly treated with artificials, a departure from the custom of the country is not only possible but sometimes profitable, and may be adopted without any deterioration of the holding. I think there would be a good deal of difficulty caused if these words were inserted. The noble Lord said the freedom of the tenant to do a bad thing was very objectionable, and I quite agree with him. I was rather brought to book because I did not mention in my speech on the Second Reading that there was such a thing as a bad tenant. I do not think anyone who has been a landlord for forty years would be likely to deny that there was such a thing as a bad tenant, but what I wish to point out is that the object of this Bill is to put every difficulty in the way of a bad tenant and if possible to get him off the estate, because a bad tenant is a greater nuisance to his landlord and his neighbours than a bad soldier is in a regiment.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Earl point out one difficulty that is put in the way of the bad tenant by the Bill?
EARL CARRINGTON: If a tenant injures or deteriorates his holding, not only can the landlord recover damages from those whom the noble Lord has described as rascally tenants, but he can also get an injunction against them. The noble Lord has referred to a suppositious individual who would undertake
558
eight white crops running. Evidently he had forgotten that there were such persons as agents or factors, and the landlord or his representative would be very much to blame if he allowed any tenant to have eight white crops running.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But under this Bill as it stands the factor or agent of the landlord is absolutely deprived of any power of that kind in the case of a lease.
EARL CARRINGTON: I see the noble Lord's point. He maintains that in the case of a lease a landlord would be practically at the mercy of the tenant. My point is that in many districts any departure from the ordinary rotation of crops would be regarded as contrary to the rules of good husbandry, and I trust that on this account the noble Lord's Amendment will not be pressed. There is, I admit, the risk which the noble Lord has pointed out, but it is only a very small one. [Cries of "No, no."] At any rate, I do not think the risk is as great as noble. Lords opposite seem to fear, and I hope the clause will be accepted as it stands.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment, and that the noble Earl will reconsider the attitude which he has assumed towards it. The answer he has given seems to me to be absolutely inconclusive. Does he really mean to suggest to the Committee that the tenant should under this Bill be given a right of free cropping inconsistent with the rules of good husbandry, because that is what his refusal to accept this Amendment implies. Let me remind your Lordships that these Bills—I use the plural because we have had other Bills of a similar character lately—are recommended on the ground that there are to be found here and there; capricious and harsh landlords who treat their tenants badly. The noble Earl has admitted that those cases are extremely rare, and I venture to say they are much rarer than the case of the reckless and unscrupulous tenant who, by maltreating his farms, does an amount of damage which it takes years to set right. I hope that unless the noble Earl is able to give us some more satisfactory assurance

559
than we have yet received your Lordships will support my noble friend' Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that Lord Balfour of Burleigh had stated that this clause as it stood gave no sort of kind of protection to a landlord in the case of a lease. He happened to be a landlord, although he sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and he confessed that if the arguments of the noble Lord were true this clause would certainly be a most indefensible one. He did not pretend to be a lawyer himself, but as he read sub-section (2), if a tenant exercised his rights in such a way as to injure or deteriorate the holding the landlord could recover damages. The words of sub-section (2) were—
"if the tenant exercises his rights under this section in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate the holding, the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration or, as the case may require, to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section in that manner, and the amount of such damages may, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration."
The landlord also could obtain an injunction restraining his tenant from doing anything which would injure or deteriorate his holding. Surely those words covered the case of the tenant mentioned by Lord Balfour of Burleigh who, holding his farm under a lease for nineteen years, cropped his land in the injurious way suggested for four or five years in succession. The object of the sub-section was that in such a case the agent presumably, or the landlord himself, could give the tenant notice of the condition of things and could obtain an injunction against him.
*Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: There is no such thing in Scotland as an injunction.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was speaking more as regarded the state of things in England, but he was assured that words were already in the Bill which would cover the point that had been raised. [Cries of "Where?"] At any rate if they were not already in the
560
Bill the Government would undertake to put them in.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:hoped it was distinctly understood that if the point raised by the noble Lord was not already provided for, words to meet the case would be inserted in the Bill at a later stage. He would like to know where those words would be put in.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid that personally he preferred the Amendment of Lord Heneage because, although it carried out the same idea as the Amendment moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, it was rather wider in its terms and would embrace those cases where husbandry was carried on in different ways in various parts of the country. He thought the noble Lord who had just spoken had missed the point in the same way as his noble friend in charge of the Bill. They were told that they might proceed against their tenants by injunction, and that landlords had factors who went about to see what was going on. He wished to point out that in the past landlords had not had occasion to use their factors as detectives in order to ascertain, what was going wrong on any particular holding, and they had got on much better without resorting to that course. As regarded freedom of cropping he thought their Lordships would have to insert some provision in addition to those already in the Bill. He had no objection to freedom of cropping, and his property in Scotland was mainly let upon nineteen years leases. In those leases freedom of cropping was absolutely sanctioned with the restriction that during the last four years of the tenancy the farm should be brought back to its ordinary condition. This was necessary in order to tempt anyone in search of a farm to take it when a change of tenancy occurred. They were told that they could get damages from the tenant, but the man who was likely to injure a farm by cropping in a deleterious manner was the last person in the world they would be likely to get damages from, because the only tenant who was likely to resort to that kind of thing would be a man who was on his last legs. He hoped the Committee would not take the advice

561
given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that artificials should be substituted to avoid the deterioration of a farm. He happened to have had an instance of that kind upon his own property in which everything that was possible had been taken out of the farm and the tenant had endeavoured to set it right by putting artificials into the soil. That farm eventually came into his hands when the tenant left, and for the last five years he had been trying to get it into a condition to let to another tenant, and this had been rendered necessary because the value of the holding had been destroyed by an improper and over use of artificials. He trusted that the Government would be able to accept at least one of the two Amendments which had been suggested.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was willing to withdraw his own Amendment and move that standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn, who was absent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Earl CARRINGTON: I was under the impression that under the clause as it stands at present if a tenant is deteriorating or injuring the farm the landlord has a right to claim damages and to apply for an injunction to stop that deterioration. I am told upon the highest authority that that is the case. I will, however, undertake to insert words to make it absolutely clear that no man because he is a leaseholder shall have the right, which is manifestly unfair and unjust, to damage his holding in the way suggested. The great object of this Bill is to do justice to both landlord and tenant, and to allow a tenant to have eight white crops running is certainly a thing that I would never agree to. I object to the words "good husbandry" because I am sure they would cause considerable difficulty. [Cries of "No."] At any rate, I am afraid that I cannot
562
possibly accept those words, but I offer as an alternative and as a compromise that if the noble Lord will accept the words as they stand I will see that it is made beyond all possible doubt or question that, in the case of a lease, the landlord should have the right at once to obtain an injunction under the circumstances which have been mentioned and that he shall be able to recover damages in the case of any improper conduct on the part of his tenant. That is as far as I am able to go in this matter.
LORD BELPERsaid they ought to do all they could to encourage the farmer to adopt the system of farming prevalent in his district. He thought the words contained in Lord Penrhyn's Amendment were sufficiently wide to cover the systems adopted in both countries where the land might vary and where, in order to secure successful farming, it should be worked in a particular way. He would like to know why the words suggested in Lord Penrhyn's Amendment were objected to.
The Marquess of RIPON: I hope my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will accept the suggestion which has been made on behalf of the Government. It would be unfortunate after the full promise which has been made by my noble friend if your Lordships took a division on this subject without knowing what the ultimate proposals of the Government are to be. This is really a Scottish question. [Cries of "No, no."] I do not know that noble Lords have any right to interrupt me because I state that this is a Scottish question. I believe it is a Scottish question, and it is certainly not an English question as far as this particular point is concerned, because it is obvious that an injunction would apply in the case of England, although it might not apply in the case of Scotland. For these reasons I think it would be better not to take a division, because that course would leave my noble friend free to bring up the proposal which he intends to do to give the landlord that security which I think it is only right and just he should have. As far as the clause itself is concerned, it is one to which I attach great importance. I believe that in these days the principle it contains is a

563
right and just one. It is a principle of public policy to secure to the tenant who invests his money in agriculture the right to exercise his own free judgment in regard to the manner in which he carries on his industry. If I may allude to my own case for a moment, I may say that I have had in my own agreements with tenants for the last eleven or twelve years provisions almost exactly the same as I find provided for in this clause. Those agreements have never produced the slightest difficulty, and if the position of a Scottish landlord is made secure, as has been promised by my noble friend, I think it will be much better if no division is taken upon this point.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid it was very difficult to resist the appeal which had been made by the noble Marquess, but he did not understand from conversations he had had with noble Lords that they regarded this as a Scottish question at all. He agreed that
primarily, it was a Scottish question because Scottish landlords were more affected by it on account of their system of long leases and because it was designed mainly to meet the case of the yearly tenant. He really thought after the months during which this Bill had been discussed, and the time it had been before this House, that the President of the Board of Agriculture ought to have put down on the Paper words which would have shown that the matter had really been considered by the Government. He did not want to be unreasonable, but he did not sec why the Government should not allow them to insert these words now, and if at a subsequent stage they could produce anything better they might adopt that course. He thought they would be losing a good opportunity if they did not now insert this Amendment.
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough more.)

Bedford, D.

Hardwicke, E.

Devonshire, D.

Harewood, E.

Knutsford, V.

Grafton, D.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

St. Aldwyn, V.

Newcastle, D.

Jersey, E.

Northumberland, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Lichfield, E.

Addington, L.

Rutland, D.

Lindsey, E.

Alington, L.

Somerset, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Wellington, D.

Lytton, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Mayo, E.

Atkinson, L.

Anglesey, M

Morley, E.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Morton, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Exeter, M

Northbrook, E.

Barymore, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Northesk, E.

Bateman, L.

Salisbury, M.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Winchester, M.

Orford, E.

Belper, L.

Zetland, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Biddulph, L.

Plymouth, E.

Blythswood, L.

Albemarle, E.

Radnor, E.

Borthwick, L.

Bradford, E.

Romney, E.

Braye, L.

Camperdown, E.

Scarborough, E.

Burton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Byron, L.

Cawdor, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Calthorpe L.

Clarendon, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Clements L. (E. Leitrim.)

Coventry, E.

Temple, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Darnley, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

Dartrey, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Denbigh, E.

Wicklow, E.

Colchester, L.

Derby, E.

Yarborough, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Devon, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Doncaster, E. (D Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Churchill, V.

De Freyne, L.

Falkland, V.

Deramore, L.

Egerton,E.

Falmouth, V.

Digby, L.

Feversham, E.

Halifax, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Fortescue, E.

Hill, V.

Dunboyne. L.

Elphinstone, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Saltoun, L.

Estcourt, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Forester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Sinclair, L.

Gerard, L.

Lovat, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Harris, L.

Middleton, L.

Southampton, L.

Hastings, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Stanmore, L.

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Hothfield, L.

Mowbray, L.

Hylton, L.

Newlands, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kenyon, L.

Poltimore, L.

Wolverton, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Burghclere, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Castletown, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Colebrooke, L.

Haversham, L.

Coleridge, L.

Headley, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Lyveden, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Beauchamp, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Chichester, E.

Emly, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Durham, E.

Eversley, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Portsmouth, E.

Farrer, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Selby, V.

Glantawe, L.

Weardale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Boston, V.

