§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ Notices to Quit for Purposes of Sale.
§ 1.—(1) Where the landlord of a holding gives to the tenant notice to quit in view of the sale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof, the notice shall state that it is so given, and a notice to quit so given shall be void unless an agreement for the sale of the holding or of some part thereof is entered into, and information in writing thereof is given to the tenant before the date on which but for this section the notice to quit would have taken effect; and if an agreement for sale is so entered into, the notice to quit shall not take effect until one year from the day of expiry next succeeding the date on which information that an agreement for sale has been entered into is given to the tenant:
§ Provided that within two months after the receipt of a notice to quit under this section a tenant may give notice ill writing to the landlord that he accepts the notice as notice to determine the tenancy on the date on which but for this section it would have taken effect, and thereupon the notice to quit shall operate to determine the tenancy as if this Act had not been passed:
§ Provided further that if, not later than two mouths before the expiration of the notice so given by the landlord, an agreement is entered into for the purchase of the holding or any part thereof by a council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for the purposes of small holdings, and notice of such agreement is given to the tenant, the notice given by the landlord shall, as regards the land to which the agreement relates, be treated for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1910, as having been given at the request of the council with a view to the use of the land for the provision of small holdings.
§ (2) The expression "day of expiry" means the day on which a year of the tenancy expires.
17THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY To THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS)The first Amendment standing in my name is one of which I gave notice in Committee. It is simply intended to prevent contracting out of this Bill. We have had a great deal of experience in connection with previous Acts that unless some words of this kind are inserted the Act gets very freely contracted out of. I could instance the case of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, now dead, and-the Market Gardeners Compensation Act. The latter Act did not contain any provision of this kind and the result is that the Act has been to a great extent a dead letter simply because it is the custom to contract out of it. We want to prevent that in this case, and therefore I move to insert these words.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, after ("(1)") at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("be void") and insert ("not take effect")
Page 1, line 15, after ("information") insert ("in writing")
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("under this section") and insert ("to which his section applies")
Page 1, line l9, leave out ("notice to determine") and insert ("determining")
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("the notice so given by the landlord") and insert ("a notice to quit to which this section applies"),—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD LUCASThe next Amendment is rendered necessary because the provision to a similar effect which was in the Bill originally was deleted by Lord St. Levan's Amendment. The provision when it was in the Bill before did not arouse any debate in this House. I think your Lordships were prepared to accept it in principle, but it was deleted by Lord St. Levan's Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("as regards the land to which the agreement relates") and insert("operate to determine the tenancy as if this Act had not been passed, and").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
18
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("and allotments").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Avoidance of Certain Notices to Quit.
§ 2. A notice given to determine a tenancy from year to year of a holding or any part thereof on a date earlier than one year after the date of the service of the notice shall be void:
§ Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a notice to determine a tenancy of an allotment given under section thirty of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
§
*LORD LUCAS had the following Amendment on the Paper to Clause 2—
Page 2, line 11, at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary") and after ("given") insert ("by a landlord") and leave out ("from year to year").
§ The noble Lord, in moving the first part of the Amendment, said: The same observations apply to this Amendment as applied to my first Amendment tonight. We want the necessary words to prevent contracting out.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary").—(Lord Lucas.)
VISCOUNT GALWAYI should like to ask the reason for the Amendment standing in the noble Lord's name. As the law is at present, a year's notice is bound to be given unless a landlord and tenant choose to agree between themselves to a six months notice. That is the almost universal custom in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and in some portions of Derbyshire and Yorkshire. I ask why the noble Lord proposes to alter that system altogether. Surely the farmers and landlords are the best judges in a matter of this kind as to what is the most convenient for the district in which they live. I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment for the reason that it would unnecessarily and unreasonably disturb a custom which has obtained for many years. If a tenant who has not sufficient means wishes to get out of his farm in six months, why should he not be allowed to do so? The longer a tenant without sufficient means goes on farming the land the worse it is for the farm and the whole district as well. The noble Lord professes 19 to wish to encourage agriculture and good farming, but the steps he is taking now can only prejudice it by keeping a tenant without sufficient means on the farm for a year and a-half when he himself would like to get out at six months and the landlord would be in a much better position without him.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHIt will be in the recollection of your Lordships that in Committee I moved an Amendment to insert at the end of the first subsection of this clause the following words, "except by mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant." I said that I did not specifically disagree with a year's notice per se and that in most cases it would be more convenient than the shorter time, but that there might be other cases where it might be to the mutual advantage of the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement to vacate the tenancy at a shorter notice. It is easy for noble Lords to see that such cases might, and perhaps do, frequently occur. Speaking upon my Amendment in Committee Lord Lucas said—
This amendment, if we were to accept it, would practically leave the law as it stands at present. I would point out that there is nothing to prevent a landlord and tenant agreeing to the surrender of a tenancy at a shorter notice, but the tenancy would then be terminated by agreement. What we object to is the termination of a tenancy by a notice under 12 months.Then I went on to say that on the understanding that there was nothing in the clause to prevent a mutual agreement on the subject I would not press my Amendment. Then after that come these sweeping words, "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." I labour under the disadvantage of not being a lawyer and I do not know the exact value of those words, but it might be that the words which it is proposed to insert now would take away that very power which the noble Lord said existed previously to this Amendment coining on—namely, that there is nothing in the law to prevent the surrender of the tenancy at a shorter notice by mutual agreement between the two sides. I think the House would like to have some authoritative statement as to what the exact effect of these proposed new words would be, because I need not repeat that it would be a lamentable state of affairs if in no circumstances whatever agreements such as I am speaking of should be allowed to be carried into effect by mutual consent between the two sides.
