Lords Sitting of 11 November 1912

Preamble
The Lord HOWARD DE WALDEN—Took the Oath.

KING'S BENCH DIVISION (ADDITIONAL JUDGE).
The KING'S Answer to the Address of the 29th of October last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield) as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the first section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, an additional Judge may be appointed to the High Court of Justice in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire."

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Special Order, dated 6th November, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled "The National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1912 (No. 3)": Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 163.)
LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee resumed (according to Order).
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, before this Motion is agreed to, I desire to ask Lord Lucas, who represents the Board of Agriculture, a Question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask him whether his attention has been directed to what took place six days ago at the meeting of the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, at which the question of this Bill was again under consideration. I would remind the noble Lord that the Central Chamber of Agriculture is practically the most important agricultural body in this country. It represents not only occupying tenants, but also landowners, agents, valuers—in fact, every class connected with agriculture. I therefore suggest that the opinions of such a body are worthy of great weight and of every consideration. In June last the Council of this body passed a resolution to the effect that this Bill ought to be withdrawn as it did not meet the case which it was intended to meet. On the strength of that this House declined to proceed with the Bill at that time, but there was a distinct understanding that at a later period in the session the further consideration of this question should be resumed. Now, I take it, is the occasion for again considering this matter. At the meeting held on Tuesday last the Central Chamber absolutely refused to deal with the question of this Bill any further. The Committee which they had appointed to go into the subject and to suggest a remedy for the evils complained of put into their report this paragraph—
"Your committee desire to reiterate the resolution passed by the Council in June last, that the Agricultural Holdings Bill now before the House of Lords should be withdrawn."
That paragraph elicited very little comment, except a few remarks which entirely concurred with it; and notably the chairman for the time being of the Council, Sir Luke White, M.P., a member of the Liberal Party, summed up the debate by expressing the opinion that the Bill, in its present shape, at any rate, would be of no use to agriculture, and that the Government ought to withdraw it. In these circumstances, I venture to appeal to the noble Lord whether it is worth while to cumber the Statute-book with a piece of legislation which the body for whom it is intended definitely state will never be of any use to them, and which they do not desire.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, when we adjourned this debate last July we did so to give agricultural opinion generally a certain amount of further time in order to form itself. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said that by postponement he expected to gain an opportunity of ascertaining whether the disfavour was only superficial or whether it represented a deep-seated conviction in the minds of the people of the country; and the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that an adjournment was advisable in order that we might have the matured views of the Central Chamber of Agriculture upon the proposals of this Bill. Since July the only further resolution that we have received has been this resolution, the importance of which I do not in the least want to belittle, from the Central Chamber of Agriculture. No other bodies of farmers have sent in anything; neither does there appear to have been very much discussion of what has taken place. Therefore so far as the situation has changed at all since last July, it has only changed to the extent of what is contained in this resolution. I suppose the attitude of noble Lords opposite is to a certain extent dependent upon the attitude that the Central Chamber has taken up.
LORD BARNARD: I should like to relieve the noble Lord's mind of any doubt on that point. The Central Chamber of Agriculture is not a Party institution, and noble Lords on this side of the House are not bound by any attitude that the Central Chamber may take up.
LORD LUCAS: I did not mean to imply that there was any Party feeling in the action taken, except in so far as noble Lords opposite did definitely adjourn the debate last July in order to see what action the Central Chamber would take. I take it that noble Lords opposite are to that extent influenced by this report, and that in so far as the report is unfavourable to the Bill the opinion of noble Lords opposite is to a certain extent hardened. If that is the cage, I think we are entitled to ask what the attitude of noble Lords is going to be with regard to the report in question. I do not think I am misconstruing the resolution when I say that the Central Chamber are against the Bill, not so much because of what it does contain but because
914
it does not contain a number of things which they consider vital. The most important of the resolutions contained in the report of the Central Chamber are the two which demand further compensation for improvements than tenants receive at present and the one which asks for compensation for disturbance where the tenant receives notice through no fault of his own. It would be interesting to hear what the opinion of noble Lords opposite is upon those two points. We have been taken seriously to task in the course of these debates because we have included certain recommendations of Lord Haversham's Committee and have not included other recommendations. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are going to lay themselves open to the same censure if they simply adopt the recommendations as to the withdrawal of this Bill and entirely disregard the two recommendations I have read out.
LORD BARNARD: I desire particularly to draw attention to the fact that these are not the resolutions of the Central Chamber. They are only the resolutions of a committee of the Chamber and are to go out to the country to be considered by the affiliated farmers' clubs and chambers of agriculture throughout the country. The Central Chamber has not pronounced upon the report at all.
LORD LUCAS: I would like to say a word or two as to the committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture which drew up this report. In the first place, this question of compensation—and I take it that it is because of the absence of these further provisions on compensation that the committee of the Central Chamber have summed up against the Bill—was carefully considered by Lord Haversham's Committee, and it is interesting to take note of one particular point. I have no criticism to offer against the committee of the Central Chamber, but I would like to point out that on that committee were two members of the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Haversham. One of them, Lord Clinton, was not present at the meetings, and the other member, though down as being present, was, I understand, only there for a short time and refused to sign the report. Of the remaining ten members who were present at the meetings of the committee of the Central Chamber no fewer than five did place fully

