§ Order of the Day, for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, and the reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments, read.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)My Lords, before I move that the House proceed with the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and their reasons for disagreement I would ask the indulgence of the House for one or two minutes on a personal matter. I hope I may be permitted to express to your Lordships my thanks for the consideration, patience, and courtesy which have been shown to me throughout the negotiations connected with this Bill. I acknowledge that the House considered this Bill, as originally introduced, distasteful. I also acknowledge that it created some alarm among a small minority of your Lordships' House, who regarded it as dangerous and revolutionary. In thanking your Lordships for the way in which you have treated me I hope I may say that I have tried to play my part with my cards on the table, and if I have said anything in anyway to irritate or annoy, I beg your Lordships to believe that it was done by accident and not by design.
I hope I may also claim that my colleague who had charge of the Bill in another place has tried to do his duty in the same way. That he succeeded is shown by the fact that when the Bill was read a Third Time in the House of Commons no division of any sort was claimed. The Bill then came up to your Lordships' House, and you were good enough to give it a Second Reading without a Division. It was generously acknowledged by noble Lords opposite that every effort had been made in the other House to meet legitimate criticism, and in Committee in this House the only clause proposed to be left out was the absolutely new proposal providing for compensation for disturbance. A Motion was made to omit that clause, but only eighteen members of your Lordships' House voted for its omission; so that I think I may fairly claim that there has been in this House a recognition 1827 of the principle of the Bill, and also, what is very important, of the main clauses of the Bill.
I will now briefly narrate what happened in the other House last night. A Motion was made—perhaps it was not unexpected—in one quarter to reject your Lordships' Amendments en bloc. But that Motion was not entertained by the House, and at the Government's desire the House of Commons at once settled down to consider your Lordships' Amendments seriatim and to see what could be fairly and legitimately accepted The Government indicated, and the indication is on this Paper, what Amendments they could not accept. I will read to your Lordships what Mr. Long, the acting Leader of the Opposition, said:—
The Opposition had no desire, at this stage of the session, to contest the course which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Lords' Amendments. For himself, he still held the opinion, which he had expressed on the Third Reading, that the Bill was a fair and reasonable compromise between those who represented the various interests in land, and that as it left the House of Commons there was nothing in it of which any reasonable person need be afraid. He thought the course that was proposed by His Majesty's Government was fair, and one that need not meet with persistent opposition.'There was one Amendment postponing the date of the coming into force of this Bill till 1909. I gave a distinct pledge in this House that I thought that was fair. I was very much impressed with Lord St. Aldwyn's arguments on that point, and I gave a direct pledge to the House that that should be the date for its coming into force if it pleased your Lordships to pass the Bill. It is an open secret that that pledge of mine was not at all acceptable to my Radical supporters in another place. They kicked violently at the proposal, but they recognised that an Englishman's word is his bond. I have said that, having given the pledge, nothing on earth would induce me to go back upon it. They fully accepted it, and I am very grateful to them for having supported me. But they do look upon it as a very great concession, and I quite acknowledge that it is. I am very grateful to them for that concession, and I hope your Lordships will accept the two or three Amendments on the Paper as a sort of return for that concession. I 1828 beg to move that the House do now consider the Commons Amendments and reasons.
§ Moved, "That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and the reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl that the other House went through our Amendments and that nothing can be legitimately complained of as a matter of form, but this House has not got so much in detail as it ought to have done. I say that more particularly with reference to that part of the Bill in which I am personally interested—namely, those clauses which I think are unfair to our Scottish system. The noble Earl talked about the language that had been used in regard to this Bill, and he said it had been described as dangerous and revolutionary. I have never used that language about it. If I had thought that, I should have moved to reject it on Second Reading. What I have said about it is that I think it is unfair, and, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, I regard it in its application to Scotland as quite exceptionally stupid.