LORD LUCASI think the position is perfectly clear. These words are intended to prevent there being inserted in the lease an agreement by which the lease or contract shall be determined at six months notice. That is a different point from the tenancy being terminated by an agreement come to quite apart from any provision that there may be in the lease—a mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant to enable the lease to be brought to a close. If your Lordships insert the words which I am now proposing, nothing would prevent the landlord and tenant coming together and making a mutual agreement for terminating the tenancy, but it would prevent the insertion in the terms of the lease of words enabling a six months notice to be given.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNI am not quite sure that I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's explanation. The point appears to me to be this, that in parts of England yearly agreements are the rule. In many parts of England we never think of having an agreement for a farm or agricultural holding with less than twelve months notice. But in other parts of England, especially, I believe, in Lincolnshire, that is not the rule, and what the noble Lord has tried to do is to apply a hard-and-fast rule of twelve months notice all over England contrary to the custom in some parts of the country which I believe is appreciated both by landlords and tenants. That is not all. The noble Lord does not apply it to both sides, but only to the landlord. The tenant might still give six months notice, but the landlord would only be able to give twelve months notice. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I confess that for myself I very much object to interfering so harshly with the agricultural customs of England by a law which really will be, I believe, odious to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire farmers, and I hope the Government will not think it necessary to press this clause as part of the Bill.
LORD LUCASThere are two entirely separate points raised in this Amendment, and I have only moved and spoken hitherto upon the first point—namely, the insertion of the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The later part of the Amendment raises an entirely different point which I think ought to be treated separately. I do not know whether your Lordships would deal with the first part of the Amendment and then discuss the later part.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNBy inserting the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" now the noble Lord is prejudicing the question. I therefore hope your Lordships will not agree to insert these words.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOn the last occasion when this Bill was under discussion several members sitting on this side asked the Government before they persisted any further with Clause 2 to state some reasons why they considered this clause an advisable change in the law. I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to make that statement now or whether he would rather postpone his explanation until later.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)The course which would probably be most convenient would be that my noble friend in charge of the Bill should say what he has to rayon the later Amendment to omit Clause 2. The Amendment now before the House deals with two quite different points. There is, first, the point with regard to allowing agreements to be broken; and, secondly, the point as to whether landlord and tenant should have separate powers. The latter point is distinct from the one now before the House, which is whether you should allow landlords and tenants as a normal custom to contract out of the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would point out that the first part of the Amendment only deals with a matter of drafting, for whether you insert "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" or not, you are saying exactly the same thing. The words add nothing, but merely call attention to the fact that no agreement to the contrary would prevail.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble and learned Viscount is quite right. The words are not material. The question that is material is whether or not we should retain Clause 2. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Hylton) has an Amendment for the deletion of Clause 2, and it is on that Amendment, I think, that the discussion could most conveniently be taken.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
22LORD LUCASNow I come to the second part of my Amendment, which raises the whole point of Clause 2. I was instrumental in Committee in having the words struck out which I am now moving to reinsert. I dare say your Lordships will remember that the clause as it came to this House gave power to a tenant to give six months notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy, but made it incumbent upon the landlord to give twelve months notice. In the course of the Second Reading debate noble Lords pointed out that what applied to one party ought to apply to the other, and I gave rather undue weight to that argument with the result that I moved the omission of these words. On further consideration, and especially in view of what was said in Committee, I think I made a mistake. The provision ought to have been left as it was originally drafted—namely, giving the tenant power to quit after giving six months notice but making it incumbent on the landlord to give twelve months notice. In the first place, the landlord is in a very much stronger position to deal with this question than is the tenant. If the landlord objects to his tenant being able to go at six months notice it rests entirely with him. He draws up the form of the lease, and he need not insert a provision for a six months notice at all. He could make it a yearly notice, and then the question of the six months notice does not arise at all. As was pointed out, especially in the case of Lady Day tenancies, circumstances do arise under which it is a great advantage to the tenant to be able to quit at six months notice. Some of your Lordships pointed out that it is a great advantage to a man to be in a position, after his harvest is over, to make up his mind whether or not he will quit on the following Lady Day. Very often his intention to remain or to go depends very much on the kind of harvest he has had. Therefore it is a great advantage to him to be able to go at six months notice. We do not want to take that advantage away from him, and consequently we think that we ought to allow matters as regards the tenant to remain as they are at the present moment—that is to say, that he should be in a position to give six months notice of his intention to quit. On the other hand, we think it might cause an undue amount of hardship to the tenant to be made to 23 quit at six months notice. The view that this Bill is framed to carry out, and it as been freely expressed al] through the debate, is the view your Lordships accepted in the case of Lord St, Levan's Amendment—that a tenant ought to have a year to be able to look round for another farm.