Winterstoke, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words 'contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement."—(Earl Carrington.)
Amendment moved—
"In lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'shall previously have made or as soon as may be shall make,' and insert, 'from time to time and as soon as may be makes."—(Earl Carrington.)
EARL CARRINGTONsaid the Amendment which had just been read to the House was simply a matter of drafting. It was thought that new words were necessary which would more adequately express what the tenant should do in order to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, and he hoped the words suggested would be satisfactory to Viscount Hill and Lord Wemyss.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that this was not a drafting Amendment
566
at all. He would like to read to the Committee the clause as it would stand after this Amendment had been made. It would read—
"Provided that he from time to time and as soon as may be makes suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration."
What did the words "from time to time" mean? They really meant no time at all, and the words "as soon as may be" meant as soon after that as possible. The noble Lord by this Amendment appeared to be taking the whole meaning out of the words of the clause.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped they would have some further explanation from the noble Earl. If a tenant sold produce which he had no right to sell, provision ought to be made to compensate the holding for such sale. He did not think the noble Earl improved his clause at all by the words he was proposing to substitute. On the contrary, he appeared to him to make its terms more vague than ever.
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree that these words are rather complicating, and if the noble Viscount thinks they ought to be altered I will undertake to bring them up again on Report in the hope of making them more clear. I think the words might be improved, and I hope we shall be able to improve them.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not know what the words "as soon as may be" meant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I should think they mean as soon as may be possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to insert after the word "provision" the words "in accordance with the custom of the country or the provisions of the contract of tenancy." The tenant had to make "suitable and adequate provision," but there was no explanation in the clause of what that meant. By his proposal he endeavoured to define as far as possible what the tenant had to do. The operative part of the clause was that a man was to be entitled to freedom of cropping and to sell his produce notwithstanding any custom of the country or the provisions contained in his contract. The only suitable and adequate provision which in his opinion the tenant ought to make to protect the holding from injury or deterioration was that he should work his farm in accordance with the custom of the country and the provisions of his contract of tenancy He hoped the noble Earl would not reply that this proposal was going against the principle of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In line 9, after the word 'provision' to insert the words 'in accordance with the custom of the country or the provisions of the contract of tenancy."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept the words of the clause as they stand. I think it is contrary to the interests of the landlord to introduce such limiting words as these. The Amendment will only complicate
568
matters, and it is not necessary to stipulate that the farm should be worked in accordance with the custom of the country, because in order to safeguard the landlord there is a provision that the tenant shall undertake not to injure or deteriorate his farm. I think that proviso is quite adequate.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked whether these words would be necessary after the Amendment which had been inserted in the first few lines. The whole clause was now subject to the rules of good husbandry, and that in his opinion would meet the point of this Amendment.
EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that while they were dealing with this question of injury to and deterioration of the holding, he would like to know how the question of dilapidations would be affected. Would the landlord be able to recover damages, for dilapidations in the same way as before?
THE EARL OF CARRINGTON: Anything that is contained in the tenant's agreement he will be bound to observe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'and provided also that he shall return to the holding as soon as may be,' and insert 'which provision shall in the case of disposal of the produce of the holding consist in the return to the holding of."—(Earl Carrington.)
EARL CARRINGTON,in moving to insert the following proviso—
"Provided that this sub-section shall not apply (a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy,"
said—It has been noticed that the word "crops" includes wheat, barley and

569
oats, and therefore the words which I have proposed are necessary. They provide that the tenant will not be obliged to return the manurial value of crops which are not usually required by custom or contract to be consumed on the holding.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom contract or agreement." Provided that this subsection shall not apply—(a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that there was an Amendment standing in the name of the Duke of Richmond which he thought ought to be discussed before the Amendment under consideration was disposed of.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid he was afraid that if this Amendment was now discussed and carried, the Amendment standing in his name would be shut out altogether.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthough tthe noble Duke ought to move his Amendment now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it was quite clear that the words which Earl Carrington was now proposing had been brought up from the end of the Clause 7, and if they were inserted the Amendment to insert the words "last our years" would be precluded.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that the noble Duke ought to move his Amendment now.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to strike out the word "year" in sub-section (b) in order to insert the words "last four years." He said that if land were badly farmed, at least four years would be required to get the farm back into proper condition. This was a matter which arose in regard to freedom of cropping, and his con-
570
tention was that if they were not going to limit the time during which a tenant could indulge in cross-cropping or mis-cropping to the detriment of the farm, one year was not sufficient for the farm to recover, and at least four years would be required to get the farm back into its proper condition. He had no trouble whatever with his own tenants in regard to freedom of cropping, and the only provision he made was that during the last four years certain of the crops were to be consumed on the farm. If they allowed a tenant to mis-crop his farm in a deleterious way to within a year of the expiration of his lease, they would find at the end of his tenancy that the chances of letting the farm were very much diminished by the malpractices which had been going on. Those were the reasons why he put this Amendment down. He failed to see that any hardship would be inflicted upon the tenant, because, as a matter of fact, this was the practice at the present moment. It had been the practice for many years on a good many properties in Scotland, and there had not been one word of complaint in regard to it on the part of the tenants.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
"In sub-section (b) to leave out the word 'year,' and insert the words 'last four years."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
LORD HYLTONsaid they were all in favour of freedom of cropping wherever it could be done, and he had no doubt that most of their Lordships agreements gave very large powers in that respect. In the case of certain leases clauses were put in for the protection of the landlord which he thought were absolutely necessary to secure common justice. He had in his possession a letter from a large landowner on this point. He wrote—
"I have let an estate to an agricultural tenant on a short lease of seven years at a very low rent, below the rents current in the neighbourhood, on certain conditions as to cropping and the disposal of the produce."
He explained that he had done this in order to get certain conditions. In a case like that there would be no protection for landlords whatever unless some such Amendment as that proposed by the noble Duke was inserted.
EARL CARRINGTON: I regret that I am absolutely unable to accept the noble Duke's Amendment. He wishes to compel the tenant for the last four years of his lease to crop according to the rotation of crops. This is objected to by all the Scottish representatives for the reason that it would very seriously restrict the rights given to the tenant. The adoption of this proposal might lead to an unwillingness on the part of tenants to accept leases, and that result would be very much deplored in Scotland. We think the landlord is sufficiently safeguarded by the clause as it stands, and we ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. As far as I am informed the feeling in Scotland is against it, and I very respectfully ask the Committee not to agree to it.
LORD SALTOUNhoped the Committee would divide upon this proposal, because there was not the slightest doubt that a period of three or four years was the least time in which it was possible to get the land back into its proper condition. If a farm was handed back to the landlord in
any sort of condition he would not be able to get the same rent for it, because he would have to begin by putting the land in a proper state for the rotation of crops before he could get a tenant. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would press his Amendment to a division.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that this question showed the extreme difficulty of including leases in the clause. There were the same reasons for the noble Duke's Amendment as for the insertion of the words "consistent with the rules of good husbandry," which had been already agreed to. The landlord who was bound by a lease, and saw the tenant working out the farm without the power to prevent him, was in a very different position from the landlord who had let his land on a yearly tenancy. If the conditions were not made more fair for leases the landlords would not grant them.
On Question, "That the word 'year' stand part of the proposed Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Colleridge, L.

Lyveden, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Beauchamp, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Carrington, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Pirrie, L.

Chichester, E.

Reay, L.

Craven, E.

Emly, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Durham, E.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Farrer, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Temple, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glantawe, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Selby, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Weardale, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Winterstoke, L.

Boston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Castletown, L.

Haversham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bradford, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Bedford, D.

Camperdown, E.

Mayo, E.

Devonshire, D.

Cathcart, E.

Morley, E.

Grafton, D.

Cawdor, E.

Morton, E.

Northumberland, D.

Clarendon, E.

Northesk, E.

Richmond and Gordon, D. [Teller.]

Devon, E.

Onslow, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Orford, E.

Somerset, D.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Wellington, D.

Egerton, E.

Plymouth, E.

Feversham, E.

Radnor, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Camden, M.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Stradbroke, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Hardwicke, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Winchester, M.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Waldegrave, E.

Zetland, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Lichfield, E.

Churchill, V.

Albemarle, E.

Lindsey, E

Falkland, V.

Falmouth, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Halifax, V.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Hill, V.

Clonbrock, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Colchester, L.

Lovat, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Middleton, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Addington, L.

Deramore, L.

Mowbray, L.

Alington, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Newton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Poltimore, L.

Balfour, L.

Estcourt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Forester, L.

Saltoun, L.

Barrymore, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sandys, L.

Bateman, L.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harris, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Belper, L.

Hastings, L.

Biddulph, L.

Heneage, L.

Southampton, L.

Blythswood, L.

Hothfield, L.

Vivian, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Braye, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Burton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wolverton, L.

Byron, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proposed words inserted.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN,who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at page 3, line 12, after the word "holding" the words "to the same effect, and with the like enduring benefit to the land as if such produce had been consumed on the holding," said he would like to point out that in consequence of the previous Amendment having been moved and carried, both Lord Camperdown's and his own Amendment seemed to have been cut out for the moment, and he supposed it was not possible for them to go back upon a part of the clause that had been passed. He should, however, hold himself at liberty to move the Amendment on the Report stage.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that the noble Lord would see that whichever of the Amendments coming after the same word was taken first the other one would not have read, and therefore he was bound to put the first which stood on the Paper. He was afraid the noble Lord could not now move his Amendment, but he would have an opportunity at another stage of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUNsaid that his Amendment was not in any way the same as that of the Earl of Camperdown.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "shall," to insert "without prejudice to any other remedy that may be open to him." This is a drafting Amendment, but an important one. The words are necessary to make it clear that if a tenant exercises the right given to him in such a manner as to injure the holding the landlord is at liberty to protect his interest, not merely by the powers expressly given him by sub-section (2), but also by the enforcement of any remedy open to him. It is not intended to deprive the landlord of any means of protecting himself in case of a tenant exercising his rights in an injurious manner, and the clause would, therefore, read thus—
"The landlord shall, without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to him, be entitled to recover damages,"
and so on.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 15, after 'shall,' to insert 'without prejudice to any other remedy that may be open to him.'"—(Earl Carrington).
LORD BYRONsaid the Amendment he was about to introduce was one of rather a restricted character than otherwise. Properly speaking, it should have come a little later on; it should refer to the injunction rather than to the recovery of damages. The Society of Land Agents, who had sent him a Memorandum (which

575
no doubt they had sent to many other noble Lords), had inserted it where he himself had inserted it—after the word "entitled," and before "to recover damages." If the Amendment was to refer to the injunction then the clause would read as follows—"The landlord shall be entitled at any time to recover damages," and so on. It was not very clear from this clause exactly when the landlord was to recover damages. The word "arbitration" occurred at the end of the clause, which looked as if it were to be at the end of the lease, but of course it was quite useless to proceed with an injunction at the end of a lease. He thought the slight security which would be given to landlords was not very much to ask, in consideration of the great benefits the tenants received under this Bill. The Society of Land Agents, who had recommended this provision, he need hardly say, were quite unprejudiced; they were neither for one side nor the other. After the able description by Lord Balfour of the manner in which land could be deteriorated by bad cropping, or by injudicious rotation, he thought that this Amendment merely carried out what was desired in regard to all agricultural holdings. He begged, therefore, to move the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid the noble Lord could move his Amendment at any place he liked, but he did not know whether he wished to put it in after the word "required," or after the word "entitled."
LORD BYRONsaid that if he might be allowed to amend his own Amendment he would put it in before the words "to obtain," and it would then read "the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration or, as the case may require, at any time to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section," and so forth.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that in that case, of course the Amendment of Lord Hylton would come first, and Lord Byron would move his Amendment afterwards.
LORD HYLTON,in moving to omit the words "or as the case may require," and to insert 'should the case so require," said he thought if the noble Earl would look at the subsection he would agree with him that the question of damages for injury done was a different matter altogether from obtaining an injunction for injuries likely to be sustained in the future. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would agree with the slight alteration which he proposed, so that not only might damages be obtained for any injury proved to have been done in the past, but at the same time an injunction might be applied for in order to prevent a continuance of such damage.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or as the case may require,' and insert the words 'should the case so require."—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think there is any difference in point of principle between the noble Earl and myself. It is merely a matter as to which wording is the best. Damages are obtained for an injury already done, while an injunction is, of course, for the purpose of preventing future damage. Proceedings can be instituted for injunction in one action, and proceedings or recovery of damages in another. One remedy refers to the past and the other to the future. Damages cannot be obtained for a wrongful act not already committed, nor can an injunction be sought to prevent what has already been done. As I said before, there is no difference between us in point of principle and I hope the noble Lord will accept our assurance that the words, as they stand, are technically correct.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the only difference was one of English, and in his opinion Lord Hilton's I words were much better. "Should the case require" meant, of course, "if the case should require," and it seemed to him that that was better English than the phrase used in the clause as it stood.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not press the point at all. If the noble Lord

577
wishes the words altered in that way there is no difference in principle whatever, and I will certainly accept the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought it would be well if the noble Lord would pay a little attention to the drafting of the clause before the Bill came up for Report. It was possible either to obtain an injunction to restrain injury or to obtain damages after injury, and he thought if he allowed the clause to go in as it stood, the words "to obtain an injunction" being between the words relating to damages were in the wrong place.
EARL CARRINGTON: I will make a note of that.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the word "manures," the words, "corn, cake, or feeding stuffs," said the object of the words was to make sure that compensation was not paid twice over for the same thing. The noble Lord's intention was perfectly fair, because he put in "manures," but it had been suggested to him that it would be better if the words were exactly the same as in the Agricultural Holdings Act. The noble Viscount had an Amendment a line or two lower on the Paper, and he thought it covered the same point. If the noble Earl preferred those words he was quite willing not to move his Amendment, and to make way for the noble Viscount.
EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Lord is willing to agree to that I will accept Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not move my Amendment.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN:moved an Amendment to make additional provision for the protection of the holding from injury or deterioration in respect of the use of manures.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'used' to insert the words 'or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, in moving a new sub-section, to the effect that in the application of the clause to Scotland the expression "arable land" should not include land in grass which, by the terms of any contract of tenancy was to be retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy, said the Amendment was one which had a peculiar application to Scotland, and was absolutely necessary for that part of the kingdom. "Arable land" in Clause 3 was clearly used in contradistinction to permanent pasture. Permanent pasture in England was safeguarded under this clause. In Scotland the system was different. A great deal of the grass land, which was laid down for many years in grass, was taken at times in rotation with the arable land. It was one of the things imposed upon Scottish landowners—he would not say wrongly imposed—that when pasture was laid down the tenant should be compensated for it. That was settled law, and was on the whole quite fair. But if the landowner had paid compensation for pasture land to one tenant, he ought to be protected against another man ploughing it up and then laying it down again at the end of his lease making his landlord pay for it again. The matter seemed to him a very simple one, and one of elementary justice, and he hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after 'used,' to insert the words '(5) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy, is to he retained it the same conditior throughout the tenancy."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped that it would not be supposed because he supported this Amendment that he was an Irishman, although from the terms

