AGRICULTURE BILL.

HL Deb 17 December 1920 vol 39 cc439-559

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 9:

Compensation for disturbance in case of allotment gardens.

9.—(1) The provisions of this Act as to compensation for disturbance in the case of a holding shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden, but subject to the provisions of this section.

(2) Where the tenancy of an occupier of an allotment garden is terminated by reason of a notice to quit which is less than one year's notice, the compensation shall be either such an amount as is payable under the provisions applied by this section or such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of the expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given, whichever amount is greater:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply where possession of the land is reasonably required for naval, military, or Air Force purposes or for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes.

(3) Compensation under this section shall not be payable in the case of an allotment garden provided by a local authority for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, where the occupier is resident more than one mile out of the district of the local authority.

(4) Any question as to whether compensation is payable under this section, or as to the amount payable, shall be determined under and in accordance with the provisions of the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, in the same manner as the amount of compensation for crops or other matters is determined under that Act, and the compensation under this section shall be in addition to any compensation payable under that Act.

(5) So much of the last-mentioned Act as provides that that Act shall not extend to the Metropolis is hereby repealed as respects any tenancy which terminates after the commencement of this Act.

(6) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression "allotment garden" means an allotment under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, and a reference to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or to the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall be construed as a reference to the said Act of 1892 as so amended or applied.

LORD STRACHIE moved to delete the proviso from subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My object is to provide that, in cases where land is taken for naval, military, or Air Force purposes, or for building, mining or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes, compensation should be paid. The compensation, as a matter of fact, will not be a very large amount, but allotment holders have a very strong feeling that they are being unfairly treated in comparison with farmers. They think they ought to be put in exactly the same position as the farmers. It has been said that the farmer in similar circumstances does not get compensation, but I would point out that that is not the case, because it is only where the local authority or the military authority resumes occupation that compensation is not paid. But that does not apply in this case. This is the case of land that the War Office or the Air Board had not previously held, and they simply come down and seize it. In those circumstances it is only right that the Government should pay a small amount of compensation. If they will not accede to the request it will create a great deal of heart-burning among allotment holders—and allotment holders are people who ought to be encouraged. They did enormous service during the war, and now that the war is over we ought to do all we can to encourage those men to go on working their allotments in their leisure time. I have received the following from the President of the Bristol and District Small Holdings Federation, which is composed of twenty-two registered societies, with a membership of 12,000 persons— I desire to call your attention to the great disparity in the conditions of compensation as between large and small cultivators under the Agriculture Bill now before Parliament. We are quite unable to understand the peculiar plea of justice for compensation for disturbance of producers of foodstuffs on the question of acreage alone. I think that is a very strong point, and it emphasises what I have said, that if the Government refuse a mere act of justice to allotment holders it will create a very bad feeling. My correspondent goes on to say that, in spite of the fact that during the last few years hundreds of thousands of men have endeavoured zealously to put their backs into the producing of food-stuffs they make no claim on the ground of sentiment, but solely on the ground of justice; and they claim that the compensation which is deemed fair and reasonable to the large producer should be applicable proportionately to the small producer. I hope that my noble friend will not be obdurate on this question.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 15, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 19.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like to make a special appeal to your Lordships to be particularly tender in your treatment of the allotment holders. I am very closely associated with two of the largest of the city allotment holders' societies in the South and West of England, and there is a very strong feeling among those men and women that this proviso is not fair to allotment holders. At a meeting of the Federation of County Agricultural Committees, over which I presided about two months ago, which was attended by delegates from every part of England and Wales, a resolution was unanimously adopted in favour of the excision of this proviso as being unfair to small cultivators. In my judgment the allotment movement is the most vigorous and important at the present time of all the agricultural movements in this country. It is difficult to exaggerate the allotment movement from a social and political point of view. In fact, I go further and suggest that there is no greater buttress against Bolshevism in this country than the allotment movement in the neighbourhood of our great cities and towns. I do not think this is a matter of sentiment; it is a question of equity. If, as the noble Lord opposite has repeatedly reminded us in another connection, an occupier of land is entitled to compensation on being displaced it makes not the smallest difference as a matter of principle what is the purpose for which that land is required. Because the land happens to be required for sonic public purpose, such as building, surely, as a matter of equity, there is no justification for denying to the occupier the compensation which you are prepared to give him if the land is required for a totally different purpose

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

In connection with other Amendments I have said that it is not always possible in framing a measure to proceed on strict lines of equity or logic. Probably my noble friends are not aware of the history of this clause. It is the outcome of prolonged negotiations between the Ministry and the National Union of Allotment Holders, who undoubtedly in the first place pressed for something much more than is in the Bill—fixity of tenure. As a result of these negotiations the compromise contained in this clause was come to and accepted by the National Union of Allotment Holders as being on the whole satisfactory.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Does the noble Lord regard the National Union of Allotment Holders as representative of the allotment holders in this country?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think it is the most representative body. I must point out that this clause does not deprive allotment holders of all compensation. It only deprives them of the special class of compensation which is incorporated in this subsection, when the notice given is less than one year. The omission of this subsection must impose a further charge on public funds and no provision, so far as I am aware, has been made for it. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SHEFFIELD

The noble Lord has failed to say what would be the amount payable under the provisions of this subsection.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It would not amount to much.

LORD PARMOOR

The effect of the subsection is that for this specific purpose compensation is not given. Is it not somewhat rather hard that because land is being taken for national purposes the person who would otherwise be compensated should be deprived of it. I do not think any financial question is involved such as the noble Lord seems to consider. When property is taken for national purposes you ought to be rather careful that the individual is properly and fairly dealt with.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HINDLIP had an Amendment on the Paper, at the end of subsection (2) to insert "or where the occupier has sublet, assigned, or parted with the possession of an allotment garden or is using it otherwise than for the ordinary purposes of an allotment garden."

The noble Lord said: This is not moved in any spirit of antagonism to allotment holders; rather the reverse. If an allotment holder is cultivating his land properly he does not want to part with it, but there are cases where people sublet allotments (they may have more than one) to people who do not want to work them and the ground becomes foul and dirty. It is in the interests of allotment holders that they should not be allowed to sublet.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

My noble friend is out of order. He is moving an Amendment to line 19 which has already been struck out.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment will involve no charge on the Exchequer. All it provides is that in a case where a local authority has let an allotment to a person who lives more than a mile out they should pay compensation. If the local authority thinks it right to let to a man living more than a mile outside this area it is not unreasonable that he should receive compensation. I do not see why an arbitrary line of one mile should be drawn.

