§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONOn the proposal to adjourn can the Government give us any indication as to what the course of business will be to-morrow? I understand that the questions which might arise between this House and the other House on the Government of Ireland Bill have been greatly narrowed in the last few hours, and I would like to ask whether it is possible for that Bill to be taken as the first Order to-morrow.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Government are anxious on this point to do what will be convenient to the majority of your Lordships. It is a matter of the utmost indifference to us, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a great number of noble Lords are very much interested in agriculture. It is quite true the noble Earl assures me that the discussion on the Commons' treatment of our Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill may be a very short one, but one can never be quite sure on these matters, and I should be disposed to leave the question to the judgment of the House as a whole. I would suggest that it might be a convenient course if the noble Earl or some Party leader were to submit a substantive Motion. Our only desire is to know the opinion of the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIn those circumstances what is the object of the Notice which I have just received, saying that we are to meet to-morrow at 344 3 o'clock and are to start the Irish Bill at that time?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI announced at the commencement of business to-day that we should meet at 3 o'clock to-morrow.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe Notice which I have in my possession is that we should begin the Irish Bill at 3 o'clock. It would he a great inconvenience to many members of the House if we were to do anything of the kind, and if I have an opportunity I shall challenge the opinion of the House upon it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Notice addressed to the noble Lord must have been the product of zeal, and is not a communication from this side of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI would point out that there is this difference between the two Bills. Their relative importance need not be discussed, but there is the fact that noble Lords from Ireland are placed in a somewhat different position from those who merely have to come up from the country in England, and I think that their convenience ought to be considered in the first place as far as possible.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYPerhaps your Lordships will allow us to consider this a little further, and to mention it later.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORCertainly. I do not know whether it would be a convenient course—we wish to leave it to the House, and I know of no other method—for the noble Marquess or one of his friends to put down a Motion.
§ [The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINWe were invited by the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture to say a few words in general discussion, and I gladly avail myself of his invitation. I shall begin by saying that I am sorry the question of paying the tenant the outgoings to which he is entitled 345 on leaving the farm was ever connected in any way with the question of one or more years' rent. It seems to me wholly in-applicable for that particular kind of case. For this reason, that the value of the land differs so greatly in the various parts of the country.
Take the case of the Lothians in Scotland. There you find some of the most valuable land in the world. I have walked over farm after farm in the Lothians in the company of an owner of a great estate there, the late Mr. Nesbit Hamilton, who had a magnificent estate in the East Lothians. The land there was let for growing much the same articles as he grew in the great estates which he also owned in Lincolnshire. But whereas the usual rent for the farms in the Lothians was £5 an acre—it was some of the richest and most fertile land in the whole of the United Kingdom—the rent of the land in Lincolnshire and ether Southern districts in England was I5s., 20s., or 25s. an acre. There being that difference, how can you apply the system of awarding the tenant so much of the rent?
What the tenant gets now upon quitting depends very largely upon the time at which he enters his farm. There are various kinds of entry. There is the Michaelmas entry, the Lady Day entry, and the May Day entry, and the compensation which he receives is totally different or very largely different in those cases. There is not much difference in the ease of the Lady Day entry and the May Day entry with which I am most familiar. In Lincolnshire they were universal, and in Nottinghamshire I believe they were the same. I think the East Riding of Yorkshire and other great corn growing districts were all conducted upon the system of Lady Day entry or May Day entry with a six months' notice to quit. The consequence was that under that' system there was every inducement to the outgoing tenant to farm as well as he possibly could to the very last moment, and for two reasons. If he did not do his duty and do it properly certain things might happen. This custom was the foundation upon which all the Agriculture Bills from the first have been passed during my time in Parliament, and I have discussed this question over and over again with Mr. Disraeli himself, who was leader of the Party when I first came into Parliament.
One of the practices under that custom provided that if the work of the farm—such as cleaning the land, which is very 346 important—was not being done properly by the outgoing tenenat after he had received or given notice to quit, the incoming tenant or the landlord had the right of sending his own horses and men and implements to do the cleaning and the work of the farm for him. As a consequence the outgoing tenant always did it to the very best of his ability, and that was one of tire reasons why counties where farms were held under that tenure became more celebrated than almost any others for the perfection of the farming which was carried out at that time.
I hope it will not be thought that I am speaking egostistically, but I remember perfectly well the first time I rode over my estates I said to the old agent, who had gone through the ranks and had been a ploughman at one time, "I want to see a piece of twitch; I want to see what it is like." These were all large farms, and I am not exaggerating when I say that I had to ride two or three miles before he could find a piece of twitch to show me. Yet during the great depression I have seen that land covered with twitch almost from beginning to end. That shows what could be done under reasonable and fitting arrangements between and tenant and on entering and quitting farms. That is wiry I was sorry to hear the question discussed as if it was a matter which could be settled by giving as compensation so much money—either part of a year's rent or a month's rent of the farm, which has practically nothing whatever to do with it.