579
it might fairly be supposed it had been drawn by an Irishman. The Amendment said "The expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass." It sounded curious, but he assured their Lordships that in Scotland this Amendment would have a very practical application, and he hoped the noble Earl (who, he knew, had Scottish connections) would so far sympathise with Scottish landowners as to accept it.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am perfectly ready to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, on the condition that it shall apply not only to Scotland, but also to Great Britain. This we could do if the Committee would permit, by the omission of the words "in the application of this section to Scotland. "The sub-section would then read—
"In this section the expression 'arable laud' shall not include land in grass,"
and so on.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was quite willing to accept that.
The Earl of WEMYSS,in moving the insertion of a new sub-section to ensure the keeping of a record of the course of cropping, said he had already explained to their Lordships that the Amendments standing in his name were Amendments proposed by a committee of landowners and land agents. That committee thought it necessary for the protection of the holding, that a provision such as this should be inserted. He would not trouble their Lordships with any speech in support of it, but he believed it would be a very useful provision, and he also believed that it would have a most valuable educational effect upon the farmer, because it would make him very anxious about the proper keeping of his books. Those books would have to be open to the inspection of the agents, and would have to be very well kept, and he thought that would have considerable educational value.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'used' to insert the following new sub-section:—'(4) To ensure the protection of the holding, the tenant shall keep a record of the course of cropping in every year, and shall furnish a copy of such record to the landlord or his agent duly authorised in that behalf yearly at Michaelmas. On any change of tenancy the outgoing tenant shall furnish to the landlord, or his agent authorised as aforesaid, such vouchers, books and documents as may be necessary to prove what manures and feeding stuffs have been brought, and used upon the holding during the previous five years, and also what home-grown produce has been consumed thereon during that period."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am glad to be able to meet the noble Earl because there is nothing to prevent a landlord insisting on these requirements, if he considers them necessary or essential for his protection. These are matters which should be subject to agreement between the parties rather than a statutory obligation, and I think we are all of the same mind. I am happy to be able to meet the noble Lord, and to assure him that what he wishes is in the Bill already.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: Where?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought the Committee ought to have some assurance as to what part of the Bill the provision was in.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the Committee will accept my assurance that it is in the Bill. I can absolutely pledge myself as to that.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that there would be no harm in putting it twice in the Bill, and afterwards on the Report Stage striking it out in one place if it appeared that it had been inserted twice over.
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree to that.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out sub-seetion (4)."
LORD CLINTONsaid he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the result of the division on the Duke of Richmond's Amendment. He knew it was the intention of the noble Duke, as well as the, intention of himself and others who had followed him into the lobby, that the Amendment in question should apply to long leases—nineteen-year leases. But the actual result appeared to be that it would apply to leases of any duration. Consequently it was in the power of any landowner who gave notice to his tenants to accept a four years lease, to contract himself entirely out of the provision. No doubt the result would be exceedingly good as far as the landowners were concerned, but it was not the intention of many who voted for the provision, their intention being that it should apply to nineteen years leases. He believed he would not be in order in moving an Amendment now, but he wished to draw attention to it, and if necessary he should move again when the matter came up on Report.

Clause 4:—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that there was an Amendment down by Lord Egerton to strike out the whole of the clause down to line 9, on page 4, but if that were done it would exclude a number of Amendments which came after it. Under those circumstances, perhaps, the noble Lord would not move the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the first words of the clause should be put to the Committee.
*EARL EGERTON:moved to leave out the whole of the clause except the provision relating to arbitration. He said the reason of his proposing the Amendment was in order to carry out several suggestions made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He had only to say that there was no intention on his part to create dual ownership such as existed in Ireland, but he thought it was
582
the opinion of many agriculturists, both landlords and tenants, that it was very undesirable that in this Bill there should be any clause which would appear to be the thin end of the wedge for the purpose of introducing dual ownership into the tenure of land in this country. The clause was almost, if not entirely, identical with that which appeared in the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill; and he thought it was a bad precedent that they should, word for word, introduce into an English Land Act a clause which was thought necessary to be introduced into an Irish Tenants Land Bill. It appeared to him the clause should either be amended so as to meet the object that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had in view, or else that it should be expunged from the Bill altogether. He had endeavoured to meet the noble Lord's view by the Amendment which he proposed. They were Amendments which limited the occasions where compensation for disturbance should be given. There were cases in which good landlords would recognise the justice of giving compensation to tenants, but that only applied where the tenant himself had done something for which he had received no compensation from the landlord, and where, if the landlord was a bad landlord, he had perhaps given the tenant notice to quit. The next case was where there was an impecunious landlord, and where the tenant, after asking the landlord to do certain repairs and improvements, and giving him due notice, had not induced him to carry out those repairs and improvements which he thought necessary for the good cultivation of the farm, and had, therefore, done them himself. In that case he thought it would be only fair that the tenant should receive some compensation. But he would limit this compensation for disturbance to those two distinct objects, and he was supported in that view by the recommendation of the Royal Commission which sat in 1897. Their Report stated that they had received ample evidence as to compensation for disturbance, and were of opinion that they could give "no countenance to the demand that a quitting tenant who has received the compensation due to him for his unexhausted improvements should be enabled to maintain a

583
claim for compensation for disturbance." He agreed with the opinion of the Land Agents' Society that if this clause were to pass as it stood, it would only create a great deal of litigation and bad feeling between landlord and tenant. The object of their lordships, he was sure, must be to prevent any undue litigation, and any undue expense on the part of the tenants. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said that he only wished to go so far as to protect good tenants from a possible, but very rare, bad landlord. He was not at liberty now to go into the clause itself, but if it was carried at all in its present shape it ought to be very much limited, because in many cases a tenant, who might be a butcher, or following some other trade, might get a quantity of stock on his farm, whether for sale or whether for milk selling, or for any other purpose, in far greater quantity than the size of his Holding would justify the provision by the landlord of accommodation for those animals. It was quite clear, therefore, that it would be very unfair that if such a man left he should be compensated for the whole of the stock which had accumulated on his farm in connection with his trade, whether as a farmer, or a butcher, or otherwise. It was quite clear, therefore, that the noble Lord, if the clause were to stand as it was, would have to see that some provision was made for cases such as that. He thought himself that if the noble Lord could only consider the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, he would see that it met all the reasonable requirements of good tenants who had suffered, or might suffer, from bad landlords, and it would be quite clear that there was no general law or no general right for compensation for disturbance unless the tenant had a fair claim for compensation from his landlord for what he had done, either in improving his farm, or in cases where the land lord had refused to carry out improvements. He trusted that their Lord ships would say that his contentions were not unreasonable, and that the matter would be very carefully considered before their Lordships consented to an entirely new principle, and one which was not accepted by the great majority of either landlords or tenants in the country.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, to leave out from line 35 to end of line 8 on page 4, and insert the words 'A tenant, except as is hereinafter provided, shall not be entitled to compensation for disturbance, after receiving notice from the landlord, upon quitting the holding in addition to the compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements. Provided that—(a) Where the landlord has demanded an increase of rent, and that such increase of rent was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to improvements executed by the tenant, and from which he has not either directly or indirectly received an equivalent, from the landlord, and in consequence of that demand has given notice to quit; (b) Where the tenant has executed repairs or improvements in the farm or buildings which are by custom or covenanted by agreement to be carried out by the landlord for the proper cultivation or working of the holding, and which the landlord has failed to execute within a reasonable time after receiving due notice: the tenant shall be entitled to compensation for the loss he sustains or expense which he has incurred in consequence of any such outlay on his farm or buildings, and for which he has not received any adequate return or compensation by the landlord."—(Earl Egerton.)
LORD CLONBROCKsaid he perfectly understood the jealousy with which the noble Earl was prepared to scrutinise any provision relating to compensation for disturbance, and he thought he and all noble Lords in this country would do well to take it to heart. When the Land Act of Ireland of 1870 was passed, and that provision for compensation for disturbance was first introduced, they were assured that that conveyed no property to the tenant. Some years afterwards they were told that, whether Parliament intended it or not, it did convey a property in the holding to the tenant, and it was found necessary to secure that property to the tenant by fixity of tenure and free sale; and the end had been the introduction of dual ownership, which he thought every noble Lord must be most anxious to guard against in the case of England.
EARL CARRINGTON: I most sincerely hope the noble Earl will not persevere in this Amendment, because, practically speaking, if this proposal was carried, there would hardly be any compensation for disturbance at all, and I hope that the Committee will pardon me for a moment if I say that, all the way through from the very beginning, from

585
the moment the Government undertook the charge of this Bill, I have honestly and sincerely tried in every possible way consistent with the great principles of the Bill in which I most thoroughly believe, to meet any objections—and there have been many reasonable objections—that have been made by the Party opposite. I confess I am very grateful for the way in which my humble efforts have been met, and I am grateful to Mr. Walter Long, when he advised his Party in the House of Commons not to divide against the Third Reading, for the words he was good enough to use as to the manner in which the Opposition had been met. I am speaking under correction, but I think I can honestly say that there is no serious official objection to the Bill. At one time there was, I honestly confess, a good deal of objection, official and unofficial, to the Bill. I saw at once that there were two clauses which your Lordships would not pass—there was the shooting clause, for instance, and also the fruit-cropping clause. I gave way on both of those heads; I induced my friends in the House of Commons to give way, not without some difficulty as regards the shooting clause, because the Members representing the Eastern Counties of England were very positive that that was a necessary clause. Then came Clause 7, when we gave up the permanent pasture, and we gave up the planting of orchards, which I acknowledge was very difficult to defend, as a cranky-headed tenant might take advantage of those conditions to run the landlord into considerable expense. I gave way over that; then the pound of flesh was insisted on, and then came the question of strawberries and asparagus (Laughter.) I really am glad to hear the noble Lords opposite laugh over this, because it did seem straining it a little too much. After all, strawberries were only a two-years crop, and it seemed a little bit hard to prevent the farmers supplementing their income by growing strawberries. However, I gave way on that, and that strained the loyalty of the Radical Party to the utmost. It was more than my friends and supporters would stand. I had the great privilege of sitting in the other House of Parliament, like Mahomet's coffin in the place re-
586
served for your Lordships in that House, and I saw 150 of my very best and staunchest friends trooping into the opposite lobby, and making 300 votes on a division when the Government majority fell to the very dangerous and lilliputian number of seventy. That was a very strong indication of the feeling which resulted from my having to give way. But I understand now that the Leaders of the Opposition take no serious official objection to the principle of the Bill as it stands, and I am the more encouraged in that impression, because it was not long ago that the Somersetshire farmers met in conclave, and a certain gentleman, a very strong Conservative, and a great supporter of Sir Arthur Acland-Hood, whom he took somewhat severely to task, and told him that he considered he ought to have supported the Bill as it stood. Sir Arthur Acland-Hood gave him permission to say that he and Mr. Walter Long—and I believe this is correct—had been two of the great factors in getting the Bill through the House, and that the House of Lords, would pass it. One is always told not to prophesy unless one knows, but I suppose that the Chief Conservative Whip has an amount of knowledge which other people do not possess; and he spoke, I suppose, from knowledge of what was going to take place. After discussion, the meeting approved of the provisions of the Bill except one small clause about which I need not detain your Lordships. Then I am still further encouraged, because the Ripon farmers met two or three days ago, and gave general approval to the Bill. Lord Helmsley, who has deservedly made a great name for himself in the House of Commons, was one of the principal antagonists, and a very doughty one, of the Bill, and I am glad to say that the noble Lord stated that his opinion about the Bill was that it would not do any great good, but it certainly would not do any great harm. From my point of view that is extremely satisfactory so far as it goes. Lord Helmsley went a little further, and said that the compensation for disturbance clause—which has been somewhat roughly treated, I must admit, by the noble Earl on the other side of the House—has been so