LORD LUCASYes, in the case of sale. But, after all, it is immaterial, looking at it from the tenant's point of view, whether the farm is going to be sold at the end of his tenancy or whether it is going to be passed on to somebody else. The position which we want to obtain for the tenant is that he should have a clear twelve months to look round in order to find another farm.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNThe landlord ought to have a clear twelve months also to find another tenant.
LORD LUCASIf he wants it, it rests entirely with him to make it a case of a twelve months notice in the lease. That is where the landlord has the advantage, and he apparently does not mind its being a six months tenancy or he would not have his lease drafted in that way. In all these questions of bargaining the landlord has the best of it. The form of his lease is drawn up for the landlord under expert advice.
§ LORD HYLTONThe tenant does not agree to it if he does not like it.
LORD LUCASThe landlord, especially at the present time, is in a very much stronger position than the tenant is in that matter. There is another point of view that one has to consider this matter from, that is from the point of view of the actual results both to the landlord and to the tenant. The landlord where a tenancy is terminated has the farm on his hands, and he may or may not obtain another tenant. In most cases he does obtain another tenant, but even if he does not do so the amount of inconvenience and loss that he suffers is certainly not comparable to the amount of loss and inconvenience the tenant suffers who has to give up his home, sell his stock, and clear out, and find, if he can, another farm. I think one 24 is bound to admit that the tenant has very much more at stake; he stands to lose a great deal more by a change of tenancy than the landlord does, and that is a thing you have to give due consideration to in considering this point. As I said before, the position really is this, that it is a valuable privilege to the tenant especially in the case of Lady Day tenancies to be able to go at six months notice. But if the landlord has a strong objection to his tenant quitting at only six months you must remember it really lies with him, because, practically speaking, he can insist on a yearly notice. Therefore, my Lords, I think on those grounds there is a clear case for differentiating between the tenant and the landlord. This is one of those cases where, to use the words of the noble Viscount opposite, what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander, and I think it is only fair to allow this differentiation of treatment as between the landlord and the tenant.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("given") insert ("by a landlord").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Lord has made a statement, for which I am very much obliged to him, as regards the position which the Government take in this matter; but I world like to remind him that the statement he made was purely a priori. What your Lordships wanted was some information which would lead the House to conclude that the tenants in the parts of England referred to really did desire a change in the system which exists there. As the noble Viscount who sits behind me has already told your Lordships, in Lincolnshire and in Nottinghamshire and in parts of Yorkshire this system of six months notice to quit, ending at Lady Day or May Day, is a very common practice, and according to a great deal of information which has been submitted to me it is a very popular practice. I am quite aware that there is evidence upon the other side. It is a very difficult question. Some people like this system and some people do not, but in order to justify a change in the law the Government have to make out their case; they have to show that on the whole the system has worked badly, and that people do not like it. I am sorry to say I have no connection with that part of England myself, but I have taken some trouble to inquire into the 25 working of this system, and I am told that it makes for good husbandry—in fact, that during the interregnum the land is kept in proper cultivation all the time. The system is that the incoming tenant has the right to go upon the land and see that the outgoing tenant is performing his duty there. Supposing the cultivation of the land during the last six months is not properly performed he has a remedy, and the result is that when the expiration of the tenancy takes place the land is in the very best order, and the success of Lincolnshire farming is well-known all over the world. You have to deal with one of the most successful farming districts in England, and I am told on very good authority that this system works exceedingly well there and that the people do not want it altered. I wrote to a gentleman who I was informed knew all about it, and he writes this to me in reply—
I am distinctly of opinion that if we could consult or take a plebiscite vote of the tenant farmers in the county of Lincolnshire there would be a very large majority in favour of six months notice to quit.That is from a gentleman whom I believe to be thoroughly reliable in his information.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREUniversal six months notice instead of twelve?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will read the words again to the noble Marquess if he would like me to do so, because it is very important.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREYes, it is—six months notice instead of twelve?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI agree. That is the point we are discussing. Then I have another letter from a gentleman who writes to me—