LORD LEE or FAREHAMI do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will realise that this proposal has, nothing whatever to do with outgoing valuation, which is entirely outside the-scope of the Bill. The Bill has only to do with compensation for disturbance in case of removal.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThat is part of the whole thing. Everything is paid for now under the existing practice on every well-managed estate. It is all included, though it is called by different names. In Lincolnshire it used to be called the tenant right, or the inventory, and all these things were settled without the smallest difficulty. And during all the years in which that custom was imposed no case in that county had ever been taken to law, and that is over fifty or sixty years that I 347 can recollect, myself. What is the use of going into all these confused details, so difficult to understand? Having had to do with every agricultural Bill for regulating the position between landlord and tenant, I never remember one so difficult to understand. I went this morning through the Bill, as it was first introduced into this House, and in Clause 4 alone I found eighteen different sections and sixteen subsections containing subjects of reference to which von had to refer before you could understand this Bill. That used to be something unknown. It may be difficult in these days when Bill after Bill is crowded upon them for the draftsman to avoid it—probably they have not the time.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMWe have not done it in this case.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI know what difficulties the noble Lord has had, and my sympathy has been increased by the tactful and kindly way in which he has met us. What I should aim at is to give effect in this Bill, as far as the law can do it, to all the different customs which exist—there are customs in every county—and in doing that you could save yourselves enormous trouble and difficulty, and any number of disputes.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYI am afraid it will take a good deal to persuade me, if anything can persuade me, to vote for a fixed penalty which should be both a maximum and minimum in a case in which, by the conditions supposed, the notice to quit has been given with good and sufficient cause and for reasons consistent with good estate management. I have searched amongst the other Amendments for a form of words which I think fits the case properly. I agree with some noble Lords that if you abandon the principle of a fixed penalty the only alternative is complete and genuine indemnity to the tenant for what he has suffered. I am afraid in the Amendment proposed by Lord Bledisloe I find too much that is visionary and altogether nebulous in expression to satisfy me. We want some words inserted in his Amendment which make it clear that what the tenant has suffered is an interruption of his tenancy and the interruption of the profits he might have reaped from his cultivation.
I abandon the idea of a penalty because it is repugnant to the immemorial principle 348 of our law. It is a well-known doctrine that the Courts of Equity and Common Law lean against the imposition of a fixed penalty for the double reason, that, on the one hand, it is odious, and, secondly, because it fails as a test of the injury inflicted. It is too much or too little, and there can be but few cases in which it can really fit the case of the injury suffered. I turn to the Amendment of Lord Clinton, and I find that it much more fits the case, except for the fact that I do not think we ought to subject it to the broad maximum limit of one year's rent. For my part, I should support any settlement of this difficult and vexed question which will rest on the principle of complete indemnity for the losses legitimately suffered, not merely sentimentally suffered, and shall not subject a landlord to a penalty which, being arbitrary and fixed, is in its nature for that very reason probably unjust.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI have wondered ever since I read this Bill whether it was really one for the improvement of agriculture, and the more we have gone into it the more it seems to me that it is not calculated to improve agriculture. In the past we have suffered a great deal from the election speeches and promises of the present Prime Minister, and we are suffering a great deal at the present. Let us regard this question as to whether it is going to be for the good of the country and for agriculture. As far as I am concerned, if it is really going to improve agriculture, I am prepared to make some sacrifices. But do not let us have any sentimental nonsense that because a farmer has to leave his farm he must therefore be paid something. You have to look at the whole question. You have to look at the capital employed in the agricultural industry; and if you are going to penalise the landlord's capital, which is the principal and most important capital, you are' going to do more harm than by giving greater security to the tenant's capital.
My own experience has been this. I am glad to say I have had very few changes of tenancies. I have never felt that I am in a superior position to the farmer in negotiations. I have a farm which I must let. He can take it or not, as he choose, and I suppose that most of us have always felt that the farmer, as a rule, has rather the whip hand. Most of the farmers and some of the landowners with whom I have to deal are rather like 349 the Scottish minister. I dare say your Lordships know the story of the Scottish minister who was giving advice to his son who was about to go to foreign parts. After a lot of useful suggestions the minister added, "Neither cheat nor be cheated, but rather cheat than be cheated." I think that landlords and farmers are the same. In Scotland not only farmers, but small holders and others, rather pride themselves, and I thins rightly, that they can make a good bargain. Is all this going to do any good? Are you going to encourage enterprise?
If the farmer is to be compensated surely he must take the same risk as anybody else. It seems to me that some people suggest that the farmers should be put in a position where they would be able to speculate freely and have their losses made good. My own opinion is that under the present Regulations the bulk of the farmers have confidence in the compensation they can get. They are not altogether fools, and if a landowner is not going to play the game the probability is that he will not get good tenants. I think that, anything like a fixed sum is totally wrong. My noble friend Lord Chaplin spoke of a part where I happen to have land, not as highly rented as lie has stated, but still the rent is high. Is there any more expense to the tenant there in moving, or even as much expense, as there is many other parts of the country where the rent is lower? I admit that many things are not likely to hit, anyone like myself very hard, but rather the small man. I think your Lordships must be very careful that, while you may wish to be fair and even generous to the farmer, the point you have to keep in mind is what is really going to be for the good of agriculture and the production of food.
I think that this one year's rent has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It will be not only unfair to many landlords, but unfair as between farmer and farmer. It will have the same effect as other Government interference has had. Take the railways. There they have standardised signal men, and the man on the branch line gets practically the same pay as the man on the main line, with the result that the man who is doing three or four times the work of the other and getting the same pay is discontented. So it will be here. We want fairness and justice, and I am sure that farmers are the last people to cry out for charity. They are an independent body of men, well able, 350 as a rule, to hold their own. My experience is that when farmers have made a bargain they have made a hard bargain, and once it has been made it has been kept. Our relations have been very satisfactory and, indeed, in some cases over-punctilious.