587
amended that in the opinion of legal experts there is no trace of dial ownership in it. I think under those conditions I can ask the noble Lord opposite not to press his Amendment. The dual ownership bogey has been disposed of by Lord Helmsley himself and, besides, I may once more say to the noble Earl that this Bill is in no way designed to meet such cases as exist on the noble Lord's estate. If this clause is carried, it scarcely gives any compensation at all. Naturally, I cannot accept his Amendment as it stands. I hope the Committee will not accept it either, because it rules out an enormous number of other Amendments which have been placed on the Paper by noble Lords. All I have to say is that the evil against which the clause as it stands is directed is of a much wider character. It would be inconsistent to limit the payment of compensation to the particular circumstances to which Lord Egerton referred in his statement, and I most respectfully and earnestly hope that the noble Lord will not persist in his Amendment, but will allow the clause as it stands to be debated and to stand or fall on its merits.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not imagine that their Lordships in considering the clause would be biassed, as the noble Earl seemed to expect, either by the views of youthful, though able, Members of the other House, or by any opinion which might be inadvertently expressed by even older Members of the other House as to the action which their Lordships might take with reference to this Bill. What their Lordships had to consider—and it was a very serious matter—was whether there was such mischief in this clause as to cause it to merit the observations of the noble Lords who had already addressed the Committee, and whether, if it were passed, it would really do any serious harm to landlords in its present form. Perhaps no one would have criticised this clause more strongly than himself had it come to their Lordships' House in its original shape. In that shape it was distinctly a compensation for disturbance clause—a clause calculated, and he believed intended, to introduce
588
into England the principle of the Irish law as to compensation for disturbance, and to apply that principle to tenancies of a very different nature from those to which it was originally applied in Ireland. But in its passage through the House of Commons the clause had been very considerably modified, and he doubted whether any clause in any Bill had ever been subjected to greater modifications in its passage through the Lower House. As the clause now stood, it was not, to his mind, a compensation for disturbance clause in the sense attributed to it by the noble Lord, Lord Pembroke. He did not see how any germ of dual ownership could possibly be found in this clause, because all it did in its present form was to provide that if a landlord, without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, gave his tenant notice to quit, then compensation should be given to the tenant, limited to the loss which the tenant incurred in the sale or removal of his goods or stock. The question whether the provisions of the clause were sufficiently definite to limit it as it should fairly be limited, was one which their Lordships could consider in dealing with the clause at a later stage; but assuming that those points were satisfactorily settled, and that proceedings under the clause were entrusted to a proper tribunal, which he thought, from an Amendment which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture had himself placed on the Paper, their Lordships would be able to arrange, he did not see that the operation of the clause would do injustice to any landlord. His noble friend Lord Egerton had proposed a clause giving compensation for disturbance: He (Viscount St. Aldwyn) did not like those words, and did not think they ought to be in the clause at all, but those were the noble Lord's words. He proposed to give compensation for disturbance in two cases only—where a landlord had demanded an increase of rent owing to the tenant's improvements, and where the tenant had executed repairs which the landlord had contracted to do, and had not done, but which were essential for the cultivation of the farm. If, under those circumstances, a tenant received notice to quit,

589
then, according to his noble friend, he ought to be entitled to compensation for disturbance. His noble friend limited the compensation to the tenant to the loss he sustained or the expense he incurred in consequence of any such outlay, and did not extend it to any loss sustained, or expense incurred, by reason of removal. That was a different proposal altogether. He could not feel that those two cases included all the cases in which a tenant would fairly be entitled to some kind of compensation for his loss from removal, if he received notice to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. It had been said by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that there were very few bad landlords. That was quite true. It had also been said that there were some bad tenants, and that likewise was true. But there were cases, he was afraid it must be admitted, where landlords had capriciously given notice to the tenant to the loss of the tenant, and those cases would not be covered by the words of his noble friend Lord Egerton. Their Lordships, he knew, were disinterested in the matter. He did not believe that a single Member of their Lordships' House would come under the operation of that clause, and he believed that very few landlords in England would come under its operation. The clause might act, and he hoped would act, as a deterrent to bad landlords'(if there were any such) giving their tenants notice to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. He did not believe there was any mischief in this clause as it stood, but was there nothing in it which, by meeting a grievance, might prevent much more mischievous legislation? He know that there were many persons in the country who desired to see established some kind of dual ownership between landlord and tenant, and he, for one, did not want any excuse given to such persons to try and establish such a relationship. They had it from His 'Majesty's Ministers that this Bill contained all that they desired in the way of altering the relations between landlord 'And tenant. If that were so he
590
would humbly advise their Lordships to I leave the matter as it stood in this Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDhardly know whether they were quire in order in their proceedings. They had had an eloquent speech from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture upon the merits of the Bill at large, and the clause in particular, which he should have thought would have come more appropriately upon the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. He did not propose to follow the example of the noble Lord, but he would venture to intrude a few remarks upon their Lordships in what he thought the more proper place, namely, when the question was put whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. He only rose now to call attention to what had been said by the Viscount St. Aldwyn, and I he thought too early attention could not be called to it. The noble Lord had said, in answer to Lord Clonbrock, I that there was no question of dual ownership raised by this clause. He was rather struck, however, by what the noble Lord had quoted of the clause. He had quoted it only down to a certain point, "where a landlord without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management I terminates an agreement," and there he I had stopped. But there were other words in the clause, "or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy." That was an entirely new principle introduced into the legislation of this country and it 'seemed to him to be very much in the nature of the thin end of the wedge of dual ownership. What possible logical justification there could be for demanding that a man should receive compensation for the want of renewal of an agreement which had reached the limit agreed to by himself when he entered upon it, he could not conceive. He did not want to elaborate the point at that stage, but when a statement was made that there was nothing in this clause which related or referred to dual ownership, he could not help thinking that the earliest opportunity ought to be taken to point out one very serious sentence

591
included in the clause, which many noble Lords seemed entirely to forget, and which changed, as it seemed to him, the whole system of legislation, and initiated a new idea which might have very serious consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he did not understand that the noble Duke who had just spoken recommended their Lordships to accept the Amendment which had been submitted to them.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Certainly not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that although he spoke with the greatest diffidence on a subject of this kind—because he was in no sense an authority on agricultural subjects—yet he shared with the noble Duke, and with his noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, the view that their Lordships ought not to accept this Amendment. But in taking that view he did not do so altogether for the reasons which had been advanced. He thought it was right that they should look facts in the face, and in his opinion I this clause was a serious new departure in the legislation of this country. He felt that on subjects of this kind their Lordships could not be too cautious in what they did. Many of them were great authorities on agricultural questions, but at the same time—he said this with great respect to their Lordships—they were personally and pecuniarily interested in the question; and although he for one could never imagine for a moment that they could be swayed by considerations of that kind, yet there were others who did not take that view, and that consideration was, he thought, sufficient to justify him in saying to their Lordships that he hoped they would not seriously mutilate this clause in Committee. Let them consider the clause for a moment. No one admired more than he did the skill and persistence with which those with whom he was associated were successful in the House of Commons in forcing upon a Government numerically far stronger than themselves the amendments which this clause had undergone. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had given a
592
pathetic account of the difficulties which the Government themselves had had to face in dealing with their Radical supporters. Undoubtedly in the House of Commons the Radical tail of the Government was the most important section there, and it was extraordinarily to the credit of the Opposition that they were able, notwithstanding the power of that Radical tail, to change the clause so much as they had succeeded in changing it. The clause was very vague, but notwithstanding its vagueness it did interfere, to put it in that modest way, with the control of the landlord over his property, and in so doing it diminished the landlord's property, and, he supposed, transferred it to someone else. That was a very serious matter. He had said that the clause was very vague; it all depended on the interpretation of those words "good and sufficient cause "and" reason inconsistent with good estate management." He did not know exactly what those words meant, but they would be interpreted by the arbitrator or whatever authority their Lordships ultimately put into the Bill. The noble Lord proposed to strike out these words I and put the clause in the inverse way, and to say the compensation should only accrue for definite and not I for indefinite reasons. If he had thought their Lordships' House was quite free in this matter he should have been inclined to support the Amendment, if his noble friend put the clause as it stood, because what "good estate management "might precisely mean depended upon the individual opinion of the arbitrator. He did not look at this matter from the selfish point of view of a landlord or the landlord class. The class in which he was interested was the labouring class which lived on landlords' estates through-out the country. The preamble of the Bill was going out, he did not quite know why, except that he presumed it was no longer pertinent to the Bill. But he would like to ask the noble Earl how it ever got into the Bill. In the preamble there was a reference to the interests of the rural labouring classes and the community generally, and it was because he thought that this clause would interfere with the interests of the rural labouring class that he regretted that the noble Earl and the

593
Government were not able to accept the Amendment. It appeared to him that it was in the best interests of their Lordships' House that the interests of the rural labouring class living on the estates of the landlords of England should be safeguarded. He had had a certain amount of experience on this matter. But let him say he was not going into the subject in detail, first because he did not desire to go into the matter at any length, and secondly because it would hardly be germane to the Bill. ["Hear, hear."] He was much obliged for the applause of the junior members of the Government, but still he submitted that the terms of this clause interfered with the landlord's power of doing justice to the labourers who lived on his estate. It was a matter deserving of the consideration of their Lordships, and especially of those noble Lords whose political creeds were full of professions that they were always interested in studying the condition of the labouring classes. Was it not true to say that such a clause as this would seriously hamper small holdings? He would not go into the matter in detail, but whether the land could be readily made available for small holdings would depend on the view taken by the valuer of "good estate management." If the arbitrator said these small holdings were foolish; that they would not pay; that to destroy a good farm in a particular part of the country in order to establish small holdings could only lead to pecuniary loss; and that it would certainly not be in the interests of good estate management; the landlords might take a different view, but they must remember the answer to that question depended on the view taken by the arbitrator. It did not depend upon legal evidence but upon what, in the opinion of the arbitrator, was good estate management. He did not attribute much importance to the words "good and sufficient cause," because good and sufficient cause was also a matter of opinion. He would give one further illustration with regard to the cottagers who lived on the estates of the landlords of England. It had been said in this debate that most landlords were good and that most tenants were good. He cordially re-echoed that state-
594
ment. He believed it was perfectly I true. It was his experience at any rate. But it was also correspondingly true that a few landlords were not good, and that a few tenants were not good. He would take the ease of a tenant who did not treat the cottagers living on his I holding properly. To whom did the cottagers look to assist them in such a contingency? He would give their Lordships one example, and he gave it because he knew it to be a fact. A certain poor man established on a farm on the borders of a village a small wheelwright's shop. He was sub-tenant of the farmer. The farmer turned out a horse into a field near this cottage. The horse was in very bad condition and evidently in great suffering. Eventually the farmer was summoned by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The sub-tenant I was summoned as a witness against the farmer at the police court, and as he was bound to do, gave evidence, so far as he (the Marquess of Salisbury) knew, in I accordance with the truth. It was adverse to the farmer, and immediately after the case was decided the farmer gave his sub-tenant notice to quit. The subtenant appealed to the landlord and the landlord was able, by the power he possessed under the present law, to say he would not allow the sub-tenant to be evicted. He was able to do that by the power of the sanction behind the present law, but whether he would be able to do that after this Bill was passed was very doubtful. What was the power of the sanction behind the present law? Clearly it was the fact that the landlord had power to say "If you turn this poor man out and will not do justice to him I shall have to turn you out of your holding." It appeared to him to be a very strong measure to injure the power of the landlord under these circumstances. It would certainly appear to be very doubtful whether the landlord would be justified in that proceeding in the opinion of the arbitrator, because he would say "What is good estate management? Is it good estate management to evict a large farmer because a small cottager has been evicted from his cottage in one corner of the farm?" It was quite possible the arbitrator would say "we have nothing to do with the sub-tenant. Good estate management would dictate to the

595
landlord not to take action of this kind," and in that way the power of the landlord on his estate would be very seriously infringed. He did not wish to put it too high, but at this time of day, when the landlords were most anxious to defend the labouring classes on their land, it was a great pity that such a clause should be passed into law. Would the Government consider the possibility of introducing words which would at any rate safeguard a case of the kind to which he had drawn attention? Would they put into the preamble such words as would protect the labourers from the possibility of injustice by restoring to the landlords their power in this matter? He did not say that even that would entirely reconcile him to the clause. But it would go some way, in his humble judgment, to diminish the evils from which these people in whom they were interested and who lived upon their land, might suffer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he would promise, at all events, not to range over the rather sombre landscape of country life that the noble Lord who had just sat down had shown them. He moved the omission of the words "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, "because he thought they were either meaningless or inconvenient. If they were meaningless then they were mere surplusage, and their omission would do no harm. If they were inconvenient as, if he were put to it, he was prepared to prove, they were better out of the Bill. The main ground upon which he thought they were inconvenient was this. It was a mere truism to say that the way in which the meaning of an Act of Parliament was expressed should be in the bluntest possible English capable of being understood even by the village idiots. Most of their Lordships were acquainted with business as it was done in the Committee rooms upstairs. The clauses of a Bill which came before a Committee upstairs were not subjected to the cross-currents or under-currents of politics. They were invariably considered from the point of view of £s. d., and in the Committee the eminent counsel engaged were the first
596
people to help the Committee to strikeout those phrases of an ornamental character which were put in. to give dignity and stateliness to the clause, but which, if not meaningless, were inconvenient. He did not know whether these words in the clause were an alternative to a "good and sufficient cause," whether it was another prima facie ground on which the tenant might claim, or whether they were coupled by the word "and" and were therefore a reinforcement of "good and sufficient cause. "However that might be, he believed they invited the tenant to consider whether his landlord was capable of "good estate management." He was sure the noble Lord never intended that the tenant was to become the judge of whether his landlord was managing his estate in a proper manner. It might be said that no tenant would be such a fool as to take up a case of this kind, but their Lordships knew that both landlord and tenant were very often, if not fools, very pig-headed where land was concerned. That being so he hoped that both landlord and tenant would be robbed, by the omission of these words, of the mischievous source of a very possible inconvenience. The whole thing in his opinion was covered by the words "good and sufficient cause." He should be prepared, except that personal experience was very tiresome, to show in his own person, and in the case of some one else, where words such as these might cause great inconvenience.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words 'and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he quite agreed with his noble friend that the words put into this clause were open to a good many objections, therefore he would like to state to their Lordships what was the effect of the words which it was now proposed to strike out. They were arrived at after a considerable amount of care, and the Government were informed by their technical advisers that the words "good estate management" were to enable any landlord to act in relation to his property in the manner in which a prudent trustee would act. That was to say, he was to be absolutely free to take a farm back into his own hands