915
their views as to compensation before Lord Haversham's Committee, and that Committee, after fully considering them, definitely summed up against them. You are demanding an impossible thing if you ask us to fly in the face of the recommendations of the Haversham Committee and accept in lieu of them the views of what I may call the unsuccessful witnesses before that Committee. In Paragraphs 25 and 51 the Departmental Committee definitely sum up against the recommendations of these witnesses. Therefore we cannot accept the point of view of these witnesses. I do not think it is possible, for the reasons I have given, to make use of the report of this committee of the Central Chamber as a reason for not proceeding with this Bill. This Bill was definitely framed to give effect to all the recommendations that we could accept of Lord Haversham's Committee. The question of compensation is barred out for two very good reasons. The first is the reason I have given—namely, that the Committee definitely recommended against any alteration of the present system. The second one, which is, I think, an equally important one, is not so much a question of principle but of expediency. We all know that the question of compensation is one of the most difficult and thorny of the particular subjects that are grouped under this head. Had we tried to include any provision dealing with compensation I think it is fair to say that it would have been of a highly controversial nature, and there would not have been the faintest chance of passing it in the present crowded session. As I stated when I introduced this Bill, it does not attempt to cover the whole of the ground, but it does attempt to go a certain way towards alleviating a very pressing difficulty that has arisen with regard to the sale of estates. So far as we have seen at present, though it may be said that a great deal of argument has been put forward in favour of further steps, very little indeed—I might say hardly anything at all—has been said against the actual proposals that are contained in this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships can have been surprised that my noble friend Lord Barnard should have put the question which he addressed a few moments ago to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. Lord Barnard has taken part in the recent proceedings of the Central Chamber, and no one has a better
916
right to address himself to these topics than my noble friend. I am sure I am within the mark when I say that most of us have awaited with very great interest the result of the deliberations of the Central Chamber. It is, as my noble friend observed, the most important agricultural body in the country, and it is certainly not open to the imputation which I remember the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Lincolnshire, making against chambers of agriculture at large, which he described as being all of them in fact, though not in name, Conservative associations.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Not all, but most of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Central Chamber, at any rate, is not under that suspicion. The report, not of the Central Chamber, but of the committee of the Central Chamber, does, indeed, form a somewhat remarkable climax to the long series of expressions of opinion adverse to this Bill which have proceeded from every quarter throughout the country, and it would not have surprised me in the least if the noble Lord who represents the Government had come down to the House and stated that in the circumstances His Majesty's Government did not consider it worth while to proceed with the Bill.
There is one point upon which I must, I am afraid, insist for a moment, and that is the extraordinary reluctance of His Majesty's Government to disclose any of the evidence upon which they have based themselves in laying these proposals before the country. We have again and again, in the most temperate and friendly manner, asked the noble Lord whether he cannot produce some, a few, favourable expressions in regard to this Bill. I remember one conversation in the summer when I challenged him on that subject, and he replied, with great reason, that I had not given him notice of the question. He said that he had come to the House inadequately supplied with the evidence for which I asked, but that he had every reason to believe that the Bill received a considerable amount of support. He had not, he said, brought with him chapter and verse, but at any rate the Government had sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves and were prepared to back up their own opinion that the Bill would be a useful one. I must say I thought that on this

917
occasion the noble Lord would have brought down with him to the House some of those blessings which are stored somewhere or other in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Agriculture. Although, however, no such evidence is forthcoming the noble Lord, speaking with all the weight and authority of the Board which he represents, tells us that this Bill is a useful one, and that His Majesty's Government desire to persevere with it. In these circumstances we have to consider what our attitude should be, and I am bound to say that, considering the views that we on this Bench have expressed with regard to this question, I find it impossible to resist the appeal of the noble Lord or to suggest that we should not proceed with the discussion in Committee.
We remain of opinion that the better remedy was that recommended by Lord Haversham's Committee, and that this particular remedy, if it be one, affords only a slight mitigation of the hardship of the sitting tenant who finds himself dispossessed in consequence of the sale of the estate. But I think the Bill will afford some mitigation, although I am bound to say that in its present shape I doubt whether that mitigation will be considerable, and I hope that if we go into Committee we shall endeavour to find in some of the Amendments which are on the Table the means of improving to a greater extent the position of the sitting tenant. Then may I notice a kind of challenge which the noble Lord threw out just now. He said he hoped that we on this side of the House would tell him what we thought of the recommendations embodied in the report of the committee of the Central Chamber. The noble Lord was reminded, I think very properly reminded, that those were not the recommendations of the Central Chamber of Agriculture; they were the recommendations of a committee; and so little was the Central Chamber satisfied that the committee was upon solid ground that, instead of passing an opinion upon the report of the committee, they referred the report back to the local agricultural chambers for an expression of their opinion. I think it will be ample time for us to consider a number of questions which the noble Lord, I thought very properly, described as some of them extremely thorny when the Central Chamber knows its own mind about them. The conclusion to which I venture
918
to come is that your Lordships' House would do well to resume the discussion of this Bill in Committee in the hope of making it a rather better Bill than we believe it to be at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Notices to Quit for Purposes of Sale.
1. Where the landlord of a holding, in connection with the sale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof, gives to the tenant notice to quit, the tenant may within two months after the receipt of that notice give to the landlord a counter notice in writing claiming that the notice to quit shall not take effect, until the expiration of one year from the date on which the notice to quit would otherwise have taken effect, and thereupon that notice shall operate to determine the tenancy accordingly:
Provided that if not later than two months 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—

(a) any counter notice given by the tenant shall cease to operate as regards the land to which the agreement relates; and

(b) the notice given by the landlord shall, as regards that land, 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.

LORD HYLTON: I move to leave out the words "a holding" in the first line of the clause, in order to insert the words "an agricultural holding exceeding in extent fifty acres." If I read the Bill aright, under the proviso of Clause 1 if any land is taken by a county council for the purpose of small holdings the provisions of the Bill will not apply. I ant not going to attempt to take up your Lordships' time by arguing in favour of small ownership as against small tenancy. I only ask your Lordships to say that whilst the question of small ownership is very largely advocated in this country by one section of opinion and the alternative system of small holdings is advocated by another section, this House shall maintain the scale fair between the two. If the Amendment which I beg leave to propose is