I am afraid that all these things, instead of doing good to agriculture, will do harm. In the south of Scotland where many farms are held by one man, I think it is always found that the most severe critics are the shepherds and the ploughmen and the farm stewards. They are the ones who find most fault, and they say it is not fair that a man who is not cultivating his land properly should have it. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill will stereotype the bad or indifferent farmer, and it will be almost impossible, I suggest, from my experience, to get rid of him. That is a very grave danger, and it is a great injustice to the young rising man who may have capital, and to the somewhat older man who, through his own exertions, may have accumulated capital. It is a difficult position, but I think the proposal of my noble friend Lord Clinton is the most likely one to meet the case. I think the bulk of the farmers will be perfectly satisfied and will consider that they have a reasonable and sufficient compensation for being moved.
I do not think it has been sufficiently appreciated by your Lordships that we are only discussing eases where removal takes place under good estate management, and surely good estate management must mean management for the good of the estate and for the good of the food production of the country. If that is so, is it right that a man, especially a poor man, who takes action should be penalised? I can only say if that is to be so, it will simply mean he will not in any circumstances do anything in the way of giving notice to a tenant who has not cultivated his land either in the interests of his estate or in the interests of the food production of the country.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI approach this matter from the position of an agricultural landowner in a small way and a farmer in a small way, but also as a lawyer and a man of business. I say to myself, What happens when two men make a contract and one breaks it? What does the one have to pay, and what has the other to receive? One has to pay, and the other has to 351 receive, the damages which the breach of contract has caused to him—no more and no less. Sometimes it is difficult to measure those damages, and the Courts of law have had difficulties in applying a measure; but on the whole it is easy to say what the damages are that flow from a particular breach, and it is easy to compensate the injured person by giving him those damages.
Here we are dealing with a case where no contract is broken. We are going to put the tenant in as good a position as if the landlord bad broken his contract. So be it. Why should we do more? If the contract is broken we give the man compensation by way of damages for the breach; why, when no contract is broken, should we give a man more than the damage he has sustained? If there is a doubt whether any of these words are large enough, let them be made larger. I must say it seems to me that the words in the Bill are large enough, and the right course to take is to strike out all words after the word "compensation" in the fourth line of page 14. But if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill wants larger words let him suggest them, and I am sure the House will be glad to give them.
There are certain noble Lords who are afraid of allowing this rule. They are afraid of what the arbitrator will do, but I think they are unduly timorous. We are not ashamed of what we do, and we are not afraid that the arbitrator will go wrong, but if he does the Courts of law will correct him. All arbitrators can be compelled, if it is supposed that they are going wrong on points of law, to state a case for the opinion of the Court, and will then be told by the Court what they ought to do. If a landlord anticipated that the arbitrator was going to give the tenant farmer something quite ridiculous—it was suggested to me that supposing a tenant farmer's daughter goes to a very good and cheap school close by and in consequence of the farmer being evicted he has to take the girl away from school—if the arbitrator was going to award damages on that account, the landlord has only to go to the Court and the arbitrator will be asked to state a case, and he would be- corrected and stopped.
Therefore we need not be afraid that the arbitrator will give what President Kruger once called "moral and intellectual damages." Noble Lords need not be afraid 352 that the arbitrator will give damages to the tenant otherwise than for what he has suffered, and the tenant ought to get those damages. We are giving him something which he does not now get—the same rights as a man whose contract is broken, although here no contract is broken—but the tenant is to get that and no more, and no more whether the eviction is capricious or not. He suffers no more because the eviction is capricious. To give damages for capricious eviction is mixing up civil and criminal law, and imposing an additional penalty upon a landlord. The tenant ought not to be able to put into his pocket four years' rent because he has been capriciously evicted. He ought to get damages liberally estimated, and no more. I therefore suggest that one or two of the Amendments of the noble Lords should be accepted, or that it would be quite as satisfactory to stop the section at the, word "compensation."
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI think it my duty at this stage to intervene in the discussion, and I am more anxious, having had a little opportunity both for refreshment and reflection, to put my views or the views of the Government before your Lordships in, I hope, sufficiently clear form. May I say with regard to the speech of the Duke of Buccleuch that I am sorry he should have thought it necessary in the beginning of his speech to suggest that in this matter I was playing politics.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI am the author of the Bill.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREIEAMI am the responsible Minister, and I can assure the noble Lord that in this matter I have had no thought whatever for any political consideration, and I have only accepted responsibility for the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, I think it is necessary to give effect to the lessons of the war, and secondly I believe it is good for agriculture. If I had not believed those two things, nothing would have induced me to be responsible for it. 353 May I go back a little to the history of this proposal? As you are aware, it is not the original proposal which was in the Bill as introduced in another place, but we have always had the same object in view, and that was to give a sufficient sense of security to the good farmer to encourage him to the utmost amount of enterprise, and higher standards of food production. That was our object, and there were two alternatives which were proposed to the Government. One was fixity of tenure, dual ownership; the other was adequate compensation for disturbance. Of these two alternatives I unhesitatingly supported the latter, and, as I have mentioned more than once, I have so far as I know steered clear of anything in the nature of fixity of tenure throughout the provisions of this Bill. I am a little nervous about it, because I feel as if I was living in a house where, if I emerged for a moment from the door, I always found myself on a sort of toboggan slide which led down to the bottomless pit of fixity of tenure. Your Lordships warn me luck again the instant that I show my nose outside the door. I hope I shall be able to show that there is nothing of heresy in these particular proposals.