Amendment moved— Page 16, lines 20 to 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The duty of a local authority to provide allotment gardens is limited to such provision for their own inhabitants and under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, special provision is made for determining tenancies by a month's notice when the tenant resides more than a mile out of the district of the local authority. Under those circumstances it seems hardly reasonable that a local authority should be called upon to pay full compensation; and they have objected to doing so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection— (6) This section shall not apply to any allotment or allotment garden forming part of a public park, garden, open space or common.

The noble Marquess said: On a former clause I mentioned what may be described as war allotments furnished in the public parks and recreation grounds by the London County Council. They were very numerous, 14,000 of them altogether, and the question arises as to whether subsection (1) of Clause 9 over-rides paragraph (e) of subsection (6) of the former clause, which says that when a holding is let by a local authority compensation should not be payable. Of the 14,000 allotment holders under the London County Council 6,000 gave up their holdings at the beginning of the year, and of course received no compensation for disturbance. The remaining 8,000 give up at the end of this year, and they equally have made no claim for compensation, although in many cases they are very loth to give up their allotments.

The question to which I want the noble Lord to give his attention is whether under this clause they might conceivably apply for compensation for disturbance. Their case is a special one. They had their land at what is really a nominal rent. It worked out at a rental of £1 an acre, which for garden ground in a great city is very low, and during the war they were able to supply themselves with vegetables and also sell any surplus. The ground is required for purposes of public recreation, and everyone will agree that public parks should be treated as public parks and cannot be turned into permanent gardens.

What alarmed the public authority was a statement made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that allotment holders who had allotments in parks ought to receive compensation as much as anybody else. As a general proposition that may be sound enough, but as regards these particular people, who were really licensed squatters so to speak rather than, tenants in any sense, and who got their land at a very low rate and, as I said, to the great general advantage as well as their own, made quite a good thing out of it during the war, there appears to be no reason, either intrinsically or in comparison with other cases, why they should receive the small amount of compensation which they would receive. However, there are many thousands of them and the County Council is rather concerned. With that object I propose the Amendment which stands in my name. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be willing to accept it as it stands. It seems to me to be reasonable enough even as a general proposition, but I am certain as regards these particular town allotments it is very fair and, indeed, I think necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 36, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the noble Marquess is very largely under a misapprehension with regard to the effect of the Bill as it stands, because under the provisions of subsection (6) of Clause 8 which has been already passed, it is provided that where the allotment let to the tenant by a Government Department or local authority is required by the Department or local authority for the purpose for which it was acquired no compensation shall be paid. That will cover a large number of these cases. The parks of local authorities will also be exempted under this provision. Therefore, any local authority's park or open space which has been acquired for the purpose of recreation or anything of that sort will be exempt. The case of commons is rather peculiar, because in most instances there is no real landlord, though there is a nominal landlord. It would be ridiculous to make the lord of the manor, we will say, responsible for compensation in a case where an allotment had been planted on a common under D.O.R.A. Equally, I think, it would be a hardship to the allotment holder, who has been given an allotment in these circumstances and perhaps has cultivated it for two or three years, that he should not receive any compensation at all. In that, case, however, it does not fall on the landlord, but upon the State. We are at this moment engaged in settling claims of this character. I think these are really exceptions. Otherwise, I think the point of the noble Marquess is covered by the Bill.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Do I understand that if any compensation is paid where a common has been cut up into allotments the public will pay?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I suppose in the last resort it will be the taxpayer, but the amount is very small.

LORD SHEFFIELD

The commons are put under conservators and are protected for the use of the general public, but in the emergency of the war temporary occupation was allowed.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think I have stated the legal position. I am not talking of parks, but of commons.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but perhaps I may make it clear why the County Council raise the point. In paragraph (e) of subsection (6) of Clause 8 it is stated that where a holding was let to a tenant by various persons including a local authority compensation would not be payable, but then Clause 9 says that the provisions as to compensation for disturbance shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden, and the adviser of the County Council is not certain, as a matter of construction, how far Clauses 8 and 9 ought to be read together. If, in the case of the allotment gardens, the local authority is saved by paragraph (e) of subsection (6) of Clause 8, my Amendment would not be needed.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

That is my present information. But in view of what the noble Marquess has said I will have the matter looked into, and if it is not satisfactorily covered it can be dealt with on Report.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

If the noble Lord will look into the matter I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STANMORE moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: I move to leave out this subsection with a view to its insertion later in the Scottish application clause. It was originally inserted on re-committal, when it was not possible to put it in the Scottish clause, where it ought really to be.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 37 to page 17, line 4, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908.

10. Where the occupation of a dwelling-house (including a garden attached thereto) forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workman employed by him in agriculture on the holding, whether the occupation is under a contract of tenancy or not, and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman, the provisions of section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house (including a garden attached thereto) were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant, and the notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit:

Provided that— (1) compensation shall not be payable under this section if—

1. (a) the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation; or
2. (b) the tenant of the holding has before giving the notice obtained from the district wages committee, or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, a certificate that the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient to enable the holding to be cultivated properly; or
3. (c) the employment of the workmen is for a year or half-year, and the occupation is terminated at the end of such period; or
448
4. (d) the notice is given by reason of the employment of the workman having been terminated on account of his misconduct, and such reason shall be substituted for the reasons specified in subsection (1) of the said section; and