597
where he wanted to subdivide it for any purpose, or where he considered the farm to have been badly managed, or where he could get, whether by division or from another tenant, a better rent to be paid by a solvent tenant. The reason why these words had been put in was to protect the landlord and to ensure that he should not be liable for any claim for compensation if he administered the estate well and as a good man of business. The whole intention of this clause was only to operate in cases which, though they might not be numerous, might occur among many people—in what he might call cases of capricious disturbance. Lord Ribblesdale had asked why the words "without good and sufficient cause" would not be sufficient in themselves and why it was necessary to insert the words he proposed now to omit? The point was this. It had been assumed that a Landlord might wish to take possession of a farm, presumably a farm which had been occupied by a tenant and his family for a great number of years, to put perhaps his son, who might have, a fancy for farming, into it, or for some other purely family reasons. Under circumstances of that kind, which would hardly come under what might be called "good estate management"—because possibly the transference of a farm from a good tenant to the son of the house would not be "good estate management"—it did not seem to the Government it was either inequitable or unfair that the tenant should receive compensation limited and restricted as it was in this clause. Those were the reasons the Government were unable to strike out those words.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to insert after the word "terminates" the words "by notice to quit." He said that this was a drafting Amendment to make the matter clear, to which he supposed there would be no objection. The tenancy terminated when the notice to quit had expired. His intention in moving the Amendment was that there should be a period of time during which the tenant might consider whether he would be entitled to claim for compensation under this clause, and if the claim was
598
made the landlord might have an opportunity of considering whether he would withdraw his notice to quit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the word 'terminates' to insert the words 'by notice to quit."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he would like to ask, in order to raise the question of rights, whether in the case of a lease it was necessary to give notice. If his noble friend's Amendment were put in, the clause would read—
"Where the landlord, without good and sufficient cause, andfor reasons inconsistent with good estate management, terminates by notice to quit or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy."
EARL HARRINGTON: I quite see the necessity for the Amendment and accept it.
EARL CARRINGTON: I propose my next Amendment in order to give effect to the suggestion that the landlord should know within a reasonable time whether or not the tenant desires a renewal of the tenanty. I think it is a fair and reasonable suggestion, and I hope the Committee will accept it. The clause will then read—
"Where the landlord without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent I with good estate management terminates or after having been requested in writing at least six months before the expiration of the tenancy to grant a renewal of the tenancy refuses to do so, or etc."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the first 'or' to insert the words 'after having been requested in writing at least six months before the expiration of the tenancy to grant a renewal of the tenancy', and leave out the words 'grant a renewal of the tenancy' and insert the words 'do so."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERsaid he apprehended that it was not supposed that the tenant was only to give six months notice that he did not intend to keep on his tenancy. That would be inconvenient, because although tenancies expire at Michaelmas it was usual for the incoming tenant to take over the

599
follows in March. Under this Amendment all the tenant need do would be to give notice at Lady Day and quit at Michaelmas.
EARL CARRINGTON: I will look into that question, if the noble Lord will allow me, between this and Report.
A NOBLE LORDsaid it seemed to him in the case of a lease six months notice would be too short.
Earl CARRINGTON: There is no notice in a lease, it simply terminates.
A NOBLE LORDsaid there was a year's notice given as to whether the tenant was going to continue the lease or to quit.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERasked whether, in the case of a ten years agreement or a lease in which the tenant had a right of breaking it at any time by giving two years notice, that tenant was to have a right to break the agreement or lease with six months notice.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it would seem that in the case of a yearly tenancy the tenant would be compelled once in every year to give notice that he wished to continue his tenancy. He apprehended that an annual tenancy ran on until a notice to quit was given on either side, and the introduction of an Amendment of this kind would compel him to give notice every year.
EARL CARRINGTON: I see there is a great deal of objection on several sides to this Amendment, and I promise to look into this matter between this and Report. I withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HYLTONmoved after the word "tenancy" to insert the words "to the sitting tenant." He put down those words in order to receive, as he trusted they would, an assurance from the Government that the words "renewal of the tenancy" meant to the sitting tenant. If they were
600
not informed upon that point by the Government, there was no doubt litigation would arise and the question would be asked whether, on the death of a tenant and the tenancy was refused to his son or his widow or his executors, the penalties of this clause were not to be inflicted against the landlord. He thought it was very important their Lordships should have an assurance from the Government on that point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the word 'tenancy' to insert the words 'to the sitting tenant."—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The word "renewal" can only mean to the sitting tenant.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in order to raise the question of the expiry of a lease on the death of a tenant and the farm getting into the hands of the executor. It would be most unfair to the landlord in a case; of that kind for him not to be able to give notice to the executor under this clause without a claim being made against him. He did not think that was the intention of the Government. Would the Government accept the words he had put down?
EARL CARRINGTON: I will accept them now and put them in later on the Report.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid if the noble Lord would permit the Amendment to be put in the words of the noble Viscount it would be more convenient.
On question, Amendment negatived.
EARL CARRINGTONthis Amendment is a drafting Amendment which I ask the Committee to read with the two immediately following it. The clause will then read—
"Or it is proved that an increase of rent has been demanded from the tenant and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding duo to improvements which have been executed by or at the cost of the tenant, and for which he has not, either directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, etc."
Amendments moved—
"In page 3, line 38, to leave out the second 'is' and to insert the words 'has been."
"In line 39, to leave out the words 'as the result of' and insert the words 'and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to."
"In lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'effected at the cost of 'such' and insert the words 'executed by or at the cost of the."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether there was any difference in the meaning of the words "effected at the cost of" and "executed by or at the cost of." He only wanted to know why the noble Lord proposed to strike out the words "effected at the cost of" for the purpose of inserting. "executed by or at the cost of."
Earl CARRINGTON: They are only drafting Amendments in order to make the clause more easy to understand.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he did not propose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. It was down in the name of other noble Lords and if they chose to they might move it. He had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to apply this clause fairly to the circumstances of Scotland where long leases and tenancies were in effect. He, therefore, was not prepared to take the responsibility of making it apply to Scotland and to a system to which it could not be fairly applied.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid while he had the greatest possible desire to make the Bill a workable Bill he did not see how it could be done. Who was going to say what the value of the sale was, and what the value of the cattle was. The mere accident of a wet day or another sale being on the same day, the holding of a market or some other reason, might prejudice the sale very much, and cause a man to be £100 short of what he thought he ought to get at that sale. Why should the landlord have to suffer for that? It was not his fault if it was a wet day. There might be such a thing as a "knock out" sale. Who was to say what was the loss? Was the tenant after the sale was over? If a
602
tenant said his cattle were worth £15 a head and he got £12 a head, were they, because it was a wet day and the butchers did not attend the sale, to take the valuation from the tenant? It was impossible to put the loss on sale on the landlord. Then again there was the question of implements. It was quite true that at a sale very often the outgoing tenant sold very cheap, but then he went to other sales in the neighbourhood to which he had gone and bought very cheap. He did not see how the Bill was to be made workable or how the loss on sale was to be arrived at unless the valuation of the tenant was taken. Therefore, he suggested the striking out of the words "loss or" with a view to omitting the words "of the sale" later on.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, to leave out the words 'loss or."—(Viscount Galway.)
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, supported what Lord Galway had said. It certainly seemed unreasonable that the landlord should be made responsible for the loss that a tenant sustained at sale. He thought the words should be taken out of the clause.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that while he listened to Lord Galway he thought the noble Lord had failed to appreciate the effect of two Amendments the Government had lower down upon the Paper in which they proposed after the word "expense" to insert "directly attributable to his quitting the holding" and after the word "tenant" to add the words "may unavoidably incur." It was not the intention of this clause that there should be any selection or temptation on the part of the tenant under the circumstances to make a profit by having a bogus sale, and then claiming compensation for loss. The Government were informed that the insertion of these words "directly attributable to his quitting the holding" would limit the compensation to a reasonable amount as compensation for the expense which he might unavoidably incur. The arbitrator in

603
estimating a case of damage was not to allow a fancy value, or an excessive value for fancy reasons, and the tenant was not to be compensated if he had not taken care to see that his sale was under the best conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYadmitted that the noble Lord had done his best to answer Lord Yarborough, but he did not think he had quite succeeded. The question of these sales was one that had created a considerable amount of apprehension in the minds of the landowners in the country for the reason that nobody had yet declared who was to be the arbitrator to decide the amount to be paid. Lord Galway with great truth had declared that it was quite possible that owing to various circumstances the result of a sale might from the tenant's point of view be of an adverse character; that financially it might be a sale which would be considered detrimental to the interest of the vendor. Then, again, there might be such a thing as a bogus sale in which a "knock out" might take place to benefit those of the surrounding district. What he wished to; know was who was to fix the value between what these effects fetched at the sale and that which they ought to have fetched under favourable circumstances So far as he personally was concerned there was nobody more fortunate in his tenants than he, and he gave them credit for doing their best, but if a bribe was held out for a man to have a bad sale, with the knowledge that the difference between what his effects fetched and what they ought to have fetched was to be paid by the landlord, he would not care whether his sale was good or bad. He wanted to know upon what basis the compensation which the tenant was to get was to be fixed. When this Amendment was before: the other House the Solicitor-General for Scotland, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that if a tenant chose an unfavourable time for his sale the arbitrator might very likely award him nothing. But that was only an opinion. He thought their Lordships had a right to have something more than the opinion of a law officer. They had a right to say that the Government should define in
604
black and white the basis on which the difference was to be arrived at, and that they should give some idea of what was meant by "loss or expense."
LORD SALTOUNsaid there was no definition of the term "loss. "It might be that no loss resulted from the sale of the stock. But the word "loss" included apparently furniture, implements, cattle, and everything else the man possessed, end it might easily be that a tenant would find it easier and cheaper to have a sale of his beasts instead of moving them. He thought there should be some strong restriction on the word "loss" and also on the amount for which the landlord was liable for removal of stock. If the Minister for Agriculture would give some indication that this matter should be looked into it would in his opinion be of great advantage.
EARL CARRINGTON: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Lord has said, but I think the argument would have been doubly strong if the sale was backed by the action of a generous land; lord. Let me bring back to your Lordships the circumstances of this sale. It is not a sale by the farmer because he has made his fortune, or wishes to change his locality. Nothing of the kind. He is sent out of his farm by his landlord, who "for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" evicts his tenant. He does not want to go, but he is sent into the world for some reason he has either shot a hare or he has been inconvenient to his landlord, and he is sent away under very harsh circumstances. I think that ought to be taken into consideration, and I think your Lordships would be disposed to treat a man under these circumstance in a fair and honest manner. If a man who has been for no fault of his own removed from his farm, has a sale, and it is a very wet day, it is an extremely bad sale, the landlord ought in common justice not to let the loss of that sale fall upon the tenant. I hope that your lordships' House will treat these cases in the way in which I think they ought to be treated, in a fair and generous manner. And as regards putting it all down in black and white that is an

605
impossibility. It is not as if this was a new thing. Under the Lands Clauses Acts people had been removed from their houses for public purposes such as building railways and the like. They claim compensation. A valuer goes in and estimates what ought to be paid, and no doubt those valuers who have been accustomed to value under the Lands Clauses Acts will take the same practical common sense view of the conditions of affairs in this matter. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed because it practically gives with one hand and takes away with the other. We all want to protect the tenant against arbitrary and capricious eviction. I express the confident hope that this Amendment will not be pressed and that the law will remain as it is.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that while the noble Lord had answered his Question he had not answered that of Lord Londonderry as to how the loss was to be adjusted. Were they to take the valuation of a discontented man?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid so far as he could make out from the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture "loss" was only another word for "gift" by a generous landlord to a tenant who was going out. That was the effect of what the noble Lord said. He said. "This was a matter in which lie asked the Committee to remember that these men were turned out by a land-lord who had behaved badly, and that under those circumstances it was quite that right he should behave generously and give him something." Was not that in other words saying that the loss was a gift.
EARL CARRINGTON: No, no.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would leave the matter to the Committee. This point was pressed on the Second Reading, when he himself pointed out that the loss meant the difference between what the sale fetched and what the things were worth, and that at was impossible to say at any time what the things were worth. The noble Earl said it was perfectly easy; that any
606
person who was accustomed to value under the Lands Clauses Acts could do it. But the Lands Clauses Acts had no application whatever to agriculture. They dealt with land taken for a railway or some other public interest, but they had nothing to do with stock and still less to do with household furniture. The Bill as it stood was unworkable, and it could not be dealt with because it was unworkable. He hoped the noble Lord would consider this point. It was said to be the wording of the Solicitor-General. He thought there were gentlemen in the Government who would find words which a plain man could understand, and he appealed to the noble Earl to find words and bring them up on Report.
LORD HENEAGEsaid the word "loss" in this clause meant loss on sale of stock, implements, and other subjects of the sale. He asked the Committee to consider what the difference in the price of stock was in August and October this year. Those farmers who were leaving their farms and who had their sale in September sold at a loss because keep was short, but those who were able to keep on, and who did not have their sale till October, sold at a great profit. Was it, therefore, to be a question of the judgment of the tenant as to whether he would sell in September or October? If that was the case, then whatever happened the tenant would not lose. It was a mere gambling transaction, and the landlord had to pay. This question of loss on sale was perfectly ridiculous. The tenant had full notice when he was going and had to take the chance of whether he chose a good day for his sale. He fixed the day on which the sale was to take place and had to get his stock in good condition for that sale. During the last year he had seen a lot of stock sold in very bad condition, and on one occasion, at the sale of a very good tenant, the answer he received when he asked whether the tenant had not had a very bad sale was "No, "that he had had a very good sale indeed, considering the amount of grass he had for his cattle. But a few weeks after, at another sale, stock fetched far beyond the price for which it was sold on the previous occasion. Was the landlord, who had nothing to do with the fixing of the day