919
passed, all persons who become small owners of holdings under fifty acres will be placed in the same position as the same persons would be if they came in as small holders under a county council. There is an additional reason why I ask your Lordships to insert this Amendment, and it is this. It has been alleged by some that where tenants of large farms have to move at comparatively short notice in cases where notice to quit has been given before the sales of their farms took place, they incur considerable loss in disposing of the large amount of stock which naturally they own on a large holding; but the disability under which men holding large farms suffer must naturally be very much mitigated and may be held to be almost non-existent in the case of men with small holdings under fifty acres. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("a holding") and insert ("an agricultural holding exceeding in extent fifty acres").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: I quite agree with the noble Lord that we do not want to enter into the question of small ownership as against tenancy, but I do not quite see how it comes in on this clause or this Amendment, nor do I see how the noble Lord makes it a case for varying to the small holder the advantages that you are going to give to the big farmers. The only argument he quoted was that big farmers have a lot of stock to sell and that this does not apply to small holders. I may say that I know small holdings which are much more heavily stocked in proportion to their size than large farms; and it may further be argued that where a big farmer can get a good sale a small holder selling a small amount of stock must always have a bad sale. Apart from that, I do not think the noble Lord has made out a case against these small men. I think you are bound to treat them in this respect exactly in the same way as the big men.
LORD HYLTON: The noble Lord has not alluded to his own proviso.
LORD LUCAS: The noble Lord's Amendment applies to existing small holders whose holdings are sold. In a great many cases of that sort the statutory small holdings under the Small Holdings Act do not come in at all. There are something over a quarter of a million small holdings
920
established before the Act came into existence which have nothing whatever to do with the Act. A certain number of those come into the market every time land is sold, and those are the small holders whom the noble Lord wishes to exclude from the benefit of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid the Amendment trenches on rather dangerous ground. In the first place, if we are to have a limit at all I doubt whether the limit of acres alone is a sufficient one. As a rule where a limit is taken it is a limit both of acreage and rental amount. But quite apart from that, I am afraid that by taking a limit of acreage we shall draw a quite arbitrary distinction between the larger farmer and the smaller farmer, greatly to the disadvantage of the latter. I do not quite agree with my noble friend that the smaller man does not require the same amount of protection as the larger man. I think if he needs protection at all he stands quite as much in need of it as his larger neighbour. Upon the whole I think these arbitrary limits, although it is quite true we are not unfamiliar with them in our land legislation, are dangerous things. They give you a frontier which it is extremely difficult to defend, and they lead to the kind of anomaly which one always wishes to avoid—I mean the anomaly which arises when you have on one side of the road a man farming forty-five acres who enjoys no advantages at all, and on the other side of the road a man farming fifty-five acres who is amply protected by the law. For these reasons I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: There is nothing in the clause to define what a "holding" is. Is it meant to be a cottage and a garden?
LORD LUCAS: Clause 5 of this Bill provides that the Bill shall be construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, in which Act the definition of a holding is given as follows—
"'Holding' means any parcel of land held by a tenant, which is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden, and which is not let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment held under the landlord."
That, I think, covers the noble Viscount's point.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. It only shows the difficulty of legislating by reference.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ST. LEVAN LORD ST. LEVAN moved to omit from the first paragraph of the clause all the words after "Where the landlord of a holding" down to "determine the tenancy accordingly," and to insert other words. As the noble Lord proposed to amend it, the first paragraph would read—
"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 front 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 in 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."
The noble Lord said: It was pointed out during the earlier debates on this Bill, and I think the point was alluded to again this afternoon, how seriously occupiers of land have been affected by the necessity imposed upon owners by recent legislation to sell their estates. His Majesty's Government propose to lessen this inconvenience by the present Bill, the chief provision of which is to enable a tenant, on receiving a notice to quit for purposes of a sale, to give a counter-notice which will have the effect of turning the one year's notice into a two years' notice. This proposal was met by strong criticism from noble Lords who are well informed and as well qualified to speak on this point as any one in the United Kingdom, and evidence was produced to show that it was not accepted as satisfactory by responsible bodies of agriculturists. I am afraid it is impossible to altogether avoid the inconvenience and trouble caused both to owners and to tenants by the recent legislation to which I have referred. It is obvious that in an industry like agriculture any measure
922
which interferes with one of the parties is bound to re-act upon the other; but it did occur to some members of your Lordships' House on this side that means might be found to alleviate this convenience other than those proposed in the Bill, and that, my Lords, is the origin of this Amendment.
The first part of the Amendment is meant to ensure the notice being only acted upon in the event of a sale taking place, so that the tenant who has received notice to quit on account of a sale will not have to quit for any other reason. The next object of the Amendment is to give to the tenant under the new conditions reasonable security against being disturbed in his occupation of land without having sufficient time and opportunity to make arrangements to suit the position in which the transference of his holding from one owner to another places him, when he will either have to come to terms with the new owner or else look out for another holding. Under the Bill as originally framed by His Majesty's Government that result was not assured. It would have been possible for an owner to have given his tenant not ice to quit at the end of a year and for the tenant to have given the counter-notice proposed in the Bill, and then for the landlord not to have sold till, say, a month before the expiration of the counter year. That would have left the tenant only one month in which to come to terms with the new owner or to look out for another holding, for until the sale had actually taken place the tenant could not know for certain who the new owner was going to be. By the Amendment which is now under your Lordships' consideration the tenant would in either case have at least one clear year after the contract for the sale of the holding had been entered into in which either to come to terms with the new owner or to look out for another farm.
Take this case. A landowner gives notice to a tenant, say, in February, 1912, and then enters into a contract with a purchaser in August, 1912. In the case of a Michaelmas letting the tenant would still have until Michaelmas, 1913, and if the landowner did not effect the contract for sale until after Michaelmas, 1913, the tenant could remain in possession of his holding till Michaelmas, 1914. I venture

