Clause 4:—

HL Deb 13 December 1906 vol 167 cc581-629

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said 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 SALISBURY

suggested 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 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 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 CLONBROCK

said 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 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- 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 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. ALDWYN

said 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 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, 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 would humbly advise their Lordships to I leave the matter as it stood in this Bill.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

hardly 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 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 SALISBURY

said 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 SALISBURY

said 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 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 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- 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 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 RIBBLESDALE

said 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 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 PORTSMOUTH

said 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 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. ALDWYN

moved 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 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 BURLEIGH

said 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 WINCHESTER

said 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 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 LORD

said 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 LORD

said there was a year's notice given as to whether the tenant was going to continue the lease or to quit.

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER

asked 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 CAMPERDOWN

said 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 HYLTON

moved 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 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. ALDWYN

said 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 BURLEIGH

said 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 CARRINGTON

this 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 CAMPERDOWN

asked 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 BURLEIGH

said 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 GALWAY

said 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 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 PORTSMOUTH

said 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 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 LONDONDERRY

admitted 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 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 SALTOUN

said 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 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 GALWAY

said 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 CAMPERDOWN

said 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 CAMPERDOWN

said 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 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 HENEAGE

said 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 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. ALDWYN

said 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 dissented.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said 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 HENEAGE

said 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 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 BURGHCLERE

said 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 ALDERLEY

said 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 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 GALWAY

said 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 FORTESCUE

moved to insert the word "household" before "goods," 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 LORD

hoped 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

said 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 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 FORTESCUE

said 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 YARBOROUGH

moved 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 YARBOROUGH

said 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 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. ALDWYN

said 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 FORTESCUE

said 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 SALTOUN

said 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 SALTOUN

asked 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 BRETTON

said 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. ALDWYN

said 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

said 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 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 SALTOUN

said 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

said 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 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 ZOUCHE

said 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 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 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 PORTSMOUTH

said 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. ALDWYN

said 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 CAMPERDOWN

said 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 LORD

pointed 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

said 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 PLYMOUTH

moved 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 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. ALDWYN

said 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 BURLEIGH

said 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 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 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 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. ALDWYN

said he could quite understand that the noble Lord had a strong claim with regard to nineteen 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 BURLEIGH

said 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 LORD

said he did not see why nineteen years should be inserted.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said 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. ALDWYN

said 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. ALDWYN

thought 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 WINCHESTER

said 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 COMMHTEES

said 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.