607
of the sale, who could not control the weather, or the markets, or the amount of cattle coming from abroad, to be the only person to suffer and not get anything if there was a good sale? He thought the words "or loss" were an absurdity.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he agreed with Lord Heneage. So far as any danger of a fraudulent sale was concerned the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord went a long way towards meeting the difficulty. But he did not think anything that had been said by the Government had met the point made by Lord Camperdown and Lord Heneage. Who was to estimate the loss? Supposing a man had a sale and got the market price of the day, what was the loss? How would that be estimated? Was a man to be compensated because he was obliged to sell at a particular date when in the course of a few weeks the value of stock might go up 10 per cent?
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON dissented.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Lord shook his head; would he put words into the clause to show that that was not his intention? It might be impossible for the tenant to remove his stock, and under those circumstances he would not be able to vote for leaving out the words "or loss." He did not think there was very much in the words "or loss" except as applied to the words "on sale." It was a question as to the sale. Could not the noble Lord, in some way or an other, point out to the valuer the basis upon which he was to estimate the "loss on sale." Of course it could not be done now, but before the Bill left this House he honestly thought something of that kind ought to be done.
LORD HENEAGEsaid that obviously the one and only way in which this case could be met was by means of an estimate made immediately before the sale. Whether the price of stock had gone up during the past three months or had gone down, if the valuation was made immediately before the sale it would give the proper value of the
608
stock according to the experience and knowledge of the valuer who made the valuation on the day that it was sold. If some words of that sort could be introduced into this clause it would at all events guard against any loss to the landlord through the compensation being calculated upon the basis of the difference between the value of the stock three months before and on the day it was sold.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was not an advocate of bad landlords, but so far as he understood the clause it would only operate in the case of the problematical bad landlord. He asked whether his noble friend would not consider some words which might be inserted to safeguard the landlords' interests in sales that took place under these conditions.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that this Amendment meant that the landlord was to indemnify the tenant against any loss at the sale. He was to insure that the tenant was compensated for whatever loss he made from a forced sale. It seemed to him that if a landlord was put into that position he ought also to be put into the position of seeing that the sale was a bona fide one and carried out in a bona fide manner. The arbitrator would have to make a valuation before the sale in order to find out what these things were really worth. Then it seemed to him that if a landlord were guaranteeing somebody else against a loss on sale he should have some voice in the matter to insure that the sale should be a bona fide sale. Apparently that was a matter of complete indifference to the tenant, because he was indemnified; he might arrange that there should be a family party at the sale, that his friends should buy up his things cheap, and that the landlord should pay the difference. He did not think it was reasonable to call upon the landlord to buy a number of things which he did not want, in order to prevent a knock out. If the landlord had to bear the loss he might also fairly have a say in the regulation of the sale to see that it was a proper sale on a proper day so that if the things went below a price they could be

609
bought in by him. For instance, supposing a valuer estimated the stock at £600, if one part of that stock was sold above the price put upon it by the valuer that would be the profit of the farmer, but if the other things went at a lower price it would be the loss of the landlord. That would be a fine thing for the tenant. He did not think it could be done now, but it seemed to him quite clear that between this and Report, if this duty was placed upon the landlord, some clause must be framed to enable a landlord to protect himself.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has put the case so clearly and so moderately that I shall pledge myself to meet as far as I can the wishes he has expressed. I should be very sorry if these two words "or loss" were left out, because it would undoubtedly give an impression that the House of Lords were driving a very hard bargain with the unfortunate devil who was turned out of his farm. That would not be at all a pleasant idea to get about. I pledge myself, if the noble Viscount will allow our words to stand, to do that.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment after what had been said, but he wished to put two points. A tenant might have been turned out in accordance with good estate management and for good and sufficient cause, and in that case he did not see why a landlord should pay. He hoped also that the noble Lord would remember that two sales might be going on at the same time on the same day, and if that was so he did not see why the landlord should be damnified.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'expense' to insert the words 'directly, attributable to his quitting the holding."
"In line 4, leave out the words 'by reason of his quitting the holding sustains or incurs' and insert the words 'may unavoidably incur."—(Earl Carrington.)
*EARL FORTESCUEmoved to insert the word "household" before "goods,"
610
in order to make clear what was the class of goods to which this clause would apply. It was not unusual for a small farmer to carry on a small shop or public-house in addition to the farm, whilst on the other hand he knew large farmers who had traction engines and steam rollers and other things which they let out. He moved this Amendment in order to limit "goods, implements, produce, or stock," so that they should be only those belonging to the farm.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 7, after the word 'his' to insert the word 'household."—(Earl Fortescue.)
Earl CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It would give rise to all sorts of questions.
A NOBLE LORDhoped Earl Fortescue would press the Amendment because it raised the question of the stock of a man who might be in business and which stock had nothing whatever to do with his farm.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. I think he might leave it to the common sense of the arbitrator. I am most anxious that the idea should not get about in any way that the House of Lords is trying to reduce the amount of compensation that should be paid to the very-few people that this clause will affect.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not understand in the least the noble Earl's attitude upon this Amendment The noble Earl said it was a very difficult thing to decide whether a certain thing was or was not farm stock, and therefore the utmost liberty was to be given to the tenant to include as many things as possible under the name of "goods" and the landlord was to have no protection whatever. Why? Because, forsooth, it would be thought that the House of Lords was trying to drive a hard bargain and to reduce the claims for compensation. It was the first time he had ever heard a Minister use such

611
an argument as that no protection should be given to a person, because it might be difficult and rather vexatious to find out what was due to one party and the other.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid he did not wish to be unreasonable or to make it easy for a man to evict a tenant unreasonably and without good cause. But he thought it was only common sense that implements which had nothing to do with farming should not be taken into consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'implements' to insert the words 'of husbandry."—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: It is in your Lordships' hands and I will not give your Lordships the trouble of taking a division, but I do most earnestly protest against this Amendment.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGHmoved to omit the words "produce or stock." It seemed to him that the tenant ought to be able to make arrangements for the sale of produce and stock and that the landlord should not be liable for any loss that might be entailed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, to leave out the words 'produce or stock."—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot accept this Amendment on the general grounds which I cannot go into again, upon which I refused Lord Fortescue's Amendment.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGHsaid the object of his next Amendment was to limit the compensation to tenants resident on their farms. A tenant might occupy land and live in a house of his own or of another landlord. Under this clause the landlord might have to compensate the tenant for moving from that house. The tenant might set up a case that, the landlord having taken away the
612
land from him, he had been unable to get land enough else-where, with the result that he was compelled to set up another home. He thought it would be rather hard that the landlord should have to pay compensation for that. The clause applied to accommodation lands outside small parishes and also to small holdings. In the case he suggested, the tenant who resided not on the holding but on some other holding could get compensation on getting notice to quit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8. after "implements" to insert the words 'this section shall only apply to a holding with house on it in which the tenant actually resides."—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think the noble Lord on reflection would wish to press this Amendment. He must know that there are plenty of farms and holdings on which there is no house, and it certainly would seem rather an injustice to deny to the tenant farming such a farm the benefits of this Act because either there was no house or the house was not sufficiently good for him to live in.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Amendment was badly worded and did not carry out what the noble Lord intended. As he understood his speech, what the noble Lord desired was to limit the compensation to the household goods and the farm stock and so forth on the holding in respect of which the man was tenant. Should not these words "household goods" and so forth be limited to matters that belonged to the holding from which the tenant was evicted?
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the point now, and will make a note of it and see what can be done to meet that particular point upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'or' to insert the word 'farm."—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope this limiting Amendment will not be pressed. This is just the same limiting suggestion that we have had already. I need not go further.
*EARL FORTESCUEsaid it seemed to him that there was just as much reason for pressing this as the other.
*EARL CARRINGTON: Of course I am in your Lordships' hands.
LORD SALTOUNsaid the Amendment standing in his name was to limit the distance in regard to which compensation was to be paid for removal. There ought, undoubtedly, to be some limit, and he suggested thirty miles. The ordinary process in his country was that a man merely walked his horses over to another farm, took his implements over in his own carts, and the whole thing was very easily and cheaply arranged. Under this Bill the landlord might have to pay compensation on removals from the north of England to the south, and not only to the south of England, but, for fill he knew, to South Africa. There ought to be some limit imposed. If a firmer belonging to a district did not get a farm within a certain radius of the place in which lie had been living for a long time there must be something against him, and he should receive no compensation. He hoped therefore there would be some limitation put in.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word "stock" insert the words 'to a distance of thirty miles from his holding."—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRTNGTON: I think the limitation of expenses would meet the noble Lord's point and prevent a man going from one end of England to another in order to run up a bill. I do not see why we should limit the removal of a man's goods or stock to a distance within thirty miles of the holding that he is leaving. I am perfectly sure that the noble Lord does not wish to make a thirty mile agricultural radius like the four mile cab radius, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this.
LORD SALTOUNasked to be allowed to point out one case. He had a tenant who, next term day, was leaving the farm, at his own request, and was going down to take a farm in Devonshire. It was on account of his wife's health. She had to go west. Supposing instead of that man going at his own desire he was being turned out. He would still go down to Devonshire, but he would claim compensation from his landlord for the whole way.
EARL CARRINGTON: I quite understand the regrettable instance to which the noble Lord has referred, but I think it might be left to the arbitrator, because, after all, valuers have some common sense. It would be found that, when a man was going to the south of England, or perhaps to New Zealand, and said, "I am going to make my landlord pay," that the valuer would probably say, "If you are going this distance what you must do is to sell your goods and you will be compensated in a rough and ready sort of way, if there is any great loss."
*LORD MONK BRETTONsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper which he had intended to withdraw, and he was surprised that the noble Lord should have proposed his. It seemed to him that the Amendment, put upon the Paper by the President of the Board of Agriculture would meet the case. A tenant who went to a distance would have to prove that he could not get another holding on that side of the district; and that the expense was directly attributable to his quitting the holding, and the loss sustained had unavoidably been incurred.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he agreed with Lord Monk Bretton that the Amendment of the President of the Board of Agriculture covered the, whole thing. No honest valuer would say that it was unavoidable that a man should go more than thirty miles.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was afraid he could not agree to that. It would be exactly the reverse. A good tenant turned out by a bad landlord could always find somebody glad to take him, but a bad tenant would be unavoidably compelled to go to a

615
distance. These words did not in the least meet the case. The noble Lord had said that if he was a bad tenant he would not come in under this clause. But who was to determine whether he was a bad tenant or not, and, if he was a bad tenant, that he should not come under this clause? It was quite possible that some valuers might not be prepared to say that the man was a bad tenant although the neighbours knew and the landlord knew and did not wish to have him on their property. If that was the case the landlord would have had additional expense because the man was a bad tenant. He quite saw the difficulty of the thirty-mile radius, but it was the noble Lord's own Bill and he had no right to introduce into it an absolutely unworkable grant of compensation of this kind.
THE MARQUIS OF RIPON: I hope the noble Lord will not take a division on this Amendment. It is not possible to make a mileage limit in this matter. Supposing I turn out a tenant and he seeks to take refuge on an estate just within thirty miles and is unsuccessful, it would be very hard to say he should not be compensated for travelling to another estate because it is twelve miles further on.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I agree very much with what has been said upon this subject. I make no secret of the fact that I am not much enamoured of this clause, but I do say if we are to accept the principle of compensation we must depend upon the common sense of the tribunal by which that compensation will be awarded. I prefer to rely on that rather than on any limit of distance which must, after all, be arbitrary in its character. If you want a proof of that arbitrariness you need only look at the Paper and you will see three Amendments upon this subject. Lord Saltoun's suggests thirty miles, Viscount Galway "twenty-five miles" and Lord Monk Bretton "a forty-mile radius." I think that show how impossible it is to work the thing on this principle, and if these Amendments are pressed I shall vote against them.
LORD SALTOUNsaid after what had fallen from the noble Marquess he should certainly withdraw the Amendment. But he thought there ought to be a limit, although he was not wedded to the thirty miles.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the next Amendment raised a very important question. This clause submitted two totally different questions to the arbitrator—one whether the land-lord had, without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, evicted his tenant; and the other the question of what compensation the tenant should receive on the "vacation of his lease or holding. It seemed to him perfectly evident that those two questions could not be determined by the same mind or the same kind of person. One was a question of public policy and the other a question of actual value and detail. He would like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what his' own definition was of conduct consistent with good estate management. Who was going to decide what was good estate management? He might instance an estate near a big town where the property was being gradually developed and must necessarily be developed for building. A portion of the tenant's land was taken away for building purposes. Was that consistent with good estate management or not? That depended upon what demand there was for sites for building houses. Then supposing the owner said he would take part of the tenant's land not for building purpose, but for the purpose of making a public park; was that consistent with good estate management? That would all depend upon the amount of accommodation there was in the town and the necessity there was for lungs in the town and so forth. Who was going to decide principles of that sort? Again, supposing there was a tenant who was in every respect a good farmer, who did well by his land; who paid his rent promptly, but who happened to be of such an immoral character that he was demoralising the whole neighbourhood. Was it good estate management