But in the first draft of the Bill there were three different proposals with regard compensation—first, a sum to cover loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding incurred in connection with the sale or removal of stock, implements and so forth: secondly, for losses or expenses directly attributable to the quitting and thirdly, one year's rent in non-capricious cases, and a sum of between one and four years' rent in capricious cases. Those were the original proposals. In the course of discussion in another place there were naturally innumerable conferences and discussions with the various interests concerned. I quite agree that in many cases it. is not possible to get any body of men who are plenipotentiaries and who are able to treat on behalf of all the interests. It is true that on the farmers' side the National Farmers' Union were able to speak more or less as plenipotentiaries for the whole of their organisation, and on the other side a number of distinguished representatives of landlords in another place did discuss this mater with the Government and with the farmers, agreed eventually, and supported by their votes the agreement which is embodied in this subsection. I do not 354 suggest for a moment that is binding on anybody except the individuals who made it, but I put it forward as a reasonable explanation of the Government's action in feeling that it was a reasonable compromise.
It will be observed that in the course of the compromise the second of these scales of compensation disappeared altogether, and that was very much welcomed on the landlord's side because it removed from the proposal a very indefinite, and as I think necessarily indefinite, description of the basis on which compensation was to be assessed. On the other hand, in another place, on account of this compromise, very little objection was raised afterwards to the retention of the payment of one year's rent in every case in addition to the cost of sale and removal. That is the proposal which is now before your Lordships, and I would like to suggest that it is not, whatever you may call it intended in any sense as a fine or as all injury to the landlord. It cannot be defended in logic, that is quite obvious. There is nothing that is logical, except the full proposals of Lord Bledisloe, that everything which is directly attributable to quitting, however large the sum may be, should be paid, no more and no less.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEArising out of the farming operations.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMYes, I am not using all the words. That is the only logical position. But I am not sure that logic is always the best guide to policy, and this is frankly, and has never pretended to be anything else, an arrangement which was thought to be on the whole more convenient to both parties concerned. It is a rule of thumb method if you like, but it has this advantage at any rate that both sides know pretty well where they are, and this interminable vista of legislation and investigation into this or that possible loss is closed. I think the daughter's high school education is the most extreme that I have yet heard suggested, but there are many other very difficult ones. There is, for instance, the point that was raised by a noble Lord before dinner in regard to the name of a pedigree herd which may he a good will of real value, and which disappears absolutely as soon as the tenant has to leave his holding; and there are many other valuable local agricultural connections strictly relating to the tenancy. 355 I venture to say if you are going to adopt a system under which every one of those questions is the subject of investigation by an arbitrator and of assessment for loss, I think you are entering upon a road which may lead you in many cases very much further than you have any idea of. I think all these factors which are very real subjects of loss are at the same time almost incalculable, and it would be a practical impossibility in the sort of cases which will frequently arise really to assess the loss except as the result of an almost interminable legal process.
I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that we have every confidence in the arbitrators and I feel sure their decisions would not be foolish, but they would have exceedingly difficult matters to investigate and exceedingly difficult decisions to come to, the proceedings, I am convinced, would take an immense amount of time and cost a great deal of money. At the same time as the result of this discussion I have been very much impressed with two points of view. There is the logical point of view voiced by Lord Bledisloe and more recently by Lord Stuart of Wortley, and I should like to see that given effect to as far as possible. At the same time in view of what has taken place up to now and during the last six or seven months that this matter has been the subject of negotiation I do not feel able to assent to any proposition which would deprive the outgoing tenant of the one year's rent which he would receive under the present clause. But I am hoping that I may be able to suggest for the consideration of your Lordships a compromise on this question to which I will refer in a few moments. I am inclined to agree, with I think the noble and learned Lord who preceded me, that it is difficult to justify in logic or anything else the differential treatment of an eviction of a tenant whether it is for one motive or another.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMWhether it is for reasons consistent or inconsistent with good estate management; not because I do not think it would be a very good thing for quite other reasons to penalise a capricious landlord, but because, after all, it makes no difference whatsoever to the tenant.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMThe object which we have in view is to give the tenant a sense of security in regard to his capital, and not to put a fine in his pocket as the result of the sins or delinquencies of his landlord. There is also the difficulty that arbitrators, however wise—and I am prepared to accord to them all the wisdom of which the human race is capable—would inevitably give uneven and sometimes conflicting decisions with regard to what is and what is not capricious, and this might bear more hardly on one landlord than on another. And all the time there would be this feeling of uncertainty hanging over the heads of landlords, when they were proposing to get rid of a tenant, as to whether or not their action might be considered capricious. I think there is a real objection to that, and in view of the fact that the tenant is just as much injured in the one case as in the other, and in order to get rid of the uncertainty and to simplify the position, I should be prepared to consider, if necessary, the dropping of that proposal in the Bill which deals with increased compensation in cases of capricious disturbance.
There is also the distinction between rent and net rent. I am afraid we should land ourselves into a mass of inconsistency if the proposal of a net rent were adopted. After all, the net rent depends entirely on what may be the particular outgoings of that particular landlord, which may bear no relation whatever to the outgoings of another landlord similarly situated—the great differences in connection with tithe rentcharges and other outgoings, and the fact that one estate may have required more expenditure than another, and so forth—and I think that would lead one, not only into a mass of inconsistencies, but into results which would be very unjust to the average tenant, if he were only entitled to the net rent. But I do hope that your Lordships will not look on this subject too narrowly from the point of view merely of justice to the landlord. I have endeavoured all through these debates to keep before your Lordships what I believe to be the national interest with regard to the increased production of food, and the undoubted fact, so far as all our information goes to show, that some measure of increased sense of security is absolutely essential for the tenant farmers of this country, if they are going to be spurred on to greater efforts in the future. This controversy has been going on for years. 357 There are on the one side and the other violent champions of extreme courses. I have endeavoured to avoid any connection with their ideas, and to steer a middle course, and I cannot help thinking that there is in the circumstances of the time and of the Coalition Government—if it has no other uses—an opportunity which might never occur again for a reasonable settlement of this extraordinarily difficult and vexed question.