We are and have been agents for no less than 120,000 acres of land in Lincolnshire"—Your Lordships will admit that a man who is agent for 120,000 acres of land in Lincolnshire has a right to an opinion on this subject—and other places, and practically the whole of the tenants are under six mouths notice. I am of opinion that you cannot do a tenant a greater injustice than to force him to take a twelve months notice.I do not think your Lordships could agree to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite 26 to make a difference between the landlord and the tenant in this matter. It is quite true that when times are as they now are the market is rather in favour of the landlord, but, of course, we must not anticipate that we are always going to have good times. In bad times, of course, the market is against the landlord, and if it is easy for a landlord to get a tenant now formerly it was not easy for him to get tenants. If it is fair, therefore, that in these times the tenant should have more than six months notice then it would have been fair in old times that the landlord should have had more than six months notice. But I submit that there is no general opinion that either one or the other wants more than six months notice. I desire to be quite fair with your Lordships' House. I have myself received letters from tenants in favour of the change, but I have read to your Lordships two letters which show that the present system works well, and that there are very strong grounds for not altering it, and I do not think until the Government have made out a stronger case than they have done that one ought to alter the law.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHIt seems to me that this Amendment would not work fairly to both sides. Take the case, not of a lease necessarily, but of a yearly agreement, which is a very common form of tenure. A yearly agreement is an agreement, and yet something may be done under this Amendment notwithstanding any agreement that has been previously made. This might be construed as allowing the tenant, notwithstanding the agreement which he has made by which there is to be a year's notice given on either side, to terminate at a shorter notice. I would further point out, although I do not wish to quibble about words, that as the words run nothing is said about a six months notice at all, so that, assuming my contention is right for the moment., the tenant in that case might give notice to go at a very much shorter notice than six months—even at one month or two weeks. I am assuming the existence of a yearly agreement where a year's notice on both sides is put into the agreement and agreed to by both sides. Then come the words, "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
27LORD LUCASThe next Amendment, to leave out the words "from year to year" is rather a technical one, but it is to prevent contracting out of the clause. It would be perfectly possible, if you confine it as the Bill does in its present form to yearly tenancies, to get out of it by letting land to a man for a term of years, say on a seven years lease determinable by either party at the end of any year of tenancy by a six months notice. That is, practically speaking, in effect a yearly tenancy terminable by six months notice, although technically it would not be. You could override this provision simply by a condition of that sort, and so these words are proposed to be inserted in order to prevent evasion of the provision.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, to leave out the words ("from year to year").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HYLTONClause 2, as now amended, runs—
Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, a notice given to determine a tenancy of a holding or any part thereof on a date earlier than one year after the service for the notice shall be void,and then follows the proviso. I have ventured to give notice to omit Clause 2 from the Bill, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with more than a few words on the subject, because the noble Viscount, Lord Galway, and the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords with much greater personal knowledge and experience than I can pretend to possess have already described that over very large portions of the country, in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and other districts, it has been found for a great many years a convenient and workmanlike method of letting farms, agreeable both to owners and to tenants, to allow a tenancy to be drawn up with power to the landlord and tenant alike to terminate it at any later day by giving notice the preceding Michaelmas, and I respectfully venture to submit to the House that not one word that has fallen from the opposite Benches shows any cause whatever why that practice should not be allowed to go on. I do not want to touch upon the extraordinary suggestion of His Majesty's Government, that that which is to hold good against the landlord is not to hold good against the tenant, 28 because that has been dealt with. I venture to rest the grounds for asking your Lordships to strike out this clause on what has fallen from Lord Galway, the Marquess of Salisbury, and other noble Lords on this side of the House. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCASAs the noble Lord says, this matter has been already discussed to a certain extent, but I would like to point out one thing with regard to it. The very strong Committee over which my noble friend Lord Haversham presided, on whose Report this Bill is based, were absolutely unanimous—in fact, I think it was one of the few recommendations on which they were absolutely unanimous—in recommending that six months tenancies should be terminated, if possible. Your Lordships have discussed the subject from one point of view, but, after all, Lincolnshire is not the only county where six months tenancies exist, and the opinion of the Committee was that undoubtedly they did exercise a very detrimental effect on agriculture generally. To give your Lordships one instance. If you take the case of Michaelmas tenancies under a six months agreement it becomes a physical impossibility for the tenant to carry out the terms of his agreement.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNAre there many six months tenancies?