923
to think that by this Amendment a tenant is put, as far as regards this point, in a better position than he would be under the Bill as it stands. The last part of the Amendment is intended to enable the tenant to accept the notice to quit as definite should he wish to do so, and so avoid the uncertainty of having to wait till the owner has effected a sale. That is, as shortly as I can put it, the effect of this Amendment. I admit that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has attempted to meet one of the points I have mentioned. What I feel is that there are a great many members of your Lordships' House who are far better qualified to speak on this subject than I am. I hope we shall hear their views, and I shall be content to leave it to their judgment to say which of the two alternatives before the House is the one that should be adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("holding") to the end of line 12, and insert ("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 in 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").—(Lord St. Lecan.)
LORD LUCAS: We are prepared to accept this Amendment if it is the feeling of the House that it is better than the existing provision. In the event of your Lordships inserting this Amendment, I may have to move some further Amendments on Report which would be of a purely drafting character. There is, however, one which would not come under that head. We might find it necessary to put in words to prevent contracting out. I have an Amendment next on the Paper to prevent agreements to the contrary from being made, and it might be necessary to insert something of that kind on the Report stage. Otherwise I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to hear that His Majesty's Government accept my noble friend's Amendment. It does seem to us an improvement in the Bill. The Bill as it stands, it is quite true, gives altogether a period of two years, but it does not give a definite period to the tenant in which to look round and make his arrangements. I think the point of my noble friend's Amendment—and it is a good one—is that under his proposal the tenant is guaranteed the full period of twelve months during which he will know where he is and will not be in any suspense as to what is going to happen to him in connection with his farm. Therefore I am extremely glad that the Amendment has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. LEVAN: The next Amendment is of a drafting character.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("Provided") insert ("further").—(Lord St. Levan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. LEVAN: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 19 to 21, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord St. Levan.)
LORD LUCAS: I do not oppose this Amendment. But if you strike out this paragraph I do not want to be taken to agree that the prolongation of the tenancy is to apply where the land is sold for small holdings, and I will bring forward an Amendment on Report to deal with that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. LEVAN: The other Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
Page 1, line 23, after ("land") insert ("to which the agreement relates")
Page 1, line 26, after ("holdings") insert as a new subsection:
("(2) The expression 'day of expiry' means the day on which a year of the tenancy expires").—(Lord St. Levan.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Avoidance of certain Notices to Quit.
2. A notice given by a landlord 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: I think it was the sense of the House on the Second Reading that this clause should apply to landlord and tenant alike, and in order to make that quite clear I move the deletion of the words "by a landlord."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("by a landlord").—(Lord Lucas.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Can the noble Lord give us any information as to what has led the Government to interfere with contracts providing for six months notice which exist all over the Midlands? It has always been held that a six months notice to expire at Lady Day is a most useful notice, especially in the interests of the tenant. If you make this clause compulsory in spite of any agreement the tenant may have with his landlord that the notice should be a six months notice, that tenant will be saddled with the farm for a year and a-half longer than he desires. The overriding of these contracts in this way will be prejudicial to all Lady Day tenants who at present have contracts for six months notice. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he has had any application from Lady Day tenants for this change. If not, why interfere with the present system?
LORD LUCAS: This clause, in the first place, carries out a definite recommendation of the Departmental Committee, which went pretty closely into the question of six months tenancies and strongly recommended that they should be done away with. I understand the reason why they made that recommendation was that they thought that a six months tenancy was on the whole detrimental to good farming. Agriculture is an operation the cycle of which takes a year to complete, and therefore a yearly notice seems to be the proper thing. I quite see the noble
926
Viscount's point about Lady Day tenancies, but I should have thought that, except in very exceptional cases, you would not alter the time at which the tenancy expires but simply give the notice six months earlier—that is to say, give the notice on one Lady Day to expire on the following Lady Day. We know a large number of cases where the six months tenancy does not lead to good farming and in our opinion it is better to ensure a yearly tenancy than to give up this principle because of the isolated cases referred to by the noble Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not desire to press the Government on this point at the present stage at any rate, but I think the noble Lord opposite is hardly correct in suggesting that the feeling in favour of a six months notice in certain parts of England is a matter of small importance. I do not pretend to have access to information which the noble Lord possesses, but I have been approached by an important agricultural authority belonging to the part of England which is in question who assures me that this particular system under which six months notice is given is immensely valued there by a great body of tenant farmers. If that be so, it is not a matter to be swept away as of no importance. I would point out that Clause 2 does not seem to me to be in any way essential to Clause 1, which, as amended, is now a watertight proposal. Clause 1 works perfectly well whether the notices run for six months or for a year. Perhaps between now and the next stage the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider how far Clause 2 is essential to the Government's scheme, and that must, of course, depend upon the information which reaches him as to the popularity of this particular kind of tenancy in the parts of the country referred to by the noble Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: This authority has been mentioned by Lord Londonderry. Would there be any objection to the name of this anonymous gentleman being published. It would be interesting to know who this agricultural pundit is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will tell the noble Marquess privately.
LORD LUCAS: I may say that I also met an agricultural authority of the first standing from Lincolnshire, and we discussed the matter closely. He thought that the effect of this provision was that we were going to destroy the system of tenancies terminating at Lady Day. I explained to him, as I have explained to the House, that there will be nothing of that kind under the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON: I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit from the beginning of the clause the words "a landlord," and to substitute "an agricultural landlord." It seemed to me that if the word "agricultural" was not to appear it would make the provision rather sweeping; but if Lord Lucas will tell me on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the word "agricultural" is not necessary I will not move the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS: This point is covered by the definition contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
LORD HYLTON: I do not move.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: I move, after the word "void" at the end of the first paragraph of Clause 2, to insert "except by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant." The arguments for and against this Amendment have been already to a great extent discussed. It seems to me to be rather a sweeping measure to say that in no circumstances whatever shall a shorter notice than a year be allowable, and that it would be void under every possible circumstance. I agree that as a general rule a notice of a year is far preferable to any shorter period, but I can quite conceive the possibility, in fact the probability, of its often occurring that a tenant may wish to vacate his holding at a shorter notice than a year; and if the matter can be agreed upon by mutual consent between the tenant and his landlord I do not see why such an arrangement should not be come to. The object of my Amendment is to preserve the possibility of a shorter notice being accepted by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("void") insert ("except by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant").—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
LORD LUCAS: 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 notice under twelve months.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: On the understanding that there is nothing in the clause to prevent a mutual agreement on the subject, I do not wish to press my Amendment.
LORD BARNARD: I would invite the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, at the next stage, either to strike this clause out altogether or give us the opinions of practical agriculturists as to why it is inserted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Saring for certain Notices.
3.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a notice to quit given—

(a) with a view to the use of the land by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon; or

(b) for any purpose specified in section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or any other industrial purpose; or

(c) on account of a breach by the tenant of the contract of tenancy, or any condition of tenancy; or

(d) on account of a receiving order in bankruptcy having been made against the tenant;

if the notice states that it is so given, and specifies the purpose for which the land is required or the matter on account of which the notice is given, as the case may be; and in any such case the length of notice required shall be such as if this Act had not been passed.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of a notice to quit served before the commencement of this Act.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Fortescue I move to insert words to provide that nothing in this Bill shall apply to a notice to quit given where under the contract of tenancy notice of not less than two years is required to determine the tenancy. In certain parts of England, more especially in the West of England, farms are let on leases with a two years notice to quit, and the point which my noble friend had in