Now I will indicate to your Lordships what seems to me a reasonable solution. Although I naturally much prefer the proposal which is in the Bill, and which so far has survived, I am conscious of the exceedingly strong feeling in the House. I am quite sure that you will be influenced by no consideration but the good of agriculture and the welfare of the State. But I know that the feeling is exceedingly strong, and I am anxious, as I hope I have shown myself throughout so far as possible, to meet the strong views, and even the prejudices, of your Lordships with regard to matters with which you are so intimately connected. I have tried to combine in this proposal what seems to nut the best in the various views put forward, and I believe it represents the limit to which it would be possible to whittle down the clause of the Bill if it is to have any of the effects which the Government desire and are considered necessary in the national interests.
The effect of my proposal would be that the quitting tenant, the tenant who has been given notice to quit, when not in default—we do not propose that he should receive any compensation for disturbance in that ease—shall in every case be entitled to a sum equal to one year's rent, inclusive of all the subjects enumerated in subsection (5) but that he shall not be entitled to any further compensation for disturbance unless he can prove that. the loss and expenses directly attributable to the twitting and unavoidably incurred in connection with the sale and removal of his stock, etc., exceeds one year's rent, in which case he shall be entitled to the whole of the loss and expenses so incurred up to a maximum of two years' rent. There is no provision for capricious eviction at all. I will give your Lordships the exact words of the subsection as it would stand—
The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum equal to one year's rent of the 358 holding or, where the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and unavoidably incurred by the tenant upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or stock on or used in connection with the holding, together with any expenses reasonably incurred in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation) exceeds that sum, such sum not exceeding two years' rent of the holding as represents such loss and expenses.
§ LORD PARMOORDoes that mean that one year's rent would be given, although there was no damage sustained at all in a particular case? Admitted there is no damage, under those circumstances one year's rent should be given?
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMObviously a tenant would have some expenses in connection with the quitting of his holding and the sale or removal of his household goods and farming implements, but it provides that there shall be no arbitration or litigation with regard to the amount so long as no claim is put in in excess of the year's rent if it is in excess of that sum, if the tenant wishes to claim more than that, he will be unable to get in any ease more than two years' rent.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmay be considerably less than that sum.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMThat is possible, but your Lordships will see that my proposal combines both the rule of thumb method, which I think would settle most cases, and in a very limited sense the logical basis of compensation suggested by Lord Bledisloe.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI should like some further explanation of what is meant by this proposal, because one year's rent and two year's rent mean different things North and South of the Tweed. In Scotland the owner pays the larger proportion of the rates, much larger than the tenant, and a year's rent to him is a very much more serious penalty. I have spoken to a great many personal friends of mine and they almost universally agree with me that the net sum at the moment which goes into the landlord's pockets does not exceed 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £ of the nominal rent. I am supposing that you take off the average amount for maintenance allowed by the Inland Revenue for Income Tax, the minister's stipend, local 359 rates and Income Tax. If I am right—and I could show figures to prove it—and the landlord is penalised by having to give one year's rent and only gets 2s. 6d. in the £, it will be eight years before he recoups himself for that loss. As I understand it he will not get any deduction from Income Tax on the ground that he has had to pay the year's rent. He will still be penalised in the whole of the Income Tax and also Super-Tax, if he has to pay it.
§ LORD STANMOREIn regard to the question so far as it regards Scotland, which formed the first part of my noble friend's speech, I do not know if he has noticed the Amendment in my name on page 34 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. It deals with this matter in very much the terms in which the noble Lord put his question—
will not be included in the rent.
- "(a) any public rate, taxes, or assessments which in England are by law a charge on the occupiers of land; or
- "(b) any public rates or taxes or other public burdens the like whereof are not chargeable on lands in England"—
LORD SHEFFIELDIf we are to discuss the meaning of rent I would mention that by Statute law the landlord has to pay the tithe, which is not chargeable on the tenant, and yet the tithe is no part whatever of the landlord's income or his rent. He is a mere conduit pipe for passing on the money to the parson.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI have no desire to move the words now. That was not the proposal unless it was your Lordships' wish. The proposal was that I should put down this suggestion on the Report stage for discussion then.
§ LORD PARMOORDoes the noble Lord assent to what I may call the penalty part of the existing clause being cut out now and leaving the question for discussion on Report stage? He does not mean, does he, that we are to pass the clause and the penalty of one year or four years—he admits now that it ought to be the same in both cases—in addition to the ascertainment of the actual amount of damage. If he would cut this out the matter could stand over to be considered later.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHMy noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has raised a very serious point. I would put it in 360 this way. In ally business, if you had to pay this compensation, it would naturally come out of profit, and therefore yon would not have to pay income Tax upon it; but owing to the landowner paying Income Tax under Schedule A it cannot be avoided. I know that my noble friend cannot do anything in this Bill, but, speaking for myself, I think if he could in any way give an assurance that the amount would be allowed as a deduction in respect of Income Tax it might alter the situation very much.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI will certainly look into that, and I hope to be able to clear it up at the Report stage. I am not a free agent in the matter.