LORD LUCASYes, there are a great number, and the tenant is put in an extremely difficult position thereby, because if he only receives notice to quit at Lady Day and has in his lease certain conditions with regard to cropping it becomes a physical impossibility for hint to carry them out. After all, the process of agriculture, the rotation of crops, is a process which takes a complete twelve months. Therefore there is a very strong case from that point of view for giving a notice which shall include one complete rotation of the process. Had your Lordships been prepared to accept an amendment, which I think would have covered the Lincolnshire case perfectly plainly, it would have been to the general advantage of agriculture in other parts of the country to have left Clause 2 in and to have done away with six months agreements in other parts of the country.
VISCOUNT GALWAYThe only information the noble Lord has given us is practically that a Committee has reported in favour of this clause. He has not told us that there has been any application either from tenants or landlords in any bulk for this clause. What I look at as still more important is this, that by this clause as it stands the noble Lord will have virtually upset the whole of the custom in three large counties with innumerable tenancies simply because a Committee has made a Report that it may be desirable in certain cases. Surely Lincolnshire men and Yorkshire men may be trusted to know how to make a good bargain for themselves. Personally I have never yet found that a tenant is not quite as good a hand in making a bargain as any landlord I have ever known.
§ LORD HAVERSHAMI should like to say that all of us on this Committee had the most overwhelming evidence that there is a great hardship now on tenants who hold Michaelmas tenancies. If I had known that this question was going to be brought up I could have quoted the evidence to that effect of Mr. Hall, the agent for the Duke of Bedford's large estates; of Mr. Vergette, who is a member of a great firm of auctioneers at Peterborough: of Mr. Rawlence, a member of a large firm at Salisbury; and of others who were unanimous that a great hardship is created by turning a man out at six months notice if he holds a Michaelmas tenancy. The man receives notice that he will have to no at the next Michaelmas, but he does not know until the next June whether he will hive to go at all, because he does not know for certain that the property will be sold. He does not know who his new landlord will be, and therefore he is unable to make any arrangement for himself. Then it appears he has only got about two months in which to look about for another farm, and we thought, and all these agents thought, that if the man had an additional year after the notice was given to him he would have plenty of time to turn round and find another farm. Undoubtedly you will do a very great injury to all the Michaelmas tenants —and these are the usual tenancies in the South of England—if this clause is struck out. The Committee over which I presided went thoroughly into the case and were unanimous in their submission that this clause should be inserted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI think it is material to the point which we are considering to remember that this clause is really an excrescence upon the general scheme of the Bill. This Bill is designed primarily to mitigate the hardship undoubtedly sustained by tenants who find themselves dispossessed of their holdings in consequence of the sale of the estate by their landlord. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, was appointed for that purpose, and that purpose only. It was not a Committee to inquire into the general question of the law of agricultural tenancies. It was appointed to inquire into the best means of meeting the case of the tenant who was dispossessed in connection with the sale of the estate. We have dealt in Clause 1 with this case. We have not only dealt with it, but we have strengthened Clause 1 very considerably, and it is now a much more favourable clause to the tenant than it was when the Bill was first introduced to the House. Clause 2 makes a change in the general law, and a change which, I venture to think, ought not to be lightly made. My noble friends behind me have been able to cite cases in which the change in the law would be very inconvenient, not to the landlords but to the tenants who are used to the local custom under which they have held their lands and prospered in the past. The particular case in which this clause would, as far as I can make out, be inconvenient to the parties concerned is the case of the Lady Day tenant, and I would suggest for the consideration of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he could meet us to the extent of allowing the clause to be made applicable to Michaelmas tenancies only, so as to leave outside its scope those Lady Day tenancies which my noble friend Lord Galway and others have particularly referred to. I should be very glad if the noble Lord would consider that suggestion.
LORD LUCASWe would like to consider the noble Marquess's suggestion, and perhaps we may bring forward an Amendment dealing with it on Third Reading.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNAfter what has been said, would it not be better that the clause should be negatived now, because we strongly object to its application to Lady Day tenancies while at the same time feeling the force of what has fallen 31 from Lord Haversham with regard to Michaelmas tenancies. It would be perfectly easy if this clause were struck out of the Bill for His Majesty's Government to consider the matter before the Bill was dealt with in another place, and then they might send it back to your Lordships with an amended clause such as they might think right.
§ LORD HAVERSHAMI should like to press strongly on my noble friend to accept that proposal. I think the real hardship is on the Michaelmas tenant.