929
his mind in putting down this Amendment was that in such cases under this Bill the tenant would be empowered to ask for another year's notice, and it might thus arise that three years would elapse before the landlord could get possession. I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill can assure me that that is not so.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("given") insert—
"(a) Where under the contract of tenancy notice of not less than two years is required to determine the tenancy."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD LUCAS: Your Lordships have, by accepting Lord St. Levan's Amendment, agreed to the principle that tenants shall have twelve clear months' notice before they have to quit. What this Amendment would do would be to give effect to that provision in the Bill which your Lordships so much criticised when it was first introduced—that is to say, there would be nothing to prevent a tenant who was on a two years agreement from having his farm sold three months before the termination of his notice; and that man would then be in that very position of hardship which by the adoption of Lord St. Levan's Amendment we have successfully avoided. Under the Bill in its amended form the position would be this. If a tenant whose contract of tenancy required that he should have two years notice was given notice and during the first of those two years the farm was sold, then his tenancy would terminate at the end of the two years and there would be no question of giving him an additional year, because he would have had twelve months clear after the sale of his farm. But, on the other hand, if the farm was not sold until the end of the second year, then the tenant would be entitled to an additional year. That seems to be in keeping with the general principle which your Lordships have now accepted, and I therefore hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I venture to think that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is right on this point, and that the Amendment was intended to be considered on its own merits rather than in connection with the Amendment which we have to-day inserted. As far as I understand it, Lord St. Levan's Amendment covers the case which Lord Fortescue had in view, and I doubt whether it would
930
be wise to insert Lord Fortescue's Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to provide that nothing in this Bill shall apply to a notice to quit given to determine the tenancy of land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty is charged. I do not know whether your Lordships have considered that certain cases of very real hardship may arise under this Bill as it stands in the case of land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty is charged. In the first place, I do not think it was very carefully considered on what land Undeveloped Land Duty should be levied. We are told that agricultural land is exempt from this duty, but I am afraid that is not a theory which will bear very critical examination. The point of my Amendment is that to land subject to Undeveloped Land Duty this Bill shall not apply. The value of land very largely depends upon the moment when you can get possession of it. I can conceive cases where it may be of the utmost importance that the landlord should get possession of the land immediately, either for the purpose of sale or development. As it at present stands, this Bill only applies where the land is immediately wanted by the landlord or purchaser for building thereon. But it might not be ripe for building thereon at the moment. Take the case of a farm near to a town. It may be ripe for building or it may not. The Commissioners come along and say that the land is worth more than £50 an acre, and it at once becomes subject to Undeveloped Land Duty; but the actual value of that land for the purposes of this duty arises because it can be used for building, yet under this Bill the landlord will not be able to get possession of it for two years which materially reduces its assessed value. I am quite willing to accept an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this land is protected, but it seems to me that it would be difficult to prove that land such as I have in my mind at the moment is land which would be protected from the burden which this Bill imposes.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("given") insert—
"(a) To determine the tenancy of land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty is charged."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD LUCAS: I am afraid I do not follow the noble Earl's point. To land of this kind two alternative things happen. Either it may be required for building, in which case the landlord can at once give notice and nothing in this Bill applies—this is clearly stated in Clause 3(1)(a)—or else it is not ripe for building, and in that case, whether it is paying Undeveloped Land Duty or not, I do not see what justification there is for turning the tenant out at very short notice. Possession of land which pays Undeveloped Land 'Duty and yet is not required for building is usually considered a misfortune if you cannot sell it, and good fortune if you can. I do not see from the noble Earl's point of view what objection he can have to this clause, because the moment the landlord wants to sell the land for building it comes under the paragraph of Clause 3 to which I have referred and then the counter notice does not apply.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The noble Lord spoke of the unfortunate owner of land on which Undeveloped Land Duty is charged and which land he may not be able to sell. I submit that if land is unable to be sold it ought not to be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty because the land is thus not available for development. On the other hand, it is possible that a man may want to buy the land not for immediate building but for future opening up. My point is that if the land is sufficiently valuable, or is considered by the Commissioners to be sufficiently valuable, to be charged Undeveloped Land Duty it stands to reason that that land ought to have exceptional treatment.
LORD LUCAS: As I have explained, in the case of land of this kind two alternative things happen. Either the land is ready to be developed within the next two years, in which case it comes under Clause 3(1)(a), or else it will not be ready to be developed under three years, in which case I cannot see the objection to giving the extra year.
LORD HYLTON: I hope the Committee will insist on inserting the words of this Amendment. In the neighbourhood of every large town in this country there is a considerable amount of land used temporarily for agricultural purposes, and there is in each agreement a clause to the effect that possession can be resumed if the land is required for "other than agri-
932
cultural purposes." There are, I suppose, tens of thousands of acres held temporarily in this way for agricultural purposes outside big towns, and the Amendment moved by the noble Earl is designed to meet those cases. There is no doubt that under the Finance Act Undeveloped Land Duty will be charged on every single acre of this land. Is it fair that the owner should have to pay this duty for a year longer than is necessary, as would be the case if some Amendment such as this is not inserted? I hope the Committee will recognise the absolute justice and fairness of the request of my noble friend, and insert his Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the two noble Lords, and I confess I cannot exactly picture the particular case which the noble Lord who spoke last has in his mind. Assuming an agricultural holding which is so much in the neighbourhood of a large town as to have a building value but ex hypothesi is not likely to be built upon for some little time, it seems to me to be hard upon the tenant farmer who is occupying that land that he should be placed in a worse position than his next door neighbour immediately outside the possible building circle who will be protected by Clause 1 of this Bill.
LORD HYLTON: These particular tenants pay, as a rule, a rather lower rent on the understanding—and there is a clause in the agreement to this effect—that they can only use the land until it is wanted for other than agricultural purposes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord, I am sure, is quite right in saying that such clauses are inserted in respect of land sold for building; but are they inserted in cases which would not be covered by proviso (a) in this clause? I should have thought that all the cases which the noble Lord had in his mind would, as a matter of fact, have been covered by that proviso. The noble Lord will note that the land is merely to be sold "with a view" to building. The proviso does not say that it has to be built upon next day. That being so, I should have thought that all the cases of possible hardship referred to would have been saved by proviso (a).
LORD BARNARD: I desire to confirm entirely what has fallen from Lord Hylton. I possess in the immediate neighbourhood of a town land which is let for agricultural purposes, with a clause in the agreement that any portion of the land can be resumed at any moment if it is required by the owner for building purposes. In these circumstances I venture to suggest to the noble Marquess that he is under a misapprehension in thinking that there would be any hardship to the tenant in such a case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Marquess who leads the House has given a very wide interpretation to proviso (a). Apparently, according to him, if a landowner in possession of land in the near neighbourhood of a growing town sells that land and there is in the contemplation of the purchaser the intention some day or other to build upon it, it would be saved from the operation of the Bill. That seems to me rather a wide interpretation to give to these words. Picture the sort of thing which may happen. The land may not be ripe for immediate development, but a gentleman comes forward who may be in the business of developing land and may be on the look-out for pieces of
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
land which may come in in due time for development purposes, and he may be willing to give a good price to the landlord, but if the landlord cannot give him possession he cannot get the price. If the landlord has to wait a long time the opportunity may have passed, and the man may have gone elsewhere to buy land which was more readily available. Why should not the landlord be able to close with the intending purchaser at once? He has been bled all the time because he owns this land, and has been told that he has monopolised it; yet when he comes forward to sell he is not allowed to do so without giving a long notice. The noble Marquess says these cases are covered by proviso (a). If he is justified in thinking that they are so covered that would diminish my objection very largely; but the noble Marques seemed to me to be giving a very wide interpretation to the words.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Bath, M.

Leigh, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff, V.

Lovat, L.

Salisbury, M.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Camperdown, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cromer, E.

Barnard, L.

Muncaster, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

St. Levan, L.

Eldon, E.

Berwick, L.

Sanderson, L.

Haddington, E.

De Mauley, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Halsbury, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Lichfield, E.

Estcourt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Londesborough, E.

Harris, L.

Tennyson, L.

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Hindlip, L.

Teynham, L.

Verulam, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, L.(L. Chamberlain.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Haversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Armitstead, L.

Lucas, L.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Blyth, L.

Marchamley, L.

Channing, L.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Southwark, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eversley, L.