(2) in lieu of any compensation which in the case of a holding is to be ascertained by reference to the rent of the holding, there shall be payable a sum equal to fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of the provision of a cottage free from rent and rates as determined for the district under the provisions of the Act of 1917; and (3) subsections (2) and (3) of section seven shall not apply; and (4) where the tenancy or occupation of the workman is terminated by reason of a notice to quit given to the tenant of the holding and compensation for disturbance is recoverable by him from his landlord, the compensation payable under this section to the workman by the tenant of the holding shall be recoverable by the tenant of the holding from the landlord as part of the compensation so recoverable: Provided that where under paragraph (b) of this section the tenant of a holding seeks to obtain a certificate from the district wages committee or a sub-committee of that committee, the occupier shall be entitled to appear before the district wages committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be, and shall, in the event of the certificate being refused, also be entitled to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred by him in appearing before the district wages committee or the sub-committee.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out "section seven of this Act" and to insert "the section of this Part of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to get rid of a reference to a section by a number, which causes inconvenince owing to the alteration of the numbers when clauses are deleted.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 12, leave out ("section seven of this Act") and insert ("the section of this Part of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to put the cottager of a tied cottage in the same position as a farmer as regards compensation if he is turned out of his holding. It does not seem to me that there ought to be any difference between the treatment of the labourer and the tenant farmer. The proposal is to give compensation to the agricultural labourer if he is turned out from his house in the same way as a tenant farmer is turned out of his farm. This paragraph says that compensation shall not be payable if the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation, and I shall be told that the six weeks is only a probationary period. But why is it necessary to have that six weeks probationary period? It may create great hardship to men who come from considerable distance if, for some reason or another, perhaps through caprice, the farmer took it in his head to turn the man out.

I may be told on the other hand that the man is unwilling to work and not a good workman, and that the farmer could not get rid of him. I submit that he would, because under paragraph (b) it is provided that compensation is not payable if "the tenant of the holding has before giving the notice obtained from the district wages committee, or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, a certificate that the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient to enable the holding to be cultivated properly." That seems to me to safeguard the farmer. If he finds that, though this man is not a drunkard or guilty of general misconduct, he is incompetent and lazy, he can very easily get a certificate from the proper authority and turn him out without compensation. On the other hand, I think it is only fair that the labourer should be put in the position to receive some compensation if he is turned out for no good reason, but out of sheer caprice. The amount of compensation would not be very large, but it would make a great deal of difference in the case of a labourer whether or not he received compensation for those weeks and for the removal of his furniture. It might be very serious if he had come from a long distance, and I hope my noble friend will see that I am pleading for fair treatment. I am perfectly certain it is only a small matter but it is resented very touch by the labourers of this country, and it will certainly be pointed out to them that the Government are treating them differently from the farmers.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 23 to 25, leave out paragraph (a)—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am very much surprised at my noble friend. It is a most terrible thing to turn out a man six weeks after Michaelmas. Where is he to go? The new tenant does not come in at five minutes notice. If you give a man proper notice so that he can look out for another place before Michaelmas day it is another matter. That is the great difficulty I see. The difficulty is that if you turn out a man six weeks after Michaelmas all the cottages are taken. I do not see exactly how the noble Lord will be able to protect a man who is turned out at very short notice.

EARL GREY

I hope that the noble Lord, in his reply, will tell us how it will bear upon seasonal labour.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. After all, the Bill goes a long way to meet the real grievance of the labourer with regard to the position in which he is in a tied cottage. Every labourer who is taken on by a farmer must to a certain extent be on probation, so that it may be found out whether he is or is not fit for his job. I do not think it is unreasonable if he is found to be unfit after a certain period of trial that be should be got rid of without paying him compensation. Otherwise, think what a situation might arise It would be capable of very great abuse. You might have a class of very plausible but really worthless labourer who might spend his time going about the country collecting compensation from farmers. Once he was taken on you would have to-pay him compensation if you let him into a cottage for a day. It would be very hampering to good husbandry. I think we are treating the labourer at any rate far better than he has ever been treated before in this connection. At the same time we must safeguard the interests of the tenant as well. I could not accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

I hardly think the explanation of the noble Lord is a very good one. He keeps these words in because he says we might have a band or class of plausible but incompetent labourers going about the country—

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Those are the noble Marquess's words. I never used the words "band or class of labourers." I said there might be individuals.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

I took the noble Lord's words down. He said "we might have a class of plausible and incompetent men going about the country collecting compensation," That is hardly an excuse to put in a clause like this. I really hope the noble Lord will reconsider it.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am bound to say that I think some injustice is going to operate under this proviso, although I quite agree that there is a very great deal to be said for the position which the noble Lord opposite takes up. Let us be quite frank on this subject. There is no doubt that immense cruelty has been occasioned to men in possession of tied cottages in days gone by where there has been some difference of opinion between the farmer and his man, and the labourer and his family have been turned out at a moment's notice—at a notice that very often takes effect within a week or fortnight. I would suggest that you could temper the possible harshness of this proviso as it stands to-day if you were to insist that at least a month should elapse before the notice in question took effect, because in cases where there may be incompatibility of temper between employer and workman the workman may in the winter be given notice to leave which has to take effect within a week. I am bound to say that in my opinion that would be very harsh treatment even under this Bill. If you were to insert a proviso to the effect that such notice must not take effect within a month, then you would give time for the man to turn round and try and find other quarters for himself and his family, and so avoid an injustice which I am afraid under the proviso as it stands will occur at least in some cases.

LORD HASTINGS

Is it not a fact that the labourer is already protected in those contingencies by the existence of the Rent Restrictions Act?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No. In the case of a tied cottage an employer can go to the agricultural committee and get a certificate that the cottage is absolutely essential.

LORD HASTINGS

That would take more than a month.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will deal with that point in a moment. I am in a great deal of agreement with what my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has said. I feel very strongly for the hardships of the labourers in those circumstances, but my own experience has been—I do not know if any of your Lordships have had similar experience—that it is one thing to get an order for getting rid of a man and another thing to obtain actual possession of the house. In one case with which I am personally familiar I was not successful in getting rid of the tenant for seven or eight months. You cannot do it unless you are prepared to proceed to eviction by the police and to put people out on to the roadside, which of course no one would think of doing in the height of winter or indeed at any time. I think a month's grace is in a sense unnecessary, but there is something in the point of the noble Lord, and, if he will allow me, before Report I will consider what is necessary.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is a purely formal matter. The clause as drafted provides for applications for certificates to a district wages committee or sub-committee. Though in practice no doubt the certificates will be authorised to be issued by district committees or sub-committees where they exist, it will be more correct to authorise also the agricultural wages board to issue certificates and leave them to delegate their powers in the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 27, after the second ("the") insert ("agricultural wages board or a").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