The noble Earl has made a great point of the concession of the date 1909. So far as Scotland is concerned it is not of the slightest value; it does not touch the question of leases. It is, I believe, of use to those whose land is let in yearly tenancies, and I am very glad that they should have it. When the noble Lord talks about his word being his bond I must remind him that this was a concession accepted by him and promised to the House. If I understand the proceedings in another place rightly, the noble Earl is accurate in saying that his Radical followers, of whom he seems to stand in considerable awe, only accepted that concession on condition that the noble Earl succeeded in inducing this House to give up three or four things to which they attach considerable value. The acceptance of a proposal in this House by a Cabinet Minister ought to be a pledge by itself, and ought not afterwards to be bartered away in exchange 1829 for three or four things which we are asked to swallow but which we very much dislike. I put that point in all seriousness, and I think it is a perfectly fair one.
The issue before us is practically whether we will accept all that the House of Commons have done or run the risk of losing the Bill. That is really the issue. There are two or three things in the Bill as it now comes back to us of which I most seriously complain. It applies conditions quite unnecessarily, as I think, to existing contracts. The noble Earl has said that the great majority of tenant farmers are in favour of the Bill. I will not profess to speak for England, but I can assure him, from my knowledge of Scotland, that in Scotland, at any rate, there are not 10 per cent. of the farmers who care twopence for the Bill, and that those who do care about it and know about it are rather inclined to be actively hostile to it in its present form. The application of this measure to existing contracts is, in my opinion, utterly immoral and indefensible. I cannot help it, but I make that protest. I venture to say that if this Bill had been brought in for Scotland alone or with any care for the interests of Scotland, such a clause as that would never have found the slightest acceptance by any practical man. I wish to point out the utter folly of dealing with England and Scotland, their customs being so different, in one Bill.
The proceedings of last night intensify my feeling that we agriculturists in Scotland have been treated in this matter with needless carelessness and almost with injustice. This is due to the Government's taking up private Bills for the inception of which they are not responsible, and which were never intended to apply to Scotland. The situation in the present case has arisen on account of the absolute ignorance of the President of the Board of Agriculture of our Scottish conditions and the supineness of the Scottish Members of the Cabinet. I take some blame to myself, but I was misled by the speech of the noble Earl in Edinburgh on October 10th. I knew all the time—every one of us must have known—that this Bill was utterly unsuited to Scotland as it then stood. That fact was brought to the knowledge 1830 of the noble Earl when he was in Edinburgh in October. He acknowledged it and in distinct terms promised us a Scottish application clause. Here are his words—
I would also remind you that the Solicitor General for Scotland, who has given me valued assistance, expresses the opinion that it would not be difficult to adapt the Bill to Scottish procedure, and that this could readily be done by means of an application clause which might be added to the Bill.I venture to say that a fair interpretation of that speech is that the noble Earl had been convinced by his visit to Scotland and to Scottish tenant farmers that this Bill as it stood was not suitable to Scottish procedure, and that he intended when he returned to London to see whether he could not, before the Bill came up to this House, apply it to Scotland in such a way as to do us less damage.There are points of difference, as everybody knows, both in procedure andmatters of law and in matters of custom, which it is of the utmost importance should be preserved according to the wishes and desires of the two countries respectively. I would have preferred a Scottish Bill altogether, but if the Government, after adopting this Bill, had applied their minds in good time to drafting a Scottish application clause the whole thing could have been got through with much less difficulty. At the last moment there was placed upon your specially wards withdrawn, and was subsequently taken up by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The application of the ground game provisions to Scotland is felt to be a grievance by many tenant farmers. I think if it had been limited to some of the larger holdings, the hill holdings and so on, there would have been a case for it. I thought it was too much to ask this House to put in a limited Scottish application clause of that kind when we were being so much injured by the other clauses not specially applying to Scotland, and on that ground I opposed it.