Tenterden, L.

Allendale, V.

Glantawe, L.

Welby, L.

LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to amend paragraph (a) of Clause 3 by omitting the words "for building thereon" and inserting "for other than agricultural purposes." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships were dealing just now with the question of the gradual development of building land. It is a common practice, I believe, for agreements for the tenure of land of this description for agricultural purposes to contain a clause that the land shall be given up by the tenant if it is required for other than agricultural purposes. Those words are a little wider than the words "if required for building thereon." The words I ask the Committee to insert are no novelty; they are, as I have said, commonly inserted at the present time in a great number of agreements dealing with land of this description, and they would cover cases where land was wanted for laying out a road or for purposes connected with the laying out of a building estate, or where a small bit of land was wanted for an additional piece of garden in connection with a building already on the estate. Those purposes would not be covered by such strict words as "for building thereon." Therefore I ask permission to insert the words in my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("for building thereon") and insert ("for other than agricultural purposes").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: I was not clear as to what the purposes are that the noble Lord has in his mind other than the purposes already specified here. Paragraph (b) of this clause provides that nothing in the Bill shall apply to a notice to quit for any purpose specified in Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or any other industrial purpose. Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act is very wide indeed. It includes the erection of farm labourers' cottages or other houses, the provision of gardens for cottages and other houses, the provision of allotments, the construction of any improvements or buildings to be used in connection therewith, the making of roads, and so on, and then there are the words in this paragraph "or any other industrial purpose." Surely that covers every possible purpose. The only purpose to which one has ever seen such land put which is not covered here is a golf course, and I think the tenant has
936
good claim for a second year if it is a question of giving up his land for conversion into golf links. If there are any other purposes not already covered, I shall be obliged if noble Lords opposite will let me know what they are.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: take it that the words "any other industrial purpose," quoted by Lord Lucas, really cover what is covered by my noble friend's words "for other than agricultural purposes." That is the point.
LORD LUCAS: Yes, except a golf course.
LORD HYLTON: The words which I propose to insert are those which have been used for many years in agreements by a great number of landowners all over the country. In letting building land it is impossible to foresee every possible requirement connected with the proper development of the property, and if you limit this to actually putting up buildings thereon you will prevent the taking of land which is absolutely necessary for development purposes. As I have said, the words which I propose to insert are inserted in agreements by land agents on behalf of landlords all over the country. All I ask is that the exception which is already given to landowners in their agreements with tenants on land of this kind should be given in this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: This is really more of a drafting matter than anything else, because one is bound to assume that if the noble Lord presses his words he will be content to see struck out of the clause paragraph (b), for I suppose he considers that all purposes not agricultural are covered. I cannot profess to be aware that there are any purposes of any kind to which the noble Lord alludes which are not covered either by paragraph (a) or by paragraph (b) as they stand. It is clear, if the noble Lord thinks his amending words cover all cases, that the more elaborate words of paragraph (b) would not be required.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Would the noble Marquess consider whether he could not accept the words "for other than agricultural purposes" in paragraph (a)? Then perhaps the words "for any other industrial purpose" in the following paragraph might go out.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My noble friend in charge of the Bill would like to consider that in consultation with his advisers before the Report stage.
LORD LUCAS: Perhaps I may communicate with Lord Hylton between now and the Report stage and find out what he has in his mind which is not covered, and if we can accept his words we will. But we do not wish to lay ourselves open without further consideration to so very general a formula as he proposes.
LORD HYLTON: I shall be happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS*LORD LUCAS moved to add an additional paragraph to provide that nothing in the Bill should apply to a notice to quit given by or at the request of a Secretary of State with a view to obtaining possession of any land for military purposes. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved at the desire of the Secretary of State. The justification of it is, first, that when it is a question of the acquisition of land for military purposes very often there is considerable urgency in connection with it. The second point is that, as a matter of fact, though we do not give this extra year we are not really infringing the principle laid down in the Bill, because when a tenant occupying land which is required by the War Office for military purposes is given notice he will quite understand that he has to go at the end of the year, and therefore he does get a clear twelve months in which to make arrangements to move elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Page, 2, line 18, after ("tenant") insert ("or
("(e) by or at the request of a Secretary of State with a view to obtaining possession of any land for military purposes").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to omit from the clause the words "and specifies the purpose for which the land is required or the matter on account of which the notice is given, as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The reason I have put down this Amendment is this. It may be very
938
difficult, in the case of the land we are alluding to, to specify the exact purpose for which the land is required, and I do not think the words that I propose to leave out can be held to form an important part of the Bill. I do not know whether Lord Lucas attaches great importance to the retention of the words.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("given") to ("and") in line 21.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: It is rather difficult to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because we do not quite follow him in regard to the general vagueness which he seems to wish to bring into this part of the Bill. If this Amendment were accepted, I think the chief objection to it would be that you would deprive the tenant of any reasonable opportunity of testing the bona fides of the notice. You have to provide for the case where a man might use the notice to get the tenant out for his own purposes, and not really for purposes laid down in the Bill. I think it is only just that the tenant should have a fair opportunity of testing the bona fide nature of the notice. As the clause stands, there is no necessity to state for what particular building purpose the land is to be used.
LORD HYLTON: If anybody on selling land is to be allowed to give notice that he intends it for building and is not to be liable to any action in case no building takes place I do not think this Bill will have any effect at all, because everybody will give a notice of that sort.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord spoke just now of the resumption of land for building purposes, but it is quite clear that the words we are discussing refer to notices to quit given for other purposes also. The words are that the notice is to specify not only "the purpose for which the land is required" but also "the matter on account of which the notice is given." Take the case of a notice to quit served on account of a breach of covenant by a tenant. Does the noble Lord suggest that in that case the notice would have to specify exactly what covenant had been broken?
LORD LUCAS: Yes, I think so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That would arise later under Clause 4, which provides that if any question comes up under this Bill as to whether a notice to quit has been given in connection with the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to the purpose for which or matter on account of which it was given, 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. Surely the time for specifying would arise when the matter went to arbitration. The notice to quit would have to state why the notice was given, but need the particulars in the case which I am imagining be gone into until the arbitration is entered upon?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely in the case which the noble Marquess has mentioned, that of a breach of covenant, it would have to be stated in the notice to quit, "I give you a year's notice to quit on the ground that such and such a thing has been done in contravention of the covenant." Without these words it would be in the power of an unscrupulous landlord, supposing there were one, merely to say, "I give you notice on account of a breach of covenant," without entering into any explanation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite agree that it is desirable the tenant should know the reasons for which he is receiving notice to quit. The noble Marquess is wrong in believing that an unscrupulous landlord could in the case which he supposes keep these matters out of sight, because obviously the case would go to arbitration, and the first thing that would be expected of the unreasonable landlord would be that he should disclose what particular covenant had been violated.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: But surely it would be better that the tenant should know what covenant he had broken without the question going to arbitration at all. It is not advisable to contemplate arbitration as a necessary accompaniment to the operation of this clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ST. LEVAN LORD ST. LEVAN moved to amend the last three lines of subsection (1) so that they should read, "and in any such case the notice to quit shall take effect as if this Act had not been passed."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("length of"), leave out ("required") and insert ("to quit") and leave out ("be such") and insert ("take effect").—(Lord St. Levan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, 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 connection with the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to the purpose for which or matter on account of which it was given, 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.
LORD ST. LEVAN: The Amendments standing in my name to this Clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("connection with") and insert ("view of")
Page 2, line 28, after ("thereof") insert ("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")
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("it was") and insert ("a notice to quit has been").—(Lord St. Levan.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HYLTON: I have placed on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 4, and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the very serious position which has arisen in this country since the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, when for the first time matters of great importance to landlord and tenant were referred to a single arbitrator—a gentleman appointed, I believe, by the Board of Agriculture; a gentleman of whose qualifications we know nothing, whose decisions in many parts of the country have given the gravest dissatisfaction, and against whose decisions there is no appeal. This House, I believe I am right in saying, only passed the clause in the Act of 1908 permitting the appointment of these single arbitrators with the gravest reluctance, and did so, I think, largely in consequence of the persuasive manner in which the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, always addresses this side as well as his own side of the House. He asked us to consent to the appointment of these unskilled arbitrators on the ground that great expense would be saved, that no expert witnesses