If those words are moved in, it will be impossible for me to move my next Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If I may put a point of order to the Lord Chairman, Lord Bledisloe wants to substitute a different authority for the wages board. If you put in the agricultural wages board, then you cannot move a different authority.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not want to object to a discussion, but after all it is a comparatively small matter, and I am quite prepared to reserve my Amendment for another stage. I do not want to cut the noble Lord out from discussion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "district wages" and insert "agricultural." The noble Lord said: The effect of my Amendment is to substitute the county agricultural committee for the district wages committee. You are asking the district wages committee here to perform a function for which they may be wholly unqualified. You are asking them to give a certificate to the effect that a farm has been properly or improperly cultivated, as the case may be.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to put my point. You have already set up the county agricultural committee for the express purpose of supervising the manner of cultivation of land in their areas, and I might also mention, what has been already referred to, that under the Rent Restriction Act it is left specifically to the county agricultural committee to issue a certificate where an essential farm worker is dispossessed from his cottage. Here clearly the district wages committee, an entirely different body and one that need not necessarily be equipped with any knowledge of agriculture, is expected to give a certificate as to whether it is expedient or necessary to retain this workman in order to enable the holding to be cultivated properly. I venture to suggest that the right body will be the county agricultural committee and not the district wages board, which may not have proper qualifications for the task.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 27, leave out ("district wages") and insert ("agricultural").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save Lord Lee's Amendment, perhaps the noble Lord will move to leave out the word "district" instead of the words "district wages," and I will put the Amendment in that form.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I will move it in that form.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As often happens in the course of these debates, I am torn between logic and expediency, and the noble Lord is always one of the chief exponents of the logical point of view, and sustains it with great consistency and ability. This Bill in its peregrinations has necessarily been the subject of prolonged negotiations between the parties who are really directly concerned, and it has been felt that there would be great inconveniences and delays in referring a matter of this kind to the county agricultural committee, which does not meet very frequently, as compared with the district wages committee, and on which the interests of employers and employed in matters of employment are not nearly so clearly represented as on the district wages committee. We took great pains to ascertain the views and wishes of the representatives both of the employers and of the labourers with regard to this matter, and the whole information which we received from them was unanimously to the effect that they would prefer to have this particular matter dealt with by the district wages committee rather than by the county agricultural committee. They felt that these wages committees were more accessible and represented more directly the labourers and employers, and this was really an arrangement put in to satisfy what we found to be the express desire of both of the parties concerned. Under those circumstances I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Will the noble Lord allow me to point out that the present sub-committees of the county agricultural committees perform this very task.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

And the point has been made that they do not meet sufficiently frequently, and are not sufficiently accessible. I am only giving the view of the two parties concerned.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

May I point out that this is purely a local matter, and that the agricultural wages board is a national board and not a local board at all. The noble Lord proposes to cut out the district wages committee and to put in the agricultural wages board, which, as I say, is national, and to insert a provision for a sub-committee. There are no such things as sub-committees of the National Agricultural Wages Board, and they will have to be created for the purpose, but there are sub-committees of the county agricultural committees.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My Amendment has been saved for discussion, and it may possibly be that it will have to be reconsidered. With regard to the main point—namely, which body is the better committee—it is the view of the Government, supported by representatives of employer and employed, that they would prefer the district wages committee to the county agricultural committee. That is the only point which we have now to consider.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Does the noble Lord mean the representatives of the employers on the Agricultural Wages Board, or on the National Farmers' Union?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the particular deputation which dealt with this question were both members of the Central Agricultural Wages Board and of the Farmers' Union.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I think that in Norfolk the agricultural committee meets more often than the district wages committee, but possibly they are very pleased to get rid of these duties and have persuaded the Government to give them to the district wages committee, who do not often meet. Perhaps the noble Lord will make a few inquiries. I believe the agricultural committee meets every Saturday.

LORD HASTINGS

I think that this proposal of the Government will create a chaotic condition of affairs in the counties. You have these county agricultural committees meeting often to perform these unpleasant duties. They meet far oftener than the wages committees, who do not meet unless they have matters submitted to them. If the occupiers and labourers are to have their minds confused by more than one sort of committee to which the same things have to go it will create chaos in the public mind. Therefore I hope that the mover of the Amendment will stick to his point.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I trust also that the noble Lord opposite will reconsider this matter, because it is a question of which body is the more com- petent to exercise the particular function, and everything I know of both leads me to suppose that it is through the agricultural committee, and not through the district wages committee that the decision will best be arrived at. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the matter, and if he cannot accept the Amendment now, will take some further opinion on the subject.

LORD ERNLE

I hope that the noble Lord will follow the counsel given by the noble Marquess. At the same time I think there is a great deal more to be said for the proposal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill than has yet appeared. I believe that these district wages committees, if they could take up this point, would be the best constituted committees to deal with it, and it would pave the way in the future for what I believe we all hope, the abolition of the Central Agricultural Wages Board, and the settlement of wages in the county by the district wages committee. Therefore I think there are ultimate points which would be advantaged by adopting the proposal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. At the same time I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it should be thought over and brought up later.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to give further consideration to the matter in view of the strong expression of opinion. It is really not a matter upon which the Government feels strongly, except in so far as it has received representations from what it conceived to be the parties interested. If your Lordships are better authorities on the matter than the parties referred to, I will of course consider it again.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I cannot withdraw the Amendment. It is a matter upon which there is very strong feeling.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

In response to the suggestion of the noble Marquess I said that I would reconsider the matter on Report. If the noble Lord wishes to ignore that and to force his Amendment, I shall not divide against it.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I hope the noble Lord opposite will not be personally sensitive in this matter. I only want to press this as being a matter of great local importance. If the noble Lord will promise that he will do what he can to meet our case, I shall not press the Amendment now.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will reconsider the matter, and if I am not able to meet the noble Lord's views he will have an opportunity of reversing my decision on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of paragraph (b), to leave out "cultivated properly," and insert "worked properly or to better advantage." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in reference to the occasion when a tenant wants to obtain a certificate from a wage board to get possession of a tied Cottage—