I would contrast the position in which we are placed with that of our friends from Ireland. The Town Tenants Bill was an Irish Bill; it was discussed 1831 according to Irish circumstances and amended to suit Irish circumstances, with the result that it has become law. I think that, on the whole, a fair compromise was arrived at. But, so far as Scotland is concerned in regard to this Bill, we have hardly got one thing. With the exception of the provision which I myself moved relating to arable and pasture land, the Bill will do nothing but harm to Scottish custom and procedure. I am glad to think that agricultural associations are being rapidly formed in Scotland. These associations embrace both landlords and tenants. I hope they will live and thrive and prosper, and that through their instrumentality pressure will be brought to bear on Parliament in the near future to amend the worse points of the Bill as applying to Scotland. Believing that, I am not desirous of contesting any of the Amendments which have come up from another place. I think the way in which we have been treated in this matter ought to be a lesson to us and to Governments not to attempt to deal with the two countries, in matters in which their custom and practice are so diverse, within the scope of one Bill.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)My Lords, as my noble friend behind me cannot speak again on this question, and as my noble friend who has just sat down seems to be inclined to impugn the good faith of my noble friend, I feel bound to say that I cannot agree with that view. Generally it is undoubtedly correct that a Government which accepts Amendments in this House should adhere to those Amendments, but if the other House rejects the Amendments, and if the Bill is likely to be lost, it is only reasonably good management—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDid the Government support these Amendments in another place?
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI was not present when they were dealt with, and I have been a good deal engaged lately and have not had time to read the discussion on the subject. Whatever may have happened in this respect, I think that the Government are perfectly right in not asking your Lordships 1832 to insist upon Amendments insistence upon which would lead to the rejection of the Bill altogether. If the rule referred to were pushed to its most extreme application it would prevent the Government from ever accepting any Amendments in this House. If the principle is pressed to the extent my noble friend has pressed it I shall be greatly disinclined to recommend my noble friends who may be in charge of Bills in this House ever to accept any Amendment which your Lordships may submit.
I will not follow my noble friend in his main observations, because, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think he wandered beyond the real subject of discussion. The Motion we are discussing is that the Commons Amendments be considered, and anything beyond the consideration of those Amendments lies outside the matter with which the House is at present engaged. But there is one point upon which I should like to say a word. My noble friend on this occasion and on former occasions has alluded to certain Amendments which were put down on the paper by Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, afterwards withdrawn, and subsequently taken up by my noble friend behind me I am the guilty person in that case. I am, I confess, a bit of a martinet about the proceedings of members of the Government, and I thought, and I think still, that it is not a correct proceeding that any member of the Government except the member in charge of the Bill should put down Amendments upon a Government Bill. Therefore I counselled Lord Hamilton to withdraw those Amendments from the Paper. There was nothing in the least mysterious about that; there was nothing in it which implied any sinister intention on the part of the Government one way or the other.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDMy Lords. I hesitate very much to call in question any dictum of the noble Marquess who has just sat down as to what is and what is not orderly in debate, but I must protest against any attempt to limit the scope of this discussion to the question of considering not one or other of the Commons Amendments but whether we should consider them at all, which is now the question before the House. On the 1833 question whether or not we should consider the Commons Amendments I conceive that we have a perfect right to consider whether the character of the Bill generally is one which makes it worth while to accept those Amendments.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI did not contest that. All I said was that you should consider the Commons Amendments and not other parts of the Bill. Noble Lords should confine themselves to the points within those Amendments.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI venture to think that the character of the Bill generally enters into the question whether the Commons Amendments are worth considering or not. I do not, however, wish to contest further the dictum of the noble Marquess. But I must call attention to the remarkable statement which the noble Earl made at the opening of his remarks. What a wonderful Government we have! The strongest Government of modern times; it came in with a majority in the House of Commons absolutely unprecedented. Yet we have the Minister for Agriculture wringing his hands over the unruly behaviour of the Labour members; and the noble Marquess the Leader of this House now tells your Lordships that it is quite impossible to control this majority even so far as to get them to back up one of their Cabinet Ministers in the pledges he has made. The pledge which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture gave us was more or less in the nature of a bargain. We tried to amend this Bill so as to make it satisfactory.
Allow me to say this, in passing, that when the noble Earl takes credit for having prevented the House of Commons sending back this Bill as it came from their House and rejecting all our Amendments en bloc, he forgets that a considerable part, I think the majority, of those Amendments were his own. I do not mean to say that some of those Amendments were not brought forward in deference to suggestions from this side of the House, but a great many of them were necessitated in consequence of the extraordinary state in which the Bill came up to this House. I maintain that 1834 the Government would have stultified themselves for all time if they had allowed the Bill to become law in the state in which it left the House of Commons. Therefore I cannot, consider that the Government are entitled to much credit for having resisted a proposal to reject our Amendments en bloc.