941
need be called, and that these arbitrations would be conducted in a simple, cheap, and easy manner. But I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, either on that occasion or on some other occasion pointed out that you may secure certain things too cheap, and that if you are to have these ignorant and inexperienced persons sent down on the ground of cheapness to settle important questions between landlord and tenant, with no appeal against their decision, the advantages of their being cheap do not outweigh the other great disadvantages. When the present Bill came up for discussion on Second Reading I ventured to give your Lordships a concrete instance of the way in which this system of a single arbitrator nominated by the Board of Agriculture worked in the case of land belonging to a not unimportant charity—Smith's Charity—and I pointed out that the sufferers through the decision of the arbitrator in that case were the London hospitals; and at the time I ventured to tell Lord Lucas that if he cared to have particulars in order to examine into this case I should be very happy to supply them. The noble Lord, however, has not thought proper to enter into any communication with me on this matter. I dare say he knows who the gentleman was who was sent down as arbitrator in that case. He was described to me as an auctioneer. I will not trouble your Lordships this evening with the full details of the case, because I mentioned it on the Second Reading. Several noble Lords agreed with me that a miscarriage of justice appeared to have occurred. I have since been informed that a similar miscarriage of justice has occurred in other cases. How could it be otherwise when there is no appeal against the decision of this single arbitrator, and when there is nothing to prevent totally ignorant and unscrupulous men, who would naturally do what they could to please their masters, being appointed so-called arbitrators? This Bill proposes to extend this undesirable custom. Any question arising under this Bill is to be referred to a single irresponsible arbitrator. As a protest against this system and against its extension I have put an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of the clause, and if I can find a noble Lord who will go into the Lobby with me in support of the Amendment I shall put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 4.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: I should like to put in a word on behalf of these gentlemen whom Lord Hylton on the last occasion described as departmental inspectors and on this occasion as cheap and ignorant arbitrators. The fact is that when arbitration becomes necessary and the Board have to appoint an arbitrator the invariable practice is to select a local valuer or surveyor of standing—a person of quite independent position who has nothing whatever to do with the Board at all.
LORD HYLTON: The arbitrator in the case of Smith's Charity was described to the persons interested as an auctioneer.
LORD LUCAS: The information which Lord Hylton has is wrong. He may be an auctioneer, but he is also a surveyor and valuer of considerable standing. The gentleman in question is Mr. C. F. Moore, who is a well-known surveyor and valuer in Cirencester. These gentlemen have no axe to grind by serving one party or the other: they go down absolutely independent, and it is a matter of indifference to the Board of Agriculture what the nature of their award may be. I will give your Lordships the facts regarding Smith's Charity, to which Lord Hylton has again referred to-night. On the last Occasion Lord Hylton was good enough to give us figures. He said—
"A very well-known surveyor appointed on behalf of this Charity, whose name I am quite willing to give to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he desires it, valued the land at a rental of 40 s. an acre, and was quite prepared not only to prove that land of a similar character adjoining it was actually rented at 40 s. an acre but was in demand at 40 s. an acre. Your Lordships will be surprised to hear that the arbitrator sent down by the Board of Agriculture decided that the land was to be in future rented by the county council at 17 s. an acre."
The Duke of Northumberland, who is, I gather, one of the noble Lord's co-trustees in this matter, said—
"The land in question was actually let at the time for 30 s. It was not only valued as worth 40 s. by the valuer, but was actually let at 30 s."
We did not refer to Lord Hylton, but we have made an inquiry into the actual facts of the case, and I will give them to your Lordships as supplied to us by Mr. Peter, the county land agent. As your Lordships are aware, the arbitration was for the leasing of land by the county of