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 32, leave out ("cultivated properly"), and insert ("worked properly or to better advantage").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture will be inclined to accept this Amendment. I am anxious to put the tenant of a cottage in the same position as a farmer. Unless this is done he will have no compensation at all, and that seems rather hard. In a case where the farmer gets compensation, it seems to me that the tenant of a cottage should be in the same position. But if my noble friend says he will not accept it, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 33 to 35, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was going to ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment. In the North, and in Scotland particularly, men are apparently restless. They take a job for six months or a year, and have no intention of continuing afterwards, even though they have no cause of complaint against the employer. Under these circumstances, where a man is of a roving spirit and is only taking work for six months or a year, it is rather unreasonable that compensation should be paid to him at the end of that time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the following new paragraph— (d) the workman does not cease to occupy the dwelling-house on the expiration of the notice to terminate his occupation thereof or on the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the date when the notice was given whichever is the later or. The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment goes some way to meet the point of Lord Bledisloe.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It goes some way to meet my point on the next Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is a question of the number of days. The noble Lord wants a month. I think that if he would be content with 14 days it would be well. In any case the point is somewhat immaterial, because I do not think the number of days will necessarily operate.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 35, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I will consider that before Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in Proviso (3), to have out "of section seven," and insert "and paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the said section. "The noble Lord said: I think this is a slightly different point from that of the preceding Amendment. This is to deal with a situation that might be ridiculous. Under the provisions for compensation, paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of Clause 8 the tenant must give no less than two months' notice of his intention to claim on the termination of the tenancy. That would be ridiculous in the case of a labourer who has only a weekly engagement, and this is moved in order to make the two clauses run together.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 7, leave out ("of section seven") and insert ("and paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the said section").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD DYNEVOR

Are the words "of the said section" quite clear? They do not indicate which section it refers to. I believe it means Clause 8, but it does not say so.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It should be section 8. Lord Dynevor's Amendment following is to leave out "seven" and insert "eight," which of course I agree to.

LORD DYNEVOR

I think the noble Lord's Amendment would take the place of mine.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It leaves out Section 7, and it would be no longer possible for Lord Dynevor to turn Section 7 into Section 8.

LORD PARMOOR

Would it not be possible to put in Section 8? That would put it right.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As there appears to be some doubt, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to put the matter right on Report. It is purely a drafting matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in proviso 4), after "where the tenancy or occupation of," to insert "a dwelling-house or garden by." The noble Lord said: The object of this is to make the wording in the Bill clearer, but if my noble friend does not think it necessary I will not press it.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 9, after ("of") insert ("a dwelling-house or garden by").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was under the impression that this was covered by a previous decision.

LORD STRACHIE

I think the matter should be made clear; otherwise litigation is certain to take place in the future. There seems no reason why the tenant of a holding should give notice to his workmen to leave cottages because he himself is leaving the farm. My Amendment will make that quite clear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have no objection to this Amendment if the noble Lord will accept the words on the previous page at the beginning of Clause 10 "including gardens attached thereto," I shall have no objection to accepting the Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

Certainly.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Shall I put the Amendment with the words "dwelling-house including the garden attached thereto" added?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes.

LORD PARMOOR

As a matter of fact I think it is a mistake to put those words in a second time, because it creates confusion. It is, of course, a drafting matter.

LORD STRACHIE

It can be considered on Report.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I should like to remind my noble friend that the garden might not be attached to the cottage, as is sometimes the case. I have some cases like that myself.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

It is very common in many districts to have the garden not attached to the cottage; it may be a short distance away. It would be as well not to put in words which will affect those gardens.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is very difficult sometimes to follow these complicated points. I will consider the question on Report, and I promise that it shall be put right.

LORD STRACHIE

I will leave it to the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to accept the next Amendment on the Paper which stands in the names of Lord Bledisloe and Lord Ernie.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 9, after ("is") insert ("necessarily").—(Lord Ernle.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

On behalf of my noble friend Lord HINDLIP I move, at the end of proviso (4), to insert "unless the tenant of the holding in his claim for compensation from the landlord under section eight of this Act has included therein the rental value of the cottages occupied by the workmen to whom notice to quit has been given."

The object of the Amendment is to provide that where a tenant farmer has already received compensation from his landlord in respect of cottages on his holding the landlord shall not be liable to pay compensation again in respect of those cottages to the labourer. Under Clause 8 the tenant farmer receives compensation calculated on the rental value of the bolding, and where cottages are included in such rental value the landlord would, of course, pay compensation to the tenant in respect of the red of such cottages. If notice to quit has already been given the labourer can claim compensation in respect of the rent of his cottage, and it is manifestly unfair to allow that claim to be made against the landlord when he has already paid the tenant farmer compensation in respect of his cottage. If the tenant farmer has received from the landlord the rental value of these cottages in his compensation allowance the tenant farmer should hand on to the labourer that part of the allowance which represents the rental value of the cottages. Otherwise the landlord will have to pay twice in respect of those cottages.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am perpared to accept these Amendments standing in the names of Lord Hindlip and Lord Bledisloe.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I fancy that my Amendment is no longer necessary in view of the decision arrived at yesterday.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment, standing in my name is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 21, after ("before") insert ("the Board of").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, towards the end of the clause, to leave out from "tenant," where that word last occurs, to the end of the clause, and insert "such sum as the Board, committee, or sub-committee may direct in respect of any expenses incurred by him in appearing before them." The noble Lord said: The provision proposed to be amended states that in any case where a certificate is refused the occupier shall be entitled to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred by him. We feel that there should be some limitation to the amount of expenses which he may thus incur, and the Amendment proposes that the committee which hears the application shall have a discretion. That leaves it open, of course, as to which committee the House ultimately selects, but it is left to the discretion of the committee to see that no unreasonable claim is put in.

LORD HARRIS

Is there not some confusion possible by using the word "occupier"? The word "occupier" often applies to workmen.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

He is the occupier of the dwelling house.

LORD HARRIS

Yes, I know; but would not "workman" be a much better word to use than "occupier"?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

When I was reading the Bill I remember sticking at the word "occupier" myself, and if some such words as "occupier of the dwelling house" were put in I think no mistake would be possible.

LORD HARRIS

It should be "workman" surely.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will consider that on Report. I think it is a good point.

LORD HARRIS

"Workman" is used two or three lines further down.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I would prefer to move this Amendment, and if these words are not sufficiently clear I will alter them on Report.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

No doubt the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has noticed that, in case he is able to meet the views expressed on this side of the House a few moments ago as to the matter going to the agriculture committee instead of to the wages board, the word "board" would have to be altered on Report.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes, I know. It is consequential and can be dealt with on Report.