LORD LUCASI am glad to agree to the suggestion of the noble Viscount that the clause should be struck out this after-noon, and I trust to be able to bring forward a new clause on Third Reading to which the House will be able to give its assent.
§ LORD HYLTONMay I point out that under the existing law shorter notices than one year are ineffective except in those cases where the landlord and tenant have agreed and signed, presumably for their mutual convenience, agreements embodying a six months notice. I cannot in these circumstances see where the hardship comes in of retaining the six months notice to which both parties have agreed. Neither party need accept it if they do not like it either in the case of Michaelmas or Lady Day tenancies.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Saving for certain Notices.
§ 3.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a notice to quit given—
- (a) to determine the tenancy of land in respect of which undeveloped land duty is charged; or
- (b) with a view to the use of the land by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon; or
- (c) for any purpose specified in section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1008, or any other industrial purpose; or
- (d) on account of a breach by the tenant of the contract of tenancy, or any condition of tenancy; or
- (e)on account of a receiving order in bankruptcy having been made against the tenant; or
- (f)by or at the request of a Secretary of State with a view to obtaining possession of any land for military purposes
§ (2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of a notice to quit served before the commencement of this Act.
LORD LUCASMy Amendment in paragraph (b) of Clause 3 is largely a drafting Amendment, but I have added at the end of it "or for any purpose other than agriculture." That is to meet the point which was raised at the Committee stage by Lord Hylton. He has an Amendment down a little later on to insert those words, and I would suggest to him that from the point of view of drafting our Amendment is slightly preferable. I do not know whether he is prepared to accept our Amendment.
§ LORD HYLTONI am quite willing to accept the Amendment put down by Lord Lucas in paragraph (b), after "thereon," to insert. "or for any purpose specified in Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," but as a matter of fact I think, owing to some printer's error, I ought to move first my Amendment in line 21. There is no question of policy involved. I move to put it in in consequence of the alteration made by Lord St. Levan when we were in Committee. Perhaps I had better read the paragraph to your Lordships as it runs at present. It is provided that nothing in this Bill shall apply to a notice to quit given—
(b) with a view to the use of the land by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon.I have given notice of an Amendment that it shall run as follows—(b) with a view to the use of land comprised in the holding to which the notice to quit relates by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon.As the paragraph stands at present it would appear to indicate that the whole of the land in the holding must be acquired for building purposes. As I understand, that is not the real intention of His Majesty's Government. I therefore move the words that I propose to insert, because only part of the land might be required for building purposes.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out the second ("the") and after ("land") insert ("comprised in the holding to which the notice to quit relates").—(Lord Hylton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
33LORD LUCASI now move my Amendment to add to paragraph (b) the words which I explained to your Lordships a moment ago.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22 after ("thereon") insert ("or for any purpose specified in section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or for any purpose other than agriculture").—(Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCASThe next is simply a drafting Amendment. I have already taken the substance out of paragraph (c) and put it into the previous paragraph.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 23 to 25, leave out paragraph (c).—Lord Lucas.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Determination of Questions.
§ 4. If any question arises under this Act as to whether a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to whether the provisions of this Act with regard to the service of any information or notice in connection with an agreement for sale have been complied with by a landlord or by a tenant, or as to the purpose for which or matter on account of which a notice to quit has been given, the question may at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration tinder the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("service") and insert ("giving")
Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("to") ill line 6 to ("the question") in line 8, and insert ("whether a notice to quit is a notice to which this Act applies").—(Lord Lucas).
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD HYLTONThe next Amendment stands in my name. Before making a few remarks on this Amendment I should like to ask Lord Lucas how exactly in his opinion the word "may" in line 8 will take effect. Your Lordships will notice that the clause runs—
If any question arises under this Act…the question may at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.34 If "may" were a purely permissive word there would obviously on the one hand be no reason for putting the clause in, and there would equally he no object in any of us who do not approve of the clause moving its omission. Although I have no legal training, I think the word "may" does in this clause indicate that either the landlord or the tenant, if he wishes, may proceed to this particular arbitration. If I am incorrect would the noble Lord tell me?
LORD LUCASI think the word "may" is simple common form; it occurs in all Acts, and in this particular context it means that if a question arises and either the tenant or the landlord wishes to go to arbitration he can do so.
§ LORD HYLTONIt does not mean that they must, but, on the other hand, that if they want to each of them can?
LORD LUCASIf they decide to go to arbitration the arbitration will have to take place, but it is permissive to them to go to arbitration.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYPermissive to either of them?