943
Gloucester for the purpose of small holdings. Mr. Peter was acting on behalf of the county council, and was in full possession of all the facts. The noble Lord told us that the value of the land was put at 40 s. an acre by the gentleman whom he referred to as a well-known surveyor.
LORD HYLTON: It was Mr. Clutton.
LORD LUCAS: I do not know how much reliability they placed in this gentleman because the fact is that at the inquiry which took place they only claimed 30 s. an acre.
LORD HYLTON: I can explain that if the noble Lord wishes to know the reason.
LORD LUCAS: The rest of the facts are that the whole farm, comprising 240 acres and including house and buildings, is at present let for 20 s. an acre, which presumably is a reasonable rent as the trustees are bound to get the best rent they can for this land. Out of this 240 acres a piece of about 60½ acres was wanted for small holdings. It had no accommodation value and is three-quarters of a mile from the farmhouse and buildings, and therefore no one has suggested that there was any "cutting the eye out" of the farm. Mr. Peter understood from the tenant that he valued it at 10 s. an acre. Your Lordships will notice that the whole of the farm was rented at only 20 s. an acre. This piece of 60½ acres, the least good part of the farm, the tenant valued at 10 s. an acre; the county council's valuer put it at 14 s. an acre; and the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture valued it at 17 s. 4d. an acre.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I should like to say a word of protest against the attack which the noble Lord opposite has made on these arbitrators. When I was at the head of the Board of Agriculture we took the greatest possible trouble to get the best men we could to arbitrate in these cases, because we knew, of course, that by their decisions our proposals stood or fell. I do think the noble Lord went a little too far when he
944
described them as irresponsible persons and said they would do what they could to "please their masters" in this matter. That is a perfectly unjustifiable charge to bring against very straightforward, hardworking, and honourable men. If while I was at the Board of Agriculture we had any fault to find with them it was that they were too much landlords' men. They seemed to us always to put too high a price, in some instances much too high a price, on the land which they had to value, and on two or three occasions it was impossible to get land for small holdings on account of the extreme value which some of these men thought they were justified in putting on the land. I regret that such a charge should have been brought against these honourable men, and I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord opposite will regret having made it.
LORD HYLTON: Perhaps I spoke with too much warmth, but I feel very warmly on the matter. It is nothing to do personally with the trustees of this charity, but we are bound to administer the property as carefully as we can in order to give the revenue resulting therefrom to the London hospitals. When we thought that in consequence of the action of the arbitrator in this case, against whose decision there was no appeal, the amount we could devote to the London hospitals was largely reduced, we naturally felt warmly on the subject. I do not think it is necessary for me to weary the House by dwelling in further detail on this particular case, but I could say a good deal in answer to what Lord Lucas has alleged. If the noble Lord will take the trouble to inquire about the way in which this charity estate is administered he will find that the farms are very low rented in the general opinion of the district, and I submit that the arbitrator sent down to settle the fair price that should be paid for the portion of the land that was to be taken should not have been influenced by the amount which the trustees of Smith's Charity took from the tenant for the whole farm but should have had regard to the real true value of the land to be taken for the purposes of small holdings, and we felt that 17 s. an acre for all grass land was too low. Although the noble Lord says that the tenant of the remainder of the farm had stated that this land was of little value, he may be interested to know that the tenant has

945
since sent in an application to the trustees saying that since this valuable land has been taken off he is entitled to have his rent reduced. I think the landowners of this country are entitled to claim that the greatest care should be taken to see that the persons sent down to arbitrate under the Act of 1908 and under this Bill possess proper qualifications.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not more enamoured than my noble friend of the procedure under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. Indeed I have more than once in this House raised my voice against what I conceive to be the growing danger of entrusting more and more authority to courts which are not courts of law, but which are, so to speak, improvised for the purposes of a particular statute. But that really is a large question and is hardly before the House at this moment. All I will say is that so long as this practice continues so long you will have it said that the arbitrator is either a landlords' man or a tenants' man, as the case may be. My noble friend behind me proposes to omit this clause altogether. I do not quite know where we should be without a clause of some kind providing a tribunal for dealing with the matters which must necessarily arise under this Bill. Under the preceding clause questions may arise as to the purpose for which a notice to quit has been given, whether it is for building, whether it is for a breach of contract, and so on, and it seems to me that you must have some authority in cases of that kind to decide as between the parties. I think we should incur considerable responsibility, after accepting this Bill in principle, if we took out of it a clause which seems to me to be an essential wheel, so to speak, in the machinery of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday the 26 th instant: Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 164.)

WARREN HASTINGS HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the Question that stands in my name runs as follows—
To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the house known as Hastings House, Calcutta, which was built and occupied by Warren Hastings and was purchased by the Government of India in 1900 partly as a historic monument and partly as a State guest-house has been offered for sale, or has already been sold, by the Government of India; whether its contents have already been sold by auction; what is the reason for these measures; and whether steps cannot be taken to preserve in the hands of Government so interesting and unique a historic memorial.
I have left the Question on the Paper in the form in which I put it down in order to enable the Secretary of State to give us as full a reply as he may find convenient. But I ought to add that only yesterday I received a letter from the Viceroy of India in which he informed me, with regard to the sale of the contents of the house to which I referred in the Question, that all the most important furniture was reserved, and that the Government of India have not the least intention of parting with the house itself. I need hardly say that this was very good news to me, as I believe it will be to the majority of your Lordships, and I only hope that the Secretary of State may be able to tell us that this assurance applies, not merely to the house itself, but to the beautiful garden by which he may perhaps remember the house is surrounded.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am not at all surprised at the keen interest which the noble Earl opposite takes in this house, which owes its preservation and improvement to his energy when he was Viceroy of India. I was surprised myself when I saw a letter which he wrote to The Times on the subject on the 26th of last month, because he appeared to assume, what I certainly had never heard hinted at when I was in India at the beginning of this year, that the sale of the house was actually contemplated. He stated in this letter that he founded that opinion upon a paragraph which appeared in the Statesman, a well-known Calcutta newspaper, and he appeared to assume that the statements contained in that paragraph were altogether accurate. The Statesman, if I remember right, announced

947
the approaching sale as an absolute fact. Now that the noble Earl has received an intimation from the Viceroy, there is not very much more that I can tell him than was, as I gather, contained in that letter. The house, as the noble Earl has stated, was employed by him when the seat of the Imperial Government was at Calcutta as a guest-house for Indian chiefs paying visits to the capital. With the change of capital it was no longer required for that purpose, and it contained a quantity of ordinary furniture which has been the subject of the sale to which the noble Earl alluded. The pictures which were in the house have been reserves and removed, and that applies also to anything which it contained which could be regarded as of particular value. The whole question of the future destination of the Imperial buildings at Calcutta has naturally been referred for their advice to the Government of Bengal, and I hope it will be in a very short time that we shall receive their opinion of the proper destination of those buildings. As soon as we do I shall have pleasure in informing the noble Earl of what is decided. But there certainly never has been any question of the demolition of the house, as to which a Question was asked in another place by Sir John Rees. There has, in fact, never been any question of its sale. I am glad to be able to answer in the affirmative also that the intention of the Government of India is to keep the grounds altogether intact, so that there is no opportunity of their meeting the fate which the noble Earl has dreaded for them—that of being cut up for
948
building. As to the use to which in future the house may be put I have myself no idea, and it is certainly not worth while to endeavour to invent hypothetical uses for it. But I am quite sure we all share the feeling of the noble Earl, that so important a historical monument, connected with the great ruler of India to whom both Englishmen and the natives of India owe so much, is worthy not merely of preservation but of being treated with all respect. I trust, therefore, that some use will be found for it which is worthy of its past.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should like to be allowed to say that I am much obliged to the Secretary of State and also to the Viceroy for the action they have taken in this matter, and I am quite satisfied with the reply we have just heard from the noble Marquess.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow or Wednesday, and therefore I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Thursday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, hall-past Twelve o'clock.