LORD PARMOOR

It is entirely a matter of obtaining the sum; I think that is all it does.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

The next Amendment standing in my name is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 25, leave out ("district wages") and insert ("agricultural").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 10.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As the Bill now stands Clause 8 has no minimum in it under the decision which your Lordships have come to in Committee, and I want to draw the attention of the Government to this point with regard to the future status of the Bill. If the minimum is restored in Clause 8, which I hope will not be the case, it will produce very great difficulty in Clause 10, because Clause 10 embodies Clause 8 mutatis mutandis so far as it can be done; consequently the minimum in Clause 8 will become 52 times the rent in Clause 10, because that corresponds to the year's rent in Clause 8 as it stood in the Bill as drafted by the Government.

This would entail a very formidable result, because whenever an employer got rid of a labourer, unless he could allege that it was in the interests of good cultivation of the farm or that the labourer had definitely misbehaved, he would have power under the Bill as originally drafted to claim a minimum of 52 times the rent of the labourer's cottage, which is a very considerable sum. It was not so perhaps when cottages were rented at 1s. 6d. a week, but as they are rented under modern conditions at 6s., 7s., or even 10s. a week, it might rise to a very very considerable figure, so that if the farmer had to pay a minimum of 52 times he would have to probably part with a sum of a great many pounds before he could get rid of a labourer against whom he could allege no fault but with whom he simply did not get on. As your Lordships have now amended the Bill the difficulty does not anise because, there being no minimum, the labourer would have to prove his damage just as the farmer has to prove his damage, and would therefore only be able to obtain what he had definitely lost.

What I submit to the Government is that if you are working upon a flat minimum in Clause 8 you cannot apply that principle to Clause 10, and therefore the whole clause would require to be re-drafted, unless the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, succeeded in inserting in the Bill in Clause 8 is adhered to. So long as that principle, that the man who is ejected has to prove his damage, is adhered to, of course it does not matter very much what the maximum is—at any rate in the labourers' clause it is not very important; but the moment you have a minimum the farmer would always have to give fifty-two times the weekly rent. I hope that when the Government come to consider the Bill before the Report stage and any suggestions they may have to make upon Clause 8, they will remember the reaction it must inevitably have upon Clause 10 and not attempt to persuade your Lordships to impose a minimum. This clause is a very doubtful clause anyhow. It is on the face of it not easy to defend the position that you should apply the same sort of treatment to a weekly tenancy as you do to a yearly tenancy which is what in effect it does. If you had to deal with it on that footing you would certainly have to scrutinise very carefully the figure of fifty-two times the weekly rent.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the noble Marquess is quite right in his view that the matter may require reconsideration in view of the decision that was arrived at yesterday. But, of course, as the Bill was drafted, the two parts were quite harmonious. I think he was in error when he said that the rent of the cottage might at the present day go up to 5s. or 10s. If he looks at the subsection he will see that it is fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of the provision of a cottage, free front rent and rates, as determined for the district under the provisions of the Act of 1917. He will find that that, as assessed by the wages board, is 3.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and it was very stupid of me not to have noticed it, but I think he promised in your Lordships' House that that 3s. should be reconsidered.

LORD BLEDISLOE

There is a difference as between the tenant farmer and the worker, in the sense that an outgoing tenant is quite used to, and quite capable of, preparing a claim as against his landlord. It is difficult to imagine the ordinary agricultural workman preparing a claim, and I think that ought to be taken into account.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years.

11.—(1) In the case of a tenancy for a term of two years or upwards, the tenancy shall not terminate on the expiration of the term for which it was granted unless not less than one year nor more than two years before the date fixed for the expiration of the term a written notice has been given by either party to the other of his intention to terminate the tenancy, and any notice so given shall deemed to be a notice to quit for the purposes of the Act of 1908 and this Act.

(2) If no such notice is given the tenancy shall as from the expiration of the term for which it was granted, continue as a tenancy from year to year, but otherwise so far as applicable on the terms of the original tenancy.

(3) This section shall not apply to any tenancy granted for a term expiring on some date earlier than the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two.

(4) In any case to which this section shall apply, it shall apply notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or upwards," and insert "not exceeding four years." The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to remove from the operation of the clause all leases of a longer duration than four years. I do so to remove the hardship which a considerable number of landowners would suffer by the retention of the clause. We have heard a good deal during this debate about good landlords and bad landlords. May I suggest that the vast majority of landowners belong to neither of those classes but to the class of moderate landlords? The majority of landlords are distinguished by one thing, namely their excessive poverty, and on account of this poverty they are moderate landlords. They do their best, but they have not the wherewithal, and very often their farm buildings are not as they would have them, and very often their cottages would not pass muster. I feel that it would be your Lordships' wish to do anything to help these landlords either to farm their land as it should be farmed or else to get out on a reasonable basis. This clause will not help them to do so.

The poor landlord is very often under the necessity of leasing his land. It means a great deal to him. That is not the case with big landlords. I refer only to the smaller people. Your Lordships can see very many cases for yourselves—I will only submit two to you. One is the case of the widow whom the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, introduced last night. She would have been well advised if she had had a lease for her farm rather than adopt the benefits under the somewhat complicated Amendment that was passed, under which, us far as I can see, if she retains one field and one outbuilding she ceases to hold the advantage she would gain thereby. The other case is that of a man who has inherited property which, owing to the incidence of death duties, he is unable for a definite period to put into the state in which he would wish to see it. Therefore the land is placed on lease until such time as he can take it on himself. I do not see why he should not do so, or why he should suffer any penalty. Looking at it from the other point of view there are a good many yearly tenants who would rather take farms on leases than on a yearly tenancy. They may have several reasons for their preference. One reason might be a certain distrust of the agricultural committee. They may have no wish to have a lot of people prowling about over their land. Again, a farmer might say that in order to be a complete farmer he must also be a complete lawyer if he is to understand the provisions of this Bill.