Let me revert to what I was saying amoment ago. The noble Earl gave us certain pledges. He said that if we would not insist upon certain Amendments, he would, on the other hand, agree to certain concessions. That was a bargain—a matter of political honour between one side of the House and the other. Then when the Bill went down to the other House negotiations took place between the noble Earl and his own supporters. Now the noble Earl comes to your Lordships and says—"We are not going to give you all that we promised. Having induced you to give up your side of the case we are going to withdraw from our part of the bargain." That is not fair play. If the Government are really going to do that, then they must come to this honest confession—that they are a miserable weak head with an unruly tail, and, therefore, they are no Government at all. If they take up that attitude then let the country clearly understand what sort of Government it has at the head of its affairs.
I do not agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that the stupidity of this measure is confined to Scotland. I venture to say that no Bill could have been brought forward dealing with agricultural holdings which would bring so much unpopularity upon His Majesty's Mnisters as this measure will when it gets into working order. Every tenant farmer in the country will realise it presently. The Government at present do not appreciate the effect of their own measure, and, judging from yesterday's discussion in the House of Commons, there are only a few Members there who understand it. I believe that the action which we are now taking in protesting against the hurried passage of such measures as this is one which will redound to the credit of the House of Lords. I hope that noble Lords and others throughout the country will take care 1835 that the people of England shall understand upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility for such miserably bad legislation.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)My Lords, I do not propose to touch upon the latter part of the noble Duke's speech dealing with the merits of the Bill as an amendment of our agricultural holdings legislation, but I do desire to say one word on the earlier part of his speech, which dealt with the character of the pledges given by my noble friend in this House and the treatment of the Bill in the House of Commons. I do not think it is possible for noble Lords opposite to maintain that my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has in any way fallen short of the pledges he has given to the House.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWEI will deal with that in a moment. What the Opposition appear to expect is that when a Minister gives a pledge that he will accept a particular proposal, that pledge is to be taken singly and without reference to the rest of the Bill. I can only repeat what my noble friend the Leader of the House, said that if that were so it would make it impossible for any Government who were in a minority in this House to enter into any kind of bargain at all. Placed as we are in this minority, it is perfectly obvious that all bargains must have reference to what takes place in both Houses. Perhaps I may claim to know something, from the events of the last few weeks, about bargaining, and it is perfectly evident that it is impossible for the Government, being in a minority in this House, to make a pledge on a particular clause without its being regarded in another place as forming part of an ultimate bargain effecting the whole measure.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWENoble Lords opposite are in a different position from us. They never have to make these 1836 bargains at all. When they are in office the whole matter is for them perfectly simple. When you have a majority in both Houses the process of bargaining never takes place at all, and therefore I am inclined to think that the criticism upon our action in this matter from noble Lords opposite is, at any rate, founded on no kind of experience. They have not experienced the extreme difficulty of carrying measures through this House in the position in which we are placed owing to the permanent majority of noble Lords opposite. I repeat that if the theory of Lord Balfour, enforced by the noble Duke, were to be carried out to its full extent, the result would simply be that we should never be able to give a distinct pledge to accept any proposal which noble Lords opposite might choose to make.
LORD SALTOUNWill the noble Earl give me the explanation for which I asked? I refer to the application to Scotland.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI must leave that to my noble friend. I have no knowledge of Scottish customs and procedure.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI said so inadvertently. I have no knowledge of the particular circumstances, and must leave the matter to my noble friend.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think there is, perhaps, some convenience in a general discussion such as that which has been going on, and I therefore propose, before the Question is put, to add one or two very short observations to those which have already been made. The whole of these Amendments are more or less inter-dependent, and it is quite impossible to discuss three or four points involved without being naturally led to the consideration of other points as well. I observed that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took credit to his friends in the House of Commons that they did 1837 not reject our Amendments en bloc. As fifty-five out of seventy-one Amendments were inserted by His Majesty's Ministers themselves—to say nothing of twelve other Amendments to which they consented—I think it is straining the imagination a good deal to conceive that the whole of the Amendments should have been dealt with in that summary fashion. I readily admit that this Bill has been considerably changed for the better in its passage through the two Houses. Some people have applied to it the epithet "revolutionary." I do not know that that is the exact epithet I should have chosen. I think I should have been inclined to summarise the Parliamentary history of the Bill by saying that its origin was somewhat obscure, that its youth was erratic and tempestuous, and that its advanced age has manifested some of the characteristics of advanced age—that it is feeble and comparatively toothless.