VISCOUNT GALWAYWould not a simpler way be if we were to leave out the whole of this subsection down to the word "proper," and then the noble Lord could bring up the new subsection on Report?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYI desire, as I gather that my own Amendment is not the most popular one, to withdraw it.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEI am afraid I cannot follow the same course. I cannot possibly admit that rent is any guide whatever to the loss which the tenant has actually suffered. If I may say so, the reference to two years' maximum only aggravates the objection which I feel to the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEthen formally moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred be him in the preparation Of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation), and also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding," and to insert "such loss directly 361 attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably [...]ncur."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out from ("representing") to ("or") in line 5 on page 14, and insert("such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant nosy unavoidably incur").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI could not, of course, accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I do not propose troubling your Lordships to divide on the matter in view of the fact that the whole question will have to be decided on the Report stage when my Amendment is moved.
LORD HARRISDid not the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill say that he would bring up a definition of rent? I do not think he has given any reply. Obviously, if he is going to base his clause upon a year's or two years' rent he must have a clear definition of what is meant by "rent."
LORD SHEFFIELDThis will come up on Report, but I wish to say I prefer the words of the Bill at the bottom of page 13 to the words which Lord Bledisloe proposes to substitute. Having gone through all these Amendments which aim at the same conclusion but aim at it in different ways, it seems to me that the best words are those which the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, put. As they are scattered through three Amendments it is a little troublesome to get at them. The noble Lord strikes out the one year, and he was than proposing to give one year if the farm was kept in thorough good order and if the man was turned out unreasonably. But I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has, abandoned what I may call the penalising of the unsatisfactory landlord, as distinct from the compensating of the tenant who is to go out. I think we ought not to be prejudiced on Report by striking out the words at the bottom of page 13, because I think those words are better than the words which Lord Bledisloe has used.
§ THE MARQUESS 0F SALISBURYI am sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has shown consideration in accepting the sense of your Lordships' House and in 362 taking Lord Bledisloe's Amendment. Of course, it will require adjustment on Report.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYI think it is fair to your Lordships to say that, when the motion is moved from the Chair to adopt the substituted words of Lord Bledisloe, I shall ask your Lordships to accept an insertion into those words of the words "the interruption of" before the words "its tenancy."
§ Loup STUART OF WORTLEYIn order to make it quite clear that the compensation to the tenant shall be limited to that which arises out of the notice to quit, and shall not give him anything in the nature of compensation for his own agricultural failure and loss of profits, I wish to insert in the Amendment of Lord Bledisloe the words "the determination of." The Amendment will then read, "such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of the determination of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably incur."
§ LORD BLEDISLOEI am afraid I should not welcome the insertion of these words, if, as I think, it would include just those side-shows which may be wholly unconnected with the tenancy of the agricultural holding. Personally, I feel much firmer on the ground I have taken up.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYThat was my intention.
§ Amendment to the Amendment moved accordingly.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
§ Then, original Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL STANHOPEmoved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "equal to one year's rent of the holding." The noble Earl said: I understand that the Minister of Agriculture has accepted this Amendment. I move it for three reasons. It cuts out the four years for capricious eviction—
363§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI think it might save time if I reminded your Lordships that the Amendment deals with capricious eviction, which I have already expressed my willingness to surrender.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("holding") to the end of line 9.—(Earl Stanhope.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved, in paragraph (a), after "sale" to insert "or removal." The noble Duke said: I think this is chiefly drafting. The words appear in a previous clause.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 11, after ("sale") insert ("or removal").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI do not think it is merely drafting. If I thought there was any advantage to the landlord in making the valuation of any of these things before removal rather than after I should make no objection to the Amendment, but if a claim is made for damage to some implements due to the removal the landlord would wish to have it inspected after and not before removal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (6), to leave out "two" ("not less than two months") and insert "three." The noble Earl said: I think two months is rather short, and it would be an advantage to all parties that the landlord should know earlier when the tenant is going to make a claim.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI do not take any violent objection to this Amendment, but I do not see how this can possibly confer any advantage on the landlord unless, as is inevitable in some cases, the tenant through ignorance of the law or forgetfulness may omit to give notice in the time required and thus be deprived on what is really a technical point, of the compensation that is fairly due to him. I think it makes a pitfall for the tenant which 364 is perhaps rather unfair in some cases, and I do not think the landlord gains anything.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWe do not know what form this clause is to take eventually, and as the clause is at present I had in my mind a case of capricious disturbance. The landlord might give notice for reasons that appeared to him perfectly bona fide. Three months would give him more time to look it over, and to withdraw his notice if he thought fit.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMif the capricious is dropped perhaps the noble Earl will revise his opinion.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI will withdraw it for the present.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDmoved in subsection (6), after paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph—
(c) Where the notice to quit is given and expressed to be given for the purpose of seeing the holding in order to provide for payment of death duties which the landlord of the holding is liable to pay.
