§ 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 CARRINGTONThe 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.
§ Amendment moved—
§ "In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words 'of arable land."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
554§ 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.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI understand from Lord Heneage that he wishes Lord Balfour's Amendment to apply to England. [Cries of "No."]
§ 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 CARRINGTONThen 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 BURLEIGHWill the noble Earl point out one difficulty that is put in the way of the bad tenant by the Bill?
§ EARL CARRINGTONIf 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 BURLEIGHBut 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 CARRINGTONI 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 LANSDOWNEI 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.
§ 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 LONDONDERRYhoped 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 CARRINGTONI 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 RIPONI 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.
565| 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 CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI 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.
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 CARRINGTONAnything 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 CARRINGTONI 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.
573| 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.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONIf the noble Lord is willing to agree to that I will accept Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved 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 CARRINGTONI 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.
§ 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 CARRINGTONI 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 DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought the Committee ought to have some assurance as to what part of the Bill the provision was in.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI 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 CARRINGTONI agree to that.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§ "To leave out sub-seetion (4)."
581§ 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.