With regard to the Amendments before the House, I am disposed to agree with my noble friend, Lord Balfour, in thinking that it is not necessary to do more than enter a strong protest against the first three Amendments. But something more requires to be said with respect to what we have been told by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in regard to the kind of bargain to which he asks us to be parties, as to the retention in the eleventh clause of the substituted date of 1909. That Amendment was accepted by the noble Earl, and, with all the emphasis which a Minister could possibly use, he pledged himself to its retention. The Amendment was, I understand, supported by His Majesty's Government in the House of Commons and carried by them in the face of a certain amount of opposition from their supporters. Surely that is a self-contained, complete transaction. Now for the fulfilment of that pledge of the noble Earl we are asked to pay a price—the price being the abandonment of certain Amendments to which some of your Lordships attach great importance.
I should like some further explanation of the rejection of the Amendment which provided that questions arising under Clause 4 as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause, or for 1838 reasons inconsistent with good estate management, should be deemed, for the purposes of the provisions of arbitration, to be a question of law. I understand that this proposal originally emanated from the Bench opposite, and that if it is omitted we shall have to fall back on the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, under which it is left optional to the arbitrator to state a case. The object of the Amendment was to declare that those questions which are sometimes questions of fact, some times questions of law, and at other times questions of fact and law mixed, should be deemed to be questions of law, and so to give the right to require a case to be stated, thus providing for an appeal. That is regarded as a valuable safeguard with which we are loth to part, and I would like to have some assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on this question.
I do not want to make a Second Reading speech on this occasion, but I do desire in half-a-dozen words to express my entire concurrence with what has been said by a noble friend behind him as to the unwisdom of gratuitously disturbing the relations of landlord and tenant in this country by this kind of legislation. Many of those by whom this legislation is recommended are wholly unaware of the exceptionally advantageous position which the occupiers of land in this country hold. I do not believe that in any part of the civilised world a man who is not the owner but the occupier of the land occupies it under such favourable conditions. Noble Lords opposite are no doubt sincere in their desire that we should not by a stroke of the pen create dual ownership in England. ["Hear, hear."] I am glad of that cheer. We are, then, to deal with these people as occupiers, and their position as occupiers is more advantageous than that of any other class of tenant farmers in any other part of the world. They have security of tenure. The greater part of their capital is supplied by their partner, the landlord. When times are bad he assists them in bearing the brunt and shelters them from risks from which no other persons in their position are sheltered. To my mind this interference with that state of things is an unwise one. I do not believe it is desired by the farmers of this country. 1839 I do not believe it will improve the relations between landlord and tenant, nor do I for an instant believe it will do anything to improve agriculture in these islands.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIn reference to the point upon which the noble Marquess has asked my opinion, I may say that the object the Government have in view is only to avoid appeals on questions of fact. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there is a provision that by the direction of the County Court Judge or by the will of the arbitrator any question of law may be left in the form of a special case. But that is merely a question of law. The universal practice in arbitrations is for the arbitrator to find on facts without an appeal. Of course, if he is corrupt, or does not hear the parties, or there is something irregular in the process, the Court may interfere; but if he is honest and fair his finding on fact is always taken. Your Lordships have by your Amendment said that the questions of fact specified therein should be regarded as if they were questions of law. The only effect of striking out the sub-section will be to leave these questions of fact to the final determination of the arbitrator.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI move that your Lordships agree with an Amendment to your Amendment on Clause 1. Your Amendment was—
§ "In Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after '1900' to Insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation. Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation.'
§ The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out from the word "compensation" to the end of the Amendment. This is done on the advice of the Solicitor-General, and I move that your Lordships agree.