§ The noble Duke said: At the present moment when a man dies the duties are so very high that very often his son, in order to pay the duties, having no assets, has immediately to realise a very large amount of land. If this Bill becomes law the amount that he will have to realise will be very large indeed, in many cases probably tens of thousands of pounds. This will have to be got by the sale of land. This affects not only a large number of your Lordships, but also people in other walks of life. A great many landlords, even small landlords, would have to pay heavy death duties. It seems to me a very reasonable thing that compensation should not be payable to the tenant on the scale imposed by the Bill where the sale is taking place solely for the purpose of paying death duties which are immediate liabilities. Farmers made great sums of money out of the landlords during the war. Landlords, on the other hand, had received small rents, amounting perhaps to £500 or £600 a year. In some cases farmers who paid only £500 or £600 a year rent have made £5,000 or £6,000 for themselves. I have nothing to say against farmers, but I think landlords should not have to pay this heavy compensation to 365 people who are so much better off than themselves, especially when they have to pay such heavy death duties. There is one member of your Lordships' House whose father, a great landowner, died only a short time ago, who I understand has exactly £100 a year to live on at the present moment. I do not think there are many farmers or other people in that walk of life who would be content to work for that amount per annum.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 14, line 18, at end insert the following new paragraph:
("(c) Where the notice to quit is given and expressed to be given for the purpose of selling the holding in order to provide for payment of death duties which the landlord of the holding is liable to pay.")—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMWithout going into the vexed question as to whether farmers have or have not made great fortunes or whether your Lordships would be successful in persuading the country at large that you are an impoverished class as compared with tenant farmers, in any case we all have to pay death duties, unfortunately, at some time or another.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMSurely it is the successors who are present and to whom I am speaking. It is a little hard if a tenant who has become entitled under the provisions of this Bill to compensation for disturbance should be called upon to pay part of the death duties which belong to the estate of his landlord. There are, unfortunately, many cases in which landlords for one reason or another find themselves obliged to sell their lands, and this is one of the causes of the feeling of insecurity among tenants at the present time. I do not think there could be any justice or logic in putting part of the death duties on the tenant and I must resist the Amendment.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHSurely the amount might be deducted. Why should not they deduct the amount of the charges?
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMThis is different proposition.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI should have supported the noble Duke's Amendment had it not been for the speech which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill made a short time since with regard to the consideration of the whole question of the scale of compensation of disturbance. After that statement I do not think it would be wise for the noble Duke to press his Amendment until we know what that proposition is to be. I think, therefore, that the noble Duke would be wise to withdraw his Amendment until we come to the consideration of the terms of compensation.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDWhen I first drew up this Amendment I did not realise that a good deal of the compensation which is payable by the tenants to the landlord would be cut out of the Bill, as apparently it has been by the Amendment which has been accepted by the noble Lord, and there is not doubt that a difference is made to my Amendment by this fact. Under the circumstances, and in view of what Lord Ancaster has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (6), to leave out "three" and insert "six." The noble Earl said: The point. of this is simply that an owner may be at the other end of the world, perhaps under the service of the Crown, and there is no time in the three months for his agent to communicate with him.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI think that is a real point, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF CREWEmoved, in the first line of paragraph (e), after "let to," to insert "or permitted to be used by."
§ The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and the one which follows, together with two other Amendments on the next Clause and on Clause 21, deal with less exciting matters than those we have just been concerned with, but are not without importance. This Amendment is moved at the instance of the London County Council, with regard to the war allotments of which 367 so many were provided during the war. But it affects other public authorities and also, I think, the cases in which allotments were permitted to be made on commons. During the War the London County Council allowed a great number of allotments—14,000 altogether—to be taken up by various people in London very largely in the parks and open spaces, but these allotments were not in the strict sense let. No kind of agreement existed with regard to them, and it was really a licence to certain persons to cultivate small lots of ground, 5 rods as a rule. The Council is advised that these allotments, not having been let, do not come under the exemption from payment of compensation. Then equally there is the case where an "authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or Department." In some cases land so acquired was not put to the use for which it was acquired. An education authority acquired land and it was used for open spaces. Through an abundance of caution they desire the insertion of the words "or appropriated" towards the end of paragraph (e).
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, after ("let to") insert ("or permitted to be used by").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREAre the tenants under the Crown Lands exempt, or do they receive the benefits under the Bill?
§ LORD LEE OF FARFHAMI should be glad if the noble Marquess will allow me to make sure on that point. With regard to the Amendment I think it is meaningless. If there is no tenancy, if no tenancy is created, the clause is inapplicable. As to his second Amendment I do not think the word "appropriated" is the proper word to use, but I will see if the right word can be inserted on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD HASTINGShad an Amendment in paragraph (f), to leave out "and".["and which has since the fourth day of August"] and insert "or." The noble Lord said: The paragraph as drawn will apply to 368 grass letting unless it was previously ploughed up. I do not know whether this was intended: there seems to be no purpose in including annual grass letting in this paragraph.
§ LORD HASTINGSI rather prefer my own words.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe point is covered more completely by the noble Duke's Amendment.
§ LORD HASTINGSI do not move.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved, after subsection (6), to insert "Where a written contract of tenancy has been entered into (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) for the letting by the landlord to the tenant of a holding which at the time of the creation of the tenancy was in the occupation of the landlord upon the express terms that if the landlord desires to resume that occupation before the expiration of a specified term not exceeding seven years the landlord should be entitled to give notice to quit without becoming liable to pay to the tenant any compensation for disturbance, and the landlord desires to resume occupation within the specified period, and such notice to quit has been given accordingly."