§ LORD HYLTONI should like in these circumstances to call your Lordships' attention to the considerable difficulty in the class of questions that will be submitted to an arbitrator under this Act and the class of questions submitted under the Act of 1908. Under the Act of 1908 the questions that had to be submitted and are being submitted to arbitrators from time to time now, as eases arise, are really questions of fact. They are questions about the amount of compensation payable, the valuation of improvements, what rent is to be paid by county councils for taking land for small holdings, and so on, but they are none of them legal questions, and there is a special proviso in the Act of 1908, to which I will refer in a moment, dealing with legal questions that may arise under that Act. But in this Bill the questions that would arise under Clause 4 and which His Majesty's Government propose to submit to this single authority cannot, I think, be ever regarded as questions of facts. They will nearly always be legal questions. They 35 will be questions dealing with the exceptions as to the Act which are contained in Clause 3, and your Lordships will see that all the rather complicated questions that may arise under Clause 3 are questions as to which any layman in this House would say, "I cannot deal with them myself; I must refer them to my lawyer." I think some of your Lordships have strong opinions as to the expediency or inexpediency of allowing even under the Act of 1908 a single arbitrator to decide questions of fact without any power of appeal. But when it comes to questions of law, legal questions such as will have to be dealt with under Clause 4 of this Bill, surely it is in the highest degree dangerous to entrust these arbitrators from the Board of Agriculture, gentlemen who may or may not be expert—surveyors, auctioneers or land agents, or members of a similar class—with the decision of these questions of law. I venture to say that they would not be any more competent to deal with questions of law than any other layman, and that all their expert knowledge as regards surveys and valuations of land, and so on, can be of very little assistance to them except so far as a good general education can be of assistance in deciding the legal points that not only may, but I think must, arise under Clause 4.
I venture, therefore, to ask your Lordships to say that when these legal questions come up they shall be referred to a legal tribunal, and the legal tribunal to which I ask leave of your Lordships to refer them is a County Court Judge. A County Court Judge is the officer selected under the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, subsection (9). where it says—
Where any arbitration takes place the arbitrator may at any stage of the proceedings, and shall if so directed by the Judge of the County Court, which direction may be given on the application of either party, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of that Court any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration.Perhaps His Majesty's Government will tell your Lordships that that Schedule would apply to the Act now before us; but a good deal of power under the Schedule of the Act of 1908 is put into the hands of the arbitrator, as your Lordships will see in the words I have just read out. It is that lie may state a case, but it is not directed that he shall state a case, and in any view of the subject the course that I 36 am suggesting now to your Lordships must be much simpler and shorter and more convenient to the parties who are unfortunately involved in a dispute of this kind. Under it they may go straight to their County Court judge and get his decision on these purely legal matters. That must be simpler than for them to have first of all the arbitration under the gentleman appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and then in the second place to have these legal points decided by a County Court Judge. Those are very briefly the reasons I have for my Amendment.When this Bill was in Committee I was anxious to see Clause 4 out altogether, but the noble Marquess inquired, if it was to be omitted, what was to be suggested in its place. I had not at that time thought out the question so carefully as I have tried to do now. It has occurred to me now that the County Court Judge would be a very proper person to decide these questions, and I hope that the course I suggest will be agreeable to His Majesty's Government, because he is the person under the Bill of 1908 whom they themselves chose to decide such legal points as must necessarily arise under this clause. I confess that I have a further reason for wishing to see the power of appealing to the law not taken away from us under this Bill, as it was very nearly taken away from us under the Act of 1908 and other measures that have been passed by His Majesty's Government. It is because I think both landlord and tenant alike would be more inclined to put confidence in the decision of a County Court Judge than they would in that of a gentleman, as I have said, who may or may not be qualified, such as one of these arbitrators sent out by the Board of Agriculture.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908") and insert ("by a judge of a county court").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCASPerhaps I may make clear one point with regard to which I do not know whether I made myself plain to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. As I understand the position is this, that if a dispute arises either the landlord or the tenant may claim as a right an arbitration under this clause.