1840§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI would remind the House that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted the proviso in question and expressed the opinion that it was an improvement. I would like to ask why does he not think it an improvement now. Can he assure us that the clause will have the same effect without this proviso? Unless that is so I think the proposed Amendment is a great mistake and that it will do a great deal of harm.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe only answer I can give is that the Solicitor-General has advised the omission of these words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNPerhaps I did not make my question clear. It is this—Has the Solicitor-General given it as his opinion that without this proviso the clause does not interfere with valuations?
§ EARL CARRINGTONI believe that is so.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe next of your Lordships' Amendments which the Commons have amended is the following—
§ "In Clause 2, page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'intention to make a claim for compensation' and to insert the words 'the damage.'
§ The Commons amend this Amendment by omitting the words, "the damage." This is also an Amendment suggested by the Solicitor-General. The provision will then read—
§ "But no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing is given to the landlord."
§ Moved, "That this House do agree to the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
§ On Question Motion agreed to.
1841§ EARL CARRINGTONI move that your Lordships do not insist on your next Amendment—
§ "In Clause 2, page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'made before the commencement of this Act,"
§ to which the Commons disagree because the omission of the words might enable contracting out.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI should like the noble Earl to give us some further explanation. This as one of the Amendments which the noble Earl accepted as just. After the doctrine which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has laid down, that no pledge given by any Party which is in a minority in this House is worth the paper it is written on—
§ *THE EARL OF CREWEI beg the noble Duke's pardon. I never said anything approaching that, as he must be quite aware.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI think that is what it came to. Are we to understand that the doctrine is to be accepted that the pledges given by the President of the Board of Agriculture are not to hold good? Are the Government going to recede from that which they thought was fair both to landlord and tenant because certain Members of the House of Commons disapprove?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI think it is even stronger. This was an Amendment actually moved by the President of the Board of Agriculture himself.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI do think it is a little hard when every effort is made on our side to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite that our suggestions should be thrown back in our teeth as pledges.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI would point out that the Government are in a huge majority in the other 1842 House. The Government say they cannot help what occurs in your Lordships' House, and that they cannot help what happens in the other House where they have this huge majority. I would like to know in what possible conditions they will be able to help things.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe Commons disagree with the following proviso inserted by your Lordships—
In Clause 2, page 2, line 34, after the word 'just' to insert the words 'provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and for the purposes of this proviso a tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other immediately after the commencement of this Act, cause the tenancy to determine.They do so because they think that effect ought not to be given to indefinite or implied arrangements. I ask your Lordships not to insist on your Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI am sorry to speak so often, but the conduct of the Government is so extraordinary in this matter that one cannot help calling attention to it. Are they going to defend the House of Commons reasons? If not, why do they support them? The Amendment we have just dealt with was objected to by the Commons because the words proposed to be omitted might enable contracting out. Now the Commons leave out words because they object to implied agreements; so that we are not to have anything definite or implied. It means, I understand, that if a farm is let at a lower rent on account of game than would otherwise be charged, that is not to be taken into consideration. When we discussed the matter we took it for granted that it would be taken into consideration, but we wished to make it 1843 clear. We hardly expected that His Majesty's Government would come forward and support a proposal of the House of Commons that the arbitrator should not take this fact into consideration.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)I must protest against the line the noble Duke is taking in regard to this Bill. Certain Amendments were put into the Bill by your Lordships to which the House of Commons do not agree, and they propose certain others. My noble friend is not deserving of the strictures that have been passed upon him. Certain action has been decided upon by the Government in the House of Commons, and my noble friend is carrying out the decision that has been arrived at. If the noble Duke does not agree with this Amendment, let him move its rejection. It is not business simply to criticise without taking some direct step.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI cannot admit that the noble Duke's criticism is improper. The Government said the House of Commons did not agree to the proviso. Have they no control over the other House?
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHThe Government supports the view of the House of Commons.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe have been told that the Government are a miserable and weak-headed Government, and that nothing can be expected of us; that we are stupid both as regards England and Scotland.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI never said the Government were weak-headed.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf these things had been said of the noble Duke he would be wanting neither in the intelligence to perceive them nor in the spirit to resent them; and the Government are not wanting in those respects. 1844 The course open to the noble Duke and his friends is easy. If they do not agree with the Commons, let them vote against them. If they are not prepared to do that, I think the noble Duke, out of consideration for Ministers who have not altogether a very easy duty in this House, should refrain from observations which can do no possible good.