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to meet the case that I put forward on the Second Reading, of the owner occupier who has bought his farm and dies leaving a son who has still to be educated, and the widow wants to let the farm during the period of her son's education, and then to resume occupation. It is very carefully guarded. It applies only to a holding that is in the occupation of the owner, who, when it is let, must give notice she intends to resume occupation within the specified term, and she must resume it within that term. I cannot help thinking that if the Amendment is not passed some very hard cases will arise.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 11, after ("seeds") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMI agree with the noble Earl that this is a hard case. 369 Hard cases must occur in almost any legislation and I understand they make bad law. The noble Earl will recognise that it is obviously quite immaterial to the tenant whether the eviction is prompted by a desire on the part of the landlord to occupy the land himself, or to put a son or a new tenant upon it, and the Government all through the discussions on the Bill have taken the stand that it is impossible to make exceptions to the general principle as to the sense of security which is given to tenants. If exceptions are made it will be exceedingly difficult to prevent the privilege being abused. Once we admit them there will be no end to them and it will be possible to drive a coach and four through the provision. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment because it is possible to bring up other cases of a similar kind, and I think the clause would become meaningless.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am very sorry that I cannot accept my noble friend's refusal. Indeed, I do not think he can have read nay Amendment. He says it makes no difference to the tenant. It makes every difference in the world under the conditions I have stated. There is a farm which is in the occupation of the owner who has died, and the widow says to somebody else, "My son is being educated and will be able to farm the land himself in seven years' time. I will let it to you at a rent based on the fact that you are going to give up the land again." It makes the whole difference to know the conditions under which he takes it. He knows he is only going to take it for a limited period and at the end of that period, having received his quid pro quo and entered into the bargain with his eyes open, he quits possession. Why should he receive any compensation? I do not think my noble friend can have read the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERIf the noble Earl goes to a Division I shall certainly support the Government. We are now dealing with the question of compensation and, as I stated on a previous Amendment, until we know what the actual terms are for compensation for turning out a tenant it is difficult to deal with all these matters. I am one of those who have always been opposed to a heavy fine, which might amount to four years' rent, upon any person who wishes to resume possession of his own property. I think 370 that a hard and unjust proposal. But the Government apparently are now going to make very modified suggestions. When the noble Earl puts down an Amendment to deal with a particularly hard case we must remember that there will be not one but fifty or sixty such cases where people have acquired property, have not been able to take it up immediately and have let it to another tenant, intending to resume occupation themselves in two or three years' time. I have always felt that it is an enormous hardship in dealing with these people that they should have to pay a fine of four years' rent in order to resume occupation of their own property. The noble Earl, Lord Powis, at an earlier period of our debates this afternoon, gave the case of a man who acquired property and went out to the war and fought, and let the farm to a man who preferred farming to fighting, and later he returned from the war and wished to obtain possession again. Under this Bill, as it previously stood, he would very likely have had to pay to the man who did not go and fight four years' rent in order to obtain possession of his holding. That is just as hard a case as the noble Earl has quoted to-day. I do not think you can deal with this question by moving Amendments in order to try to get over hard cases. The simple question is, If a man wishes to resume possession of his Own property, what compensation ought he to pay to the man who has occupied it? Until we have decided that, it is not worth while going on.
§ LORD SUMNERIt is not a question of a hard case. It is a case of a bargain. I do not think the noble Earl has read the Amendment. It has been let to the tenant upon express terms that if the landlord desires to resume occupation before the expiration of a specified term the landlord shall be entitled to give notice to quit—that is to say, the tenant has been put ill as a "warming pan," and he knows it. That is the bargain that is made. It is not a question of a hard case, although if it be true it is one hard case and there are fifty others; that is only a reason for having fifty more Amendments and not for excluding this one. It is not a hard case at all. It is a case of a specific person having been let in on specific terms that he is to go out if called upon to go out, and he has thought it worth while to make that bargain. Why is he to get compensation
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe noble and learned Lord on the cross benches, Lord Sumner, says it is a case, of a bargain, but so it is with every 19 years' lease. And yet I understand they are all to be upset.
| CONTENTS. | ||
| Richmond and Gordon, D. | Stanhope, E. | Harris, L. |
| Sutherland, D. | Westmeath, E. | Hastings, L. |
| Wieklow, E. | Hindlip, L. | |
| Ailsa, M. | Holm Patrick, L. | |
| Bath, M. | Bangor, V. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Camden, M. | Bertie of Thame, V. | Lamington, L. |
| Cholmondeley, M. | Hampden, V. | Lawrence, L. |
| Crewe, M. | Hood, V. | Leconfield, L. |
| Linlithgow, M. | Methuen, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. | Avebury, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. |
| Bellew, L. | Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) | |
| Abingdon, E. | Berwick, L. | Queenborough, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Bledisloe, L. | Rathdonnell, L. |
| Chichester, E. | Blythswood, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Devon, E. | Clinton, L. | Ribblesdale, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleach and Queengberry.) | cloncurry, L. | Romilly, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | St. Levan, L. | |
| Grey, E. | Decies, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | Denman, L. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Innes, E. (D. Rosburghe.) | Desborough, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) |
| Jersey, E. | Dynevor, L. | |
| Kilmorey, E. | Douglas, L. (E. Home.) | Stuart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Kimberley, E. (Teller.) | Ebury, L. | |
| Malmesbury, E. | Elphinstone, L. | Strachie, L. |
| Mayo, E. | Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) | Stuart of Wortley, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Farington, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Morton, E. | Farnham, L. | Sumner, L. |
| Northesk, E. | Forbes, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Powls, E. | Forester, L. | Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) |
| Sandwich, E. | Gainford, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Selborne, E. [Teller.] | Greville, L. | Wynford, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) | Cozens-Hardy, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Cranworth, L. | |
| Exeter, M. | Erskine, L. | |
| Ancaster, E. | Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) | Hylton, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Sandhurst, V. (V. Chancellor.) | Killanin, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Falmouth, V. | Lee of Fareham, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. | Milner, V. | Lovat, L. |
| Dartmouth, E. | Peel, V. | Monekton, L. (V. Galway.) |
| Eldon, E. | Abinger, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Fitzwilliam, E. | Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.) | Phillimore, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Boston, L. | Ranksborough, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Cleyd, L. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Lytton, E. | Cochrane of Culta, L. | Somerleyton, L. [Teller.] |
| Onslow, E. | Colebrooke, L. | Stanmore, L. [Teller.] |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.