If we are going to consider the whole principle of the Bill, I suggest that this principle is altogether wrong. I had hoped that other noble Lords would have spoken on this question. It strikes straight at the right of free contract. One Englishman will not be able to make a contract with another Englishman; such legislation I should not have thought would have been brought in by a constitutional Government. When we were asked to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill the patriotism of the House was appealed to by the noble Lord. He gave us four arguments. He suggested that whatever we may feel about the measure we should not oppose it because the safety of the Realm depended on it, because the Navy wanted it, because more corn would be produced, and because more people would be placed on the land. I ask your Lordships whether this subsection answers any of those arguments. Does the safety of the realm depend on breaking these contracts? I should have thought not. Will more wheat be grown in this country? I should have thought not. Neither will one man more be placed on the land.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 27, leave out ("or upwards") and insert ("and not exceeding, four years").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord in charge of the debate repudiated on a previous occasion with a certain amount of indignation a suggestion that he had unduly weighted this Bill in favour of the tenant as against the landlord. There are two points which constitute the justice of that criticism. One was the subsection which by a narrow majority your Lordships allowed to remain in the Bill and the other is this subsection which I hope will be left out. I cannot understand what advantage there can possibly be in insisting upon the inclusion of this subsection in the Bill. A lease is a contract. It is not an agreement. An agreement is a thing which goes on from year to year, and it is not ended until one of the parties gives notice that it shall end. A lease is a contract for a definite term of years and the persons enter into it for their mutual benefit.

In this subsection you are proposing that a lease shall not be a lease, but that at the end of the term for which the tenant has contracted to remain on the farm you shall, if you require to regain possession of the land, pay compensation for doing that which he has especially contracted to do, namely, to get out of the farm at the end of a certain term of years; he meanwhile having derived the benefit from the lease. What compensation can there be due to a man who has arrived at the end of his lease? It is impossible to conceive what compensation can be due to him. If it is insisted that a lease shall not be a lease any longer and that at the end of the term the tenant goes on from year to year, or goes out having compensation paid to him, then the only possible way in which you can meet it equitably is to allow landlords to bring to an end all the leases by which they are tied. You are proposing to give to the tenant an undue advantage and you pro pose no sort of similar advantage to relaxation for the landlord who has entered into these contracts and has to stick to them.

Many landlords would be extremely thankful to be relieved from their leases because rental values have considerably risen, and if they had their farms coming in they would be able without turning out their tenants to get a little extra rent. The tenant is not so tied; the lease has no effect upon him. It is not fair or just, and I do not think anybody would wish to put into an Act of Parliament that which was not just. It is generally accepted as being the common law of the country that a lease is a contract and until it comes to an end both parties have to adhere to it. Therefore, I do not think it right that in this Bill, for no reason whatever, an attempt should be made to give an advantage to one party and no corresponding advantage to the other, thus weighting the Bill in this case unnecessarily as well as unfairly in favour of the tenant. I do not like my noble friend's Amendment. I should have preferred to leave out the subsection altogether, but if he goes to a division I shall support him.

LORD PARMOOR

My noble friends have rather exaggerated the effect of this subsection. The law at present is that if a tenant holds on after the termination of his tenancy under a lease, he holds on under the terms of the lease, but as an annual tenant. All that this subsection does is to provide that there shall be notice given on one side or the other of not more than two years' or less than one year before the termination of the tenancy. This subsection has no effect upon the general question of compensation.

LORD ST. LEVAN

At first I was under the impression that the statement of the case by Lord Parmoor was correct, and that the only effect of this clause was to lay upon the landlord the obligation of giving notice to quit a year before the end of the lease, but on looking into the clause it appears that in addition to that you have to pay compensation. That does make a great difference, which I think the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken will admit. There is a good deal in what Lord Hastings has said. When a lease was granted it was granted on the terms of certain rents payable for a certain number of years, and at the end of that period the lease and the tenancy came to an end. The idea was that the circumstances should then be reconsidered and a new letting given. There is no doubt that in a number of cases the tenant would have continued in his occupation of the land, but for good reasons he may not have wished to do so, or the landlord may not have wished to keep him on, and there was an opportunity to bring in a new tenant.

The question also arises with regard to the rent. At the end of twenty years it may be found that it ought to have been raised or lowered. All these considerations come into the case. I do not believe that the tenant who took his lease under these conditions would wish to impose any additional obligation on the landlord. It seems to me that a strong ease will have to be made out for breaking a contract which has been freely entered into on both sides. Another case which I should like to be considered is the case of what is called the "improving lease," where the tenant goes to the landlord and says, "You have some land here, which is either in croft or a bad condition, and I should like to take it and improve it, if you will let me have it on terms which will enable me to do so without loss." The landlord agrees, and lets the land to the tenant for that specific purpose at a nominal rent, say, of 5s. or 10s. an acre. The occupier agrees to take the land at this rent, believing that during the currency of the lease he will be able to obtain a return for his outlay. Surely if, at the end of the lease, the landlord is called upon to pay compensation to the tenant, he will have to pay compensation for what the occupier has undertaken to perform. We will say that he had the land for twenty years at an annual rental of 5s. per acre. If he farms his land properly, say, for ten years, it would then be worth at least £1, or perhaps £1 10s., or £2 per acre for the remaining term, so that the tenant would have land worth £2 for 5s. Such a case as that ought to be considered in connection with this clause.

I do not think it can be said that your Lordships House have been unmindful of the interests of the occupier during the course of the debate. We have considered his interests very fairly indeed. You ought not to lose sight of the fact that the landed interest consists really of three interests—I dislike calling them classes—the landowner, the occupier and the labourer. If you hit any one of those interests too hard there is certain to be a reaction on the other two. We ought to look at them as a whole, and I feel sure that my noble friend in charge of the Bill means to do so. It is most important that we should bear that in mind, because if you hit the landlord too hard it is bad for the occupier and in the end bad for the labourer. In the same way if you hit the occupier too hard it is bad for the landowner who will not get flue tenants.