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI am extremely sorry if anything that fell from me went beyond fair criticism. I did say this was a miserable Government, and I do not think that was unparliamentary. I never said they were weak-headed. Although I do sometimes speak strongly, I do not think I am ever discourteous. When a charge is brought against me I like to have, chapter and verse, what I have said that is wrong.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy noble friend was of course entitled to move that we insist on our Amendment, and in doing so he could, no doubt, have made a full statement which would have required an answer. But my noble friend did not desire to go to that length. Still, he is entitled to seek to obtain from the Minister of Agriculture some rather more ample explanation than that contained in the brief statement on the Paper of the reasons for which the Amendment was objected to by the Commons. The noble Earl has given no explanation beyond that which we can all glean from reading the line and a half printed on the Paper.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI am sure no one would accuse the noble Duke of using discourteous language intentionally of any Member of the House. If it please him to call us a miserable Government, well, we must bear it as well as we can. I must confess, however, that it has not much effect upon me. I think there has been a great deal of discussion, I will not say irregular, but more or less personal on matters which lie rather outside the business we have got to do. What we all want to do is not to lose the Bill. Had we not better take steps to get to that end without delay?
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
1845§ EARL CARRINGTONThe next Amendment is in Clause 3—
In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry.The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." Perhaps I may be permitted to quote the views of Mr. Long on this Amendment. Mr. Long stated in the other House that if he thought the exclusion of these words would expose the land of the country the risk of wild experiments at the hands of those who knew very little about land cultivation, he would do his best to secure their retention; but he thought the clause placed the tenant in entirely satisfactory limitations, and he was afraid the introduction of the words might lead to confusion and litigation. I hope that in these circumstances your Lordships will agree to omit the words.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe next of your Lordships' Amendments which the Commons amend deals with leases. It is—
§ "In Clause 3, page 3, line 12, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom, contract, or agreement. Provided that this sub-section shall not apply—
- '(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years or longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or,
- '(b) In any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding.''
§ The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out paragraphs (a) and (b), and inserting the following paragraphs—
- " '(a) In the case of a tenancy from year to year as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or,
- '(b) In any other case as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."
§
I will again quote Mr. Long. Speaking on this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said—
The whole difference between them narrowed itself down to a question of three
1846
years or one year. He thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the Lords Amendment, but he was bound to recognise that the Act of 1900 did interfere with existing holdings. This carried it further, because it interfered with leases, and interfered with them in a way which was somewhat serious. He believed there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the original form of this particular provision, and, on balance, he did not feel himself justified in offering opposition to the action of the Government.
In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree to the Commons Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI hope the noble Earl sees the effect of the Amendment he is now proposing. It puts all these holdings on exactly the same footing as yearly tenancies. The result of that in Scotland will be seen in a very short time. So far from this being of any benefit to tenants, it will be of great disadvantage to them. Owners of land are but human, and they will not be likely to tie themselves up for a period of nineteen years when they will be bound by the same conditions as owners who let their land on yearly tenancies. Therefore I believe a great and prejudicial change will come over the system of agriculture in Scotland in consequence of this Amendment.
LORD LOVATI also desire to protest against this Amendment, which can only have the effect of putting an end to nineteen years leases in Scotland. We shall at once revert to the system of yearly tenancies, which, I am afraid, will not lead to the best results. I fear that in consenting to this Amendment the Government have done so without fully considering its effect.
LORD SALTOUNI must join my protest to those of noble Lords who have spoken. In Scotland tenants have always regarded the nineteen years lease as securing them fixity of tenure, but by this Amendment that will be taken away. We Scottish landowners will have to adopt the one-year lease system for the future, and I confess with great regret 1847 that I fail to see how that can in any way improve the conditions between landlord and tenant.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI now come to a rather technical Amendment. The Amendment inserted by your Lordships was as follows—
In Clause 3, page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word 'deterioration' to the end of clause, and to insert the words 'as is required by this section or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section.(4) In this section the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy is to be retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy.The Commons have amended this Amendment by leaving out the words—Or in respect of other provisions made for the purpose of complying with this section.They insert in lieu thereof the following Amendment—'In page 3, line 22, to leave out the words 'Manures as defined by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been used,' and to insert the words' Improvements comprised in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made.If it is desired by any noble Lord, I will explain this Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHI am glad to be able to say that I think the Amendment sent up to us meets the point in view. Personally I am quite satisfied with it.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONIn Clause 4 your Lordships agreed to the following Amendment—
In page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'goods, implements, produce or stock' and insert the words 'household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding." Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable—1848The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out paragraph (e).