617
to get rid of such a tenant or not? That could be judged in both ways. One person might say, "Well, business is business" and so long as the man was a good farmer and did well by his land and paid his rent promptly they had no right to consider anything else. But there were others who considered something more than good farming and prompt payments. Did the Minister for Agriculture think with regard to cases of that sort that he could lay down any rule as to what was good estate management and what was not? This difficulty seemed to require that they must have this question of good estate management submitted to one tribunal and the question of compensation to another. He was not enamoured of his own clause and he would withdraw it in favour of the noble Lord's own proposal provided that he would insert in his clause—
"In questions arising under this section"
If the noble Lord would add those words to his clause he thought the clause would then meet the whole of the difficulty. But before he withdrew it he should like to know what the noble Lord was willing to do in that direction.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'stock' to insert the following new paragraphs: 'Provided as follows—That within fourteen days after receiving a notice to quit or a refusal to renew the tenant if he alleges that he will, under the provisions of this section become entitled to compensation on quitting the holding, shall notify the same in writing to the land lord, and either party may within fourteen days thereafter take proceedings to have the matter determined and the rights declared by a Judge of the High Court in an action for that purpose. In cases where neither the value of the premises nor the rent payable in respect thereof shall have exceeded one hundred pounds by the year, and upon which no fine or premium shall have been duly paid, either party may apply to the Judge of the County Court of the district in which the premises are situate for a declaration of the rights of the parties in respect of the matter to be determined by the Court under this section whose decision therein shall be final, subject to an appeal to a Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice, and such application shall be deemed to be an action or matter within Section 67 of the County Courts Act, 1888, relating to Jurisdiction in Equity. The Court, in any case, and at any time, may allow the withdrawal of a notice to quit or refusal to renew upon such terms as to costs or other wise as it may deem fit.".—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*LORD ZOUCHEsaid he thought before the noble Lord agreed to that he should look at the first part of the Amendment, which he thought was not covered by the Bill. The most important part of the noble Duke's Amendment was the provision—
"That within fourteen days after receiving a notice to quit or a refusal to renew the tenant, if he alleges that he will under the provisions of this section become, entitled to compensation on quitting the holding shall notify the same in writing to the landlord."
That appeared to him to be an extremely valuable provision, because if a notice was given to the tenant to quit it was quite possible that he might say nothing and lead the landlord to suppose that he did not object. He might allow the time to slip by until the period arrived when he was about to quit the holding and then, if such a term might be permitted, "spring" a claim upon his landlord for compensation for unreasonable disturbance. Some such provision as this was only fair, because at present the matter was a little in doubt. Another vexed question was as to what was unreasonable and what was not. Supposing no reason was given in the notice to quit, that it was a simple notice to quit without any definite reasons being given. Was the fact that there was no reason given to be deemed in itself unreasonable? He ventured under these circumstances to suggest that the first part of the Amendment of the noble Duke should receive the sanction of the Committee even it he withdrew it in favour of the noble Lord later. The only other reference he desired to make was that this difficulty should be determined by the High Court. Their Lordships had recently discussed the provisions of the Town Tenants Bill, and it would be in their recollection that in that Bill there was almost the same clause except that the question was to be determined by the County Court.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,who had placed a similar Amendment on the Paper, said he quite agreed with what had been said as to the first part of the noble Duke's clause. He thought it would be a very valuable thing to have a locus pœnitentice for both sides. First there should be time after the notice to quit was given

619
for the landlord to withdraw that notice before proceedings were taken in the Court, or before the valuer, and, secondly, there should be time in which both landlord and tenant might consider the position. That was not provided or in the Bill as it stood, but he hoped it would be before the Bill passed its final stage. The next point was the reference of cases of this sort, so far as the "good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" were concerned, to the Court rather than the arbitrator. That was specially provided for by the Amendment which would be moved by the noble Earl at a later stage, but he had not made any provision for the arbitrators. The arbitrators who would do the work with regard to, at any rate, the latter part of this clause—the amount of compensation to be awarded—would have a most important and difficult work to do. These men had hitherto been accustomed to interfere in the differences between landlord and tenant, and it would be, in his opinion, a good thing if there were some recognised person in each county, valuers of the highest class, who should be named as the persons to undertake references of this kind. He suggested that a list should be drawn up by the chairmen of the county councils, but that might not be the best way, and probably a list drawn up by the Board of Agriculture would answer the same purpose. They would be judges in the two important matters with which this clause dealt, namely, good and sufficient cause and good estate management, and he thought it would be for the benefit of all if these arbitrators held a high and distinguished position. He thought that would be to the advantage of landlords and tenants alike, and he hoped the Government would consider the suggestion.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much relieved by the proposals of the noble Duke and the noble Viscount opposite. The noble Duke's Amendment was a formidable one as it stood, but I think I can meet him in the way in which he proposes, and also the noble Viscount. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount said about the necessity of the arbitrators' having the highest
620
possible standing, but I should be inclined to demur to the suggestion that they should be appointed by the chairmen of the county councils. With regard to the proposal of the noble Duke, I have some words here that I might read to him and we might come to a settlement at once—
"Any question arising under this section, as to whether the landlord acted with good and sufficient cause consistent with good estate management, shall for the purposes of the aribtration relating to the statement of the case, be deemed to be a question of law."
I do not know what the idea of the noble Duke is, put into words, but if that is it, we can settle it now, otherwise we shall have to bring it up on Report, when it can be settled.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The words which the noble Earl has just read seem very good as far as they go, but they do not cover the point dealt with in the first paragraph of the noble Duke's Amendment. It is a very important paragraph indeed. It is the paragraph in which the noble Duke proposes that the tenant shall be compelled to give notice to the landlord within a certain time that he means to claim compensation under this section. I hope the noble Earl will endeavour to graft that into some part of the section.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Duke of Northumberland had spoken of the necessity of adding words as to whether the cause was good and sufficient. Those words could be added to the words of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not think the noble Earl appreciated the position. As the clause now stood in the Bill the proceedings might go on directly the tenant made up his mind to claim compensation after the notice to quit had been given. The point was that there should be time between the notice to quit and the notice to the landlord that the tenant intended to claim, in order that both parties might be able to consider their position. That was provided for by the noble Duke, and he hoped it would be provided for in the Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: Will noble Lords opposite allow me to deal with this matter on Report?I think we then shall be able to come to a conclusive arrangement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid there was the same case with regard to Scotland. That was one of the misfortunes of putting Scotland and England into one Bill. He desired to point out to the noble Earl that it was really necessary that any such questions should be dealt with, and he suggested that all questions as to the unreasonableness of the landlord and "good and sufficient cause" should, in Scotland, be decided by the sheriff.
A NOBLE LORDpointed out that in border to meet this point he would have to alter the Amendment standing in his name on page 4, line 11, so as to add to it that the question of good and sufficient reason should also be a question of law. If the noble Earl did that the Amendment would do all that it was proposed to do.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that they could revive this discussion on Report. He thought that it would be absolutely necessary on Report to discuss the whole policy of Clause 4. It was a very serious question, and they must not take it as settled if the discussion was not taken now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHmoved ah Amendment excluding from compensation claims goods which the landlord offered to take at a valuation. They had had a great deal of discussion as to the expense that might be placed upon the landlord by the tenant's removal of his stock and goods. It seemed to him that very often it would be a convenience for both landlord and tenant if the stock and implements, etc., could be taken over at a valuation. He hoped the noble Earl would accept this Amendment, because in the House of Commons the Solicitor General had stated that this
622
was what in all probability would take place under the Bill. The Solicitor-General said that if the landlord said to the tenant, "I will take over your stock at a valuation," and the tenant refused and said he would have a public sale, and the public sale realised a less amount than that which had been offered, the arbitrator in all probability would not give compensation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'stock' to insert: 'Provided that a claim for compensation under this section shall not be sustainable in respect of any household goods, implements, produce, or stock which the landlord offers in writing at least one month before the expiration of the contract of tenancy to take at a valuation."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot honestly say I like the principle, for the reason that I do not think in the first place the landlord would like to avail himself of the offer given, and I must say that the tenant would feel aggrieved. If he got less than he ought to get then he ought to claim. I am, of course, in the hands of the House, but I should suggest that the supposed right of pre-emption should not apply to household goods, because there was such a thing in a man's household as the man's wife, and she might for some reason object to a particular clock or a particular chair or some other particular object of furniture or piece of china being taken by the landlord in the valuation. So I hope if the Committee insists upon the Amendment they will leave out the household goods.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he should imagine that his noble friend would not press this Amendment. But it contained the principle of valuation which the noble Lord must consider on the Report Stage. The only way to carry out this clause was to have some sort of valuation to which the landlord was a party.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he now proposed that this clause should not apply to the tenure of land in Scotland. It was admitted that the Bill was not drafted for Scotland, and if the noble Lord after

623
the discussions which, had taken place in this House thought it did apply to Scotland he did not know very much of the conditions that existed there. He did not intend to raise the question of dual ownership but to ask whether it was intended to give in Scotland to adult men who were quite able to make their own bargains a clause of this kind in which the landlord was penalized if he simply refused to renew a tenancy. Why should a landlord not refuse? The tenant had been in occupation for a period of years. He had bargained to come for a certain number of years and no longer. The period had expired, the landlord had fulfilled his contract, and the tenant had enjoyed his bargain for the period he had bargained for. Why in the name of common sense or justice was the tenant to have more than he bargained for and the landlord have taken from him what he never contracted to give away? The noble Lord had said that he did not believe landlords would act in an arbitrary manner. The landlord would not act in an arbitrary manner at all; the lease would expire by effluxion of time and the bargain would come to an end. The noble Lord, like many of his predecessors, went to Scotland and attended annual conferences of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the Associated Societies, and made a number of eloquent speeches. In one of them the noble Lord said—
"I understand that the clause is not absolutely necessary for Scotland because I believe the general tenure in Scotland is on a nineteen years lease. If you have a nineteen years lease you have a certain amount of security for your holding. But the farmers in England are in a different position."
A little later on he said—
"I would also remind you that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who gave most valuable assistance during the discussions on the Bill, expressed his opinion that it would not be difficult to adopt the Bill to Scottish procedure and that this can readily be done by means of an application clause."
The noble Lord therefore admitted that the clause as it stood was not suitable to Scotland. At an earlier stage of the Bill he pressed the noble Lord to put down Amendments to make this a practical clause. From that
624
time to this they had not had the least attempt to do anything of the kind. They were the victims of an ambitious Gentleman from Cornwall who had since been unseated for bribery, and they were there to assist him and his friends to pass this Bill. He would not be responsible for applying this clause in any form to the system of land tenure in Scotland. Root and branch this scheme was unsuitable. It was unfair to the landlord and would not do the least good to the tenant. The First Lord of the Admiralty had made a most conciliatory and reasonable speech on the Second Reading. The noble Lord said with regard to the compensation for unreasonable disturbance—
"There is no doubt that that clause as drafted does apply to leases as well as to year to year engagements. I am myself best acquainted with the nineteen years leases, and I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Carrington that it might be well to consider whether we should not introduce certain provisions that would specially meet the case of nineteen years leases."
From the particular form of the interpretation it was clear that that was a promise by the Government, and he did not know now to whom they were to apply. From first to last they had not been fairly treated in this matter. They were put off from time to time and did not know now what the intentions of the Government were with regard to Scotland. The noble Lord representing the Scottish Office ertainly did put down two Amendments on the Paper a day or two ago, but they had since been withdrawn. He thought their Lordships ought to know whether they were withdrawn by the desire of the Government or whether they were to be renewed at a subsequent stage. Their Lordships were in the small hours of the morning asking for information promised to the Scottish nation two months ago by the noble Lord representing the Scottish Office, which they were even now unable to get.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words 'This section shall not apply to Scotland."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hardly think; that I personally deserve all the noble