LORD LUCASI now come to the point which Lord Hylton raises. It is quite true, as he says, that there will be a number of questions arising under this Bill not strictly analogous to the questions that arose under the Agricultural Holdings Act, though I think to a less degree than he makes out. Our practice with regard to this, as I stated in the Committee stage, is invariably to appoint, as arbitrators, surveyors and valuers of the very highest standing and experience. I could read out to your Lordships a number of names to show that our invariable practice when we have to nominate these arbitrators is to select men who have had very wide experience, who are generally respected and whose word is always taken in any case of this kind. We have had the Hon. Edward Strutt, who is President of the Surveyors' Institution, Mr. John Farrer, Mr. Herbert Smith, Mr. Morton, Mr. Oakley, Mr. Trustram Eve, and I have a list here of the most prominent members of the Surveyors' Institution, men who really stand at the top of their profession. After all, what is the kind of question that will come up? With one or two exceptions they are practical questions which nobody would be better fitted to deal with than a land agent in a big way of business. The cases that will come up under this Bill are typical examples of the kind of questions that come up for solution, I will not say in the every-day work of estate management, but that constantly occur during a long period of estate management, and therefore in our opinion the arbitrators who have been appointed to work under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and who have, I say it with the greatest certainty, done their work uncommonly well under that Act and to the general satisfaction, are really better fitted than a County Court Judge for this particular class of arbitration, and we are firmly of opinion that you will get a better decision under arbitration from them than from anybody else that you could nominate.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNI feel a great deal of sympathy with what was said by my noble friend behind me on the general question of taking the decision in matters of this kind away from the Courts of Law. I think we had a good deal of argument on that matter when the Agricultural Holdings Act was before your Lordships' House. But I must confess that I should feel some difficulty in agreeing 38 with my noble friend on this particular matter. I think there is great truth in what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite with regard to the qualifications of the gentlemen who have been nominated as arbitrators by the Board of Agriculture under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I have the names of two such gentlemen in my mind in my own county, and, without any disparagement to the capacity of the County Court Judge for that county, I would infinitely sooner have any matter in this Bill referred to either of those two gentlemen than to the County Court Judge, because it does seem to me that at first blush, at any rate, the questions arising under this Bill—they are not precisely analogous, I admit., to many matters of valuation under the Agricultural Holdings Act—can hardly be considered prima facie questions of law. It is a question of fact, surely, whether, to use the words of the Bill, a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof, and as to whether information in writing has been given to the tenant before the date, and all the rest of it. In both of the paragraphs in the first clause the matters do seem to me to be prima facie questions of fact which I think might, very well be decided by these arbitrators, considering the great experience they have had in dealing with all kinds of matters affecting the tenancy and ownership of agricultural property and agreements between landlord and tenant. They might perfectly well be decided by those gentlemen if they be, as I gather they would be, subject to an appeal in the event of a question of law arising. The next clause provides that this Act shall be construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. Therefore I assume that any provision for an appeal on points of law under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, would also apply to this Bill. If that be so, I confess I hope my noble friend, though I admit he has said a good deal in favour of his Amendment, will not press it to a division.
VISCOUNT GALWAYThe noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that if there was a dispute either the landlord or the tenant might go to arbitration, but I should like to hear it stated from the noble Lord opposite whether the landlord and the tenant can, if they choose, instead of going under the Bill to arbitration before a single arbitrator, go direct to the County 39 Court Judge to settle the matter; or is it compulsory under this clause that they must go to the arbitrator and not to the County Court Judge, even if they both desire to do so?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps I might answer this question. If the landlord and tenant both agree they can go where they wish and take the matter to the jurisdiction of a Court of Law; but if either of them claims the right to go to arbitration the clause gives the right to go to arbitration. That is what was stated in answer to the noble Marquess's question, and stated rightly, by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
§ LORD HYLTONI think the position is not quite as the noble and learned Viscount thinks if a legal question arises under the Act of 1908. If a legal question arises under that Act, either party or both parties can bring it to a County Court Judge. The subsection says this—
The arbitrator may, at any stage of the proceedings, and shall if so directed by the Judge of the County Court, which direction may be given on the application of either party, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of that Court,and so on; but if the County Court Judge does not so direct I presume it will not be so decided.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think that will be so, but I take the words from the noble Lord. The meaning of what he has quoted is this. The arbitrator may be asked to state a special case or he may not. If the parties are dissatisfied with his decision, then they may go to the County Court Judge, and the learned Judge may give a direction. That is all.
§ LORD HYLTONI withdraw my Amendment after what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 5:
§ Short title Construction and Commencement.
§ 5.—(1) This Act maybe cited as the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1912, and shall he construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and that Act and this Act may he cited together as the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1912.
§ (2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen.
40§ LORD HYLTONI have an Amendment to Clause 5 to leave out the last word "thirteen" and to insert "fourteen." At the end of Clause 3 it is stated that—
Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of a notice to quit served before the commencement of this Act.To-day is the 2nd of December. This Bill cannot possibly reach another place until January, 1913. When this Bill was brought in a reprieve was given, but seven or eight months have elapsed since the Bill was introduced. I think it only fair that we should have an extended reprieve in regard to the provisions coming into force in this case. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Hylton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCASWe shall have one other Amendment to put down, and I would like to ask whether it will suit the House if we take the Third Reading in about a week from to-day. Would Wednesday of next week be convenient?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not know what business is down for 1Vednesday, but if the noble Lord will put it down provisionally for Wednesday we can see.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday the 11th instant, and to be printed as amended. (No. 177.)