Clause 11:— (Hansard, 13 December 1906)

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
moved to alter the date of the Act's coming into operation from 1908 to 1909.

§ 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 NORTHUMBERLAND
said 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. ALDWYN
said 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 CAMPERDOWN
asked 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 REDESDALE
said 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.

§ 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.