625
Lord has said. We cannot possibly accept the noble Lord's Amendment. There is no reason which leads us to suppose that a clause which is so necessary in England is inapplicable to Scotland. I quite agree that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture disapproved of the clause, but I think there is an increasing disposition in Scotland to regard it with favour. And it it is possible even in Scotland for a bad landlord or two to exist, and this evil may occur. What do the Scotch Members of the House of Commons say? I quite agree that the noble Lord is a great Scottish representative and that he knows a great deal of the feeling in Scotland, but there are such persons as Scottish Members of Parliament, and some of them have been returned by large majorities, and it may fairly be supposed that they represent to some extent and in some way the feeling of the people who sent them to Parliament. I find that in the other House there is not anyone who is willing to give way on this clause. Now, what am I to do? Am I to believe the noble Lord or am I to believe the men who are popularly elected to represent the views of the majority of their countrymen in Parliament? I think my only plan is to take the opinion of those who represent the majority and to act accordingly I really must protest against any imputation of injustice. In this case I have, if I may use a word that is somewhat disliked, a distinct mandate from the representatives of Scotland to stand by the clause as it is. I most earnestly hope that the noble Lord will recognise the feeling of the country of which he is so distinguished an ornament, and will recognise the view of Scotland as expressed by the electorate.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What am I to make of the promise of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
EARL CARRINGTON: He made the promise and explained it, but that promise was entirely conditional.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could quite understand that the noble Lord had a strong claim with regard to nineteen
626
years leases. But he supposed there were in Scotland such things as annual tenancies. If that were so why should this Bill be applied in England and not in Scotland? If the noble Lord proposed to move that the clause should not apply to nineteen years leases that would be an intelligible proposition which he might support. But he certainly could not vote for excluding Scotland in this matter, and if the noble Lord proceeded to a division on this Amendment he should vote against it.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he would have been willing to withdraw his Amendment if he had received the slightest consideration from the noble Lord, but upon this matter he must make his protest, even if he stood alone.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SALTOUN:moved to exclude leases for nineteen years or longer from the operation of the clause. He adopted every word that had fallen from Lord Balfour with regard to this subject. He put this Amendment down as he thought probably it would apply to English as well as Scottish leases, and he hoped the noble Earl would find himself able to accept it. There was no use in arguing the point further, and therefore he would content himself with moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words, 'This section shall not apply to leases of nineteen years or longer duration."—(Lord Saltoun.)
A NOBLE LORDsaid he did not see why nineteen years should be inserted.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that twenty-one years would be the ordinary lease in England with a power to break at seven or fourteen years, but, as he under-stood, a lease in Scotland was for nineteen years. That was the reason for inserting that figure.
EARL CARRINGTON: No, no. I cannot agree to that. It strikes at the root of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the Chairman has put the Question and the Amendment is carried.
THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Yes, that is so. I put the Question and you did not challenge and the Contents had it.
EARL CARRINGTON: If that is so, I cannot agree to it, and I shall have to bring it up on Report.
THE EARL OF LYTTON,who had given notice to move to insert the words "And compensation paid under this section by the landlord, being a tenant for life or other limited owner of settled land, may be repaid to him by the trustees of the settlement out of capital monies in their hands," said the object of these words was not to enable the tenant for life to charge this torts on his successors, but merely to make it plain that the tenant for life, when he carried out an improvement, which was advantageous to the estate and to his successors, should be repaid. Supposing the successor to the tenant for life arranged to come and take the house of a farm in order that he might know the land, that would be advantageous to the estate and himself. The question of whether or not compensation would have to be paid to the tenant last on the holding was, as the Bill stood now, left entirely in the discretion of the arbitrator. If the Bill was to continue in that form he should have asked leave to introduce these words into it. But he noticed that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl which would give an appeal in these cases, and therefore he would not move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words 'Provided that this section shall not apply where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit or in the case of a lease for years has died before the refusal to grant a renewal."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert as a new sub-section '(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall not be made after the expiration of three months from the time at which the tenant quits the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that the words were quite right so far as one end was concerned, but what the Committee really desired was to see a change made so as to enable the matter to be fairly considered before the tenant quitted his holding.
EARL CARRINGTON: Would not three months be enough?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought three months would be ample, but it should be three months before and not after the tenant quitted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after 'arbitration' to insert as a new sub-section '(3) Any question arising under this section as to whether a reason was inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case, be deemed to be a question of law."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERsaid before the clause was put, he had an Amendment, not on the Paper, which he desired to move. The noble Earl had assumed with regard to the arbitrators who would act under this Bill that every man appointed would be capable of carrying out the duty. But he thought some direction should be given to the arbitrator in cases of compensation to take into consideration whether the sale had been properly and duly advertised, and whether it had been held in the ordinary way. He therefore moved.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after 'arbitrators' to insert the words 'And in cases of claims under this section for loss on sale, the arbitrator shall take into consideration whether that sale has been bona fide and has been properly advertised."—(The Marquess of Winchester.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMHTEESsaid that since this Amendment was handed in, two others had been added to the Bill. Therefore, this Amendment would come in as the 4th sub-section.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hardly like to pledge myself to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment now. I would ask the noble Marquess to move it again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—
*Viscount HILLmoved an Amendment requiring tenants to submit plans of proposed repairs. He said that although tenants might be good farmers they sometimes had no very great idea of what buildings were best suited to their purpose, and sometimes made fancy improvements which were as a matter of fact no improvements at all. He had had a case on his own estate where the tenant desired to have an improvement and to get rid of the grievance of which he had complained. He had no objection to meet his tenant and had drawn up plans in accordance with what he thought his tenant desired. In the meantime his tenant had had his own plans drawn up by a local contractor; but they would not carry out the main object of his tenant, which was to get rid of an overflow of water in his yard. He had refused to have the work done in his tenant's way and his tenant had refused to allow him to do it in his own, and up to the present time that improvement had not been carried out. What he wanted to know was what would be his position when this Bill came into force.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 26, after the word 'intention to insert the words 'together with plans of such repairs."—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This Amendment would increase the cost to the tenant. The Bill only applies to the repairs the landlord should execute. The ordinary procedure is that the landlord should do the repairs. I really do not think there is much in this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*EARL FORTESCUEdid not think many repairs would be done on these farms. But at the same time he thought it was only reasonable that the tenant should send a post card to the landlord giving him notice when the work was going to be done in the event of the landlord failing to execute the repairs, and he moved an Amendment with that object.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'notice to insert the words 'and shall if the landlord fails to execute the repairs give him notice in writing of the date at which they will be executed."—(Earl Fortescue.)
Earl CARRINGTON: It seems undesirable to complicate such a measure as this by so many notices. I should hardly think the noble Lord will insist on his Amendment. It seems rather unreasonable to ask for two notices in place of one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:—
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that gates formed a very important part of a holding, and he thought the record would not be complete without them. He accordingly moved that they should be included in the record.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the word 'fences' to insert the word 'gates."—(The Earl of Lytton).
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the Word 'roads' to insert the word 'gates,' and after the word 'drains' to insert the word 'ditches."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that as the Bill now stood, after the Amendment just agreed to, it would include all drains. He therefore desired to insert words to exclude field drains. It might cause a great deal of inconvenience to the farmer to interfere with field drains.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the word 'drains' to insert the words 'other than field drains."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
A NOBLE LORDsaid it was very easy to find it out when field drains were damaged in any way, and it would be a great pity to exclude them from the clause.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had been asked by Lord Lytton to move an Amendment providing that the record should be made within six months after the commencement of the tenancy.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'within six months after the commencement of the tenancy."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: Would the noble Lord accept one month in place of six months? I proposed to move an Amendment on Lord Penrhyn's Amendment very much to the same effect. I propose to amend that Amendment by saying "Within one month after."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had no particular objection to accepting "one month," but he thought it was rather a short time. Would the noble Earl make it "three months?
EARL CARRINGTON: I accept that.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the object of his next Amendment was to maintain this record and keep it up-to-date.
Amendment moved—
"In line 35, after the word 'proportions' insert the words 'where such record has been made either party at any time during the tenancy may require the entry thereon at his own cost, if any, of improvements made or depreciation having occurred (other than depreciation from fair wear and tear) in the condition of the buildings, fences, roads, drains, and cultivation of the holding."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON:I cannot accept this Amendment. The view of the Government is that it would be the cause of a great deal of trouble and would lead to considerable complications. I am in the hands of the Committee and, though I earnestly make my protest against the Amendment, I shall not put them to the trouble of a division.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid it would not do to make the requirement too costly and two troublesome.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid if there were going to be difficulties and troubles, was that any reason why the record should not be kept up.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEasked whether it would not be the case that every estate office would keep a record.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid a record would no doubt be kept by every estate office, but that the estate would then be charged. However he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I propose to leave out Clause 9 because a slight Amendment which I propose to move to Clause 12 will render Clause 9 unnecessary. It is practically a question of drafting.
Clause 10:—
EARL CARRINGTON: This again is only a drafting Amendment, Clause 10 having been now rendered unnecessary.

Clause 11:—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND:moved to alter the date of the Act's coming into operation from 1908 to 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 6, to leave out the word 'eight' and insert the word 'nine."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think we can possibly agree to this Amendment. It would postpone the operation of the provisions of the Act for nearly two years. When the Act of 1900 was brought in by noble Lords opposite it came into operation five months afterwards. If I am fortunate enough to get this Bill passed before Christmas it will not come into force for thirteen months. I therefore hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was very sorry, but he must press; this to a division. He did not think the precedent quoted had any bearing on the case. This Bill would interfere with every tenant in the country and it would be necessary for every running annual agreement to be called in and altered. He did not think noble Lords opposite knew quite what they were doing. The yearly tenants on most estates were accustomed to have their agreements renewed without any alteration, and there I was nothing about which they were so suspicious as any alteration being made in those agreements. The Government I should have no cause to wonder, therefore, if the tenants were informed as to whom they had to thank for this disturbance. If they had had a discussion, and he hoped this matter would be brought up on Report, he should have pointed out that large numbers of tenancies were held in two or three names. On his own estates he had 120 tenancies in respect to which more than one name appeared
634
in the agreement. Every one of those agreements would have to be altered and the name of one tenant put in, therefore it was only reasonable that time should be given for the alteration of this practice which was so general and so widespread. He frankly confessed that he would make no promise with regard to this clause, but he had been willing to agee to it. He had hoped that it would have been sufficient to put off the evil day till Michaelmas, 1908, but he had found that there were many tenancies which terminated on old Michaelmas day, which was 11th October, and therefore it was absolutely necessary in order that these agreements should be put in order, to defer the Act to 1909.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid it was originally proposed that the Bill should come into force on the first of January, 1908. It was expected then that it would become law before last Michaelmas. If it had, notice, in the case of an annual tenancy, would have had to be given to the tenant and the tenancy would have had to expire before the agreement could have been altered. If that had not been the intention of the Government they would not have carried the Bill as it stood. Now that its passing had been postponed he could not understand why there thould be any objection to this Amendment.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON:I cannot but think that it would be a great disadvantage to landlords and tenants alike if this Bill, having been passed, should be allowed to be inoperative for so long a period as twenty-five mouths. It seems to me that great difficulties may arise in consequence; that landlords may not carry out the intention of the Act and tenants may feel agrieved because landlords do not adopt it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked how the landlord was to give notice to a tenant. A yearly tenancy was practically a two years tenancy, because before a landlord could get rid of a tenant he had to wait till the expiration of the tenancy before he could give notice. He thought it extremely desirable that the Bill should not come into operation before they could make those

635
mutual arrangements which would be necessary in many cases.
LORD REDESDALEsaid it was obvious that unless the operation of this Bill was postponed until 1909 the landlords would be reduced to conditions of absolute impotence in regard to those tenancies which were still running. He thought that would be most unfair.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am of course in the hands of the Committee, but I wish to make the strongest protest against this Amendment; I am in favour of keeping the clause as it is.
LORD SALTOUN:moved a slight alteration in the words of the clause so far as it applied to Scotland. In Scotland they took no notice of the beginning of the year, but had what was called a "term day." In the event of this Bill coming into force on the 1st of January, 1909, they would, in Scotland, be put back three months till November. But in the event of this Amendment being adopted it would bring its operation up to the first term day in 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 6, after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'and in its application to Scotland on the first term day thereafter.")—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot accept this Amendment. I need not go over the old ground again. Of course I am in the hands of the Committee, and I shall content myself with making a strong protest against it. I shall not go to a division.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:—
EARL CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment necessitated by and consequent on leaving out Clause 9.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 8, after the word 'and' insert the words 'shall be read and construed and"—(Earl Carrington.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON,in moving the omission of the preamble, said: This is another drafting Amendment which ought to have been made in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked whether the noble Earl would not now rename the Bill. It was ridiculous to call it the "Land Tenure Bill;" it ought to be called the Agricultural Holdings Act Amendments Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to postpone the question of title until Report.
Standing Committee negatived.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 238.)

STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

BURIALS BILL.
REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. [No. 239.]
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL. [No. 240.]
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow; (Earl Beauchamp). (No. 241.)

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 242.)
House adjourned at One o'clock a.m., till Eleven o'clock a.m.