- '(a) Unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid; or
- '(b) Unless the tenant has within two month after he has received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the tenancy, as the case may be, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this section; or
- '(c) Where the tenant with whom a 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 before the refusal to grant a renewal; or
- '(d) If the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding; or
- '(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of the Act."
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHI understand that the whole of our Amendment is accepted by the House of Commons with the exception of paragraph (e). It was upon that paragraph that we in Scotland relied to save our existing contracts. We had resolved to bear the disadvantage if only we could save our existing contracts. We are now denied that privilege. If this Amendment is resisted, there is a great danger of losing the Bill for those south of the Tweed, to whom it may be an advantage; but I think the omission of paragraph (e) is unfair and improper in itself and will have extremely bad results in Scotland. I most earnestly enter my protest against the breach of existing contracts, and I shall take the one course open to me of placing on the records of this House my protest against this procedure, so that it shall not be quoted against me that I have agreed to it.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI now come to the last Amendment. Your Lordships inserted in Clause 4, page 4, line 11—
(2) Any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration 1849 relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from be deemed to be a question of law.The Commons disagree to this Amendment, because they consider that the questions are not questions of law.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDThis is the most important point in the Bill except perhaps Clause 4, and the lucid explanation which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack previously gave us only increases the difficulty. Such an important and intricate matter as what is good estate management ought not to be left to an arbitrator whose primary duty is to consider the values of manures. I pointed out before that it was quite evident that a mind capable of adequately dealing with manurial matters would probably be quite in competent to deal with these larger and more important questions. The noble Earl agreed. I had an Amendment on the Paper and so had the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, and the insertion of this sub-section was and absolute agreement. I would appeal to the noble Earl and the Government whether they really think that it is just to leave is in this position—that these important questions of estate policy should be decided by an ordinary arbitrator. We are perfectly aware that any of these questions may be referred by the arbitrator to a legal tribunal, but what we want to enforce is that the arbitrator shall not him self decided upon them. The noble Earl surely on this subject has an opinion of his own that he is going to stand by.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI regert that I cannot meet the appeal of the Duke. I have done all I can to meet reasonable appeals, but it is obvious that I cannot meet this appeal at the last moment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI listened with great attention to the explanation with which the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack kindly favoured us, but I do not think it quite 1850 touched the point which interests us on this side. We feel that in many cases the difference that may arise is not one which ought to be disposed of by the class of person who presumably will be appointed to act as arbitrator under this Bill. It is quite true that where you have a simple question of fact it is not desirable that it should go beyond the arbitrator, but when you come to such a question, for example, as whether the tenant whom the landlord seeks to dispossess is a person who has habitually misconducted himself, an evil liver, it does seem to us rather hard that a point of that kind should be left entirely to the arbitrament of one of these arbitrators, who may be an auctioneer in a country town, perfectly competent to deal with the manurial value of certain substances, but not competent to deal with the more important primary duty is to consider the values matter. I do not think the explanation of the noble and learned Lord quite met our case.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not hold that the arbitrator indicated by the Bill is necessarily the best person to decide the character and the general conduct of a tenant apart from his agricultural abilities. That is rather a matter for a jury; but I would point out how "cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd" the authiority is. The Amendment of your Lordships simply provided for the circumstance where a landlord acts without good and sufficient cause. I think that this provision would relate to an agricultural cause. It may be otherwise, however, and if so there is a defect, but that, again, is not really a question of law. I interpret the meaning of the Amendment, as it strands, as relating to agricultural reasons and that it does not involve any consideration of a moral character.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDoes the noble and learned Lord say that the other reasons would never be taken into consideration?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI should not like to say that without referring to the Bill.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.