There is a good deal in this Bill about security for the tenant, which we have been considering with sympathy. There is also such a thing, which ought to be considered in the interests of agriculture, as the security of the capital which the landlord puts into the land. We ought to do nothing materially to injure that, because capital is necessary. It is not only being put into the land now but has been put into the land for scores and scores of years. Agricultural holdings have been kept in their position by the careful expenditure of the landlord and I think that fact ought to be kept in mind. My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch made a reference to the point yesterday. Altogether I think that this clause, which proposes to abrogate agreements willingly entered into by both sides without any anticipation of their being altered in the sense in which it is now suggested to alter them, ought to be considered very carefully by your Lordships.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

If I might do so, I wish to bring up a matter which is not by any means a new grievance. I have had experience of it under the Agriculture Holdings Act, 1906, under which we are now working. I would shortly explain how the situation has arisen. Under the Act of 1906 a tenant is given extra compensation for improvement and for his costs of sale and removal. Very shortly after that Act came into force a case like this occurred. A man had a long lease, for fourteen years I think, which had nearly expired. I happened to know that he was a bit of a land lawyer and was farming his land very badly, and I did not want to continue him as a tenant unless I could get him to take another lease. If he would take another lease I was prepared to let it for seven or fourteen years, and then he would have had to do something to improve. I did not want to let the thing go without giving a notice to quit so that the tenancy would expire and he would begin as a yearly tenant. Therefore I had to give him notice to quit, and at the same time sent an accompanying letter saying that I was serving it only on the ground and for the reason that it would enable us to come to terms at the end of the year if he should take a new lease. In that case the man refused to take a new lease. I suppose he thought he would make something out of the new Act. He thought I was unreasonably turning him out, and he went to the Courts about it and eventually I defeated him.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

So far as farm tenants pure and simple are concerned I speak with very little experience, because like a good many of your Lordships I am acquainted only with year to year tenancies. Certainly it would seem to me, speaking as an English landlord, that a lease might be expected to represent a clean cut on both sides, and the claim for compensation at the end of it seems to me a very strange one.

I rose really to put a question on a subsidiary point to the noble Lord. There are a number of tenancies which, although they apparently would come under the definition of "holding" in the Act of 1908, yet include the letting of a larger house or perhaps something in the nature of a small country place. Many of your Lordships let country places with a little land for rents considerably greater than that which would attach to the land alone. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what would be the case under this clause in such a letting say for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years. Would the tenant, if his lease is not renewed, be entitled under the Act to compensation which a tenant farmer in similar circumstances would be entitled to claim? So far as the main principle of the clause is concerned, I must repeat that I find it very hard to appreciate the necessity for any payment of compensation at the close of a long lease. That, of course, is a separate question. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer the specific question I have ventured to put.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The consideration of this clause has nothing whatever to do with agriculture, and therefore perhaps your Lordships will permit me to make a few comments upon it. In the first place I think the clause as it stands is open to the comment that it relates to nothing but a tenancy. In the same part of this Act you have two tenancies already referred to, the tenancy of a holding and the tenancy of a house; it seems to me that merely from the point of view of clearness it would be well to introduce into this clause "tenancy of a holding," if that is what is meant as I understand it to be. When that is introduced you then find that this is a tenancy relating to an agricultural tenant.

You then have to see how the matter stands. As I understand it, it is this. Under the present provisions a man who is a tenant from year to year but whose tenancy is terminated by notice gets certain rights; if he is a tenant. for one year and his tenancy continues, the tenancy is assumed to be a tenancy from year to year, and he still enjoys those rights. I gather that the point made by the noble Lords who have spoken is this. If a man's tenancy be for a definite fixed period and the implication of a tenancy from year to year cannot possibly be associated with it, at the end of that period it should end automatically and there should be no necessity cast upon the landlord to give notice that his intention is that the tenancy should not continue. I think I can see the force of that if you are dealing with a long tenancy, and I should have thought that the real criticism against this clause was that it began with a tenancy so short as two years, because I should have thought that two years might have been a perfectly reasonable provision—or even three or four years it may be—but as you get on to the longer periods it gets less and less reasonable, and when you get to the period of seven years it might really be unfair, for such reasons as were suggested just now by the noble Earl.

As far as I am able to form my opinion upon the clause as it stands, I should feel inclined to support it if it related merely to the shorter term tenancies, but I should have thought it required more careful consideration if its application is considered in relation to the longer tenancies which it most undoubtedly covers.

LORD PARMOOR

Before the noble Lord replies, I feel that I ought to apologise to the two noble Lords because they were right and I was wrong. I see that the clause does give compensation which otherwise would not be given.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

As the person responsible for this principle, might I be allowed to say one word in defence of it. I very well remember when I was introducing the Bill that Lord Elgin, who sat next to me, turned round and said, "Is compensation going to apply to the end of leases?" When I answered "Yes," he said "I will be hanged if I will speak in favour of it." I said, "That does not very much matter. but you will have to vote for it"—and he did. I am hopeful that there cannot have been anything very wrong in that principle, which I innocently brought forward, from the fact that it was passed by your Lordships' House so far as I can remember without a Division. I am perfectly certain that nothing would have induced the House of Lords to pass a measure or a clause to which they had any serious objection, and which they thought would be a wrong principle or one injurious to any portion of society. As on that occasion the House gave their unanimous assent to it, I venture to hope that the principle is not so bad as some of the opponents of it would wish to make out.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

May I deal with the comparatively small point, if I may say so, that was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and I think reinforced by Lord Buckmaster. From the Bill as it stands at first sight it might appear that the case of a tenancy for a term of years might apply, as Lord Crewe suggested, to quite a different class of holding altogether. But I think his point is really covered by Clause 22 of the Bill. I am advised that that is so, but if there were any doubt and if it would satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, I should be pleased to insert "of a holding" after the words "in the case of a tenancy," if that would make it clearer. If there is any real doubt about the matter I would move the addition of those words on Report, but I think it is really covered by Clause 22.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I am not sure that the insertion of the word "holding" in the Act of 1908 would be sufficient to save the case which the noble Marquess has mentioned—namely, that of the letting of a substantial house with a few fields attached—because in the definition of "holding" in the Act of 1908 I do not think there is anything to exclude such a case from compensation.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will look into the matter, and if it be necessary I shall have no objection to the insertion of appropriate words. That is merely dealing with the technical point raised by the noble Marquess. Coming then to the main-question, I am afraid I cannot agree with the opening remark of Lord Buckmaster's speech, in which he said, "Here at any rate is a question which has nothing to do with agriculture." I venture to suggest that this clause has a very great deal to do with the welfare of agriculture, and I will try and explain why. I do not know what the view of those of your Lordships who are landowners may be in this matter, but personally I have always favoured the extension of a system of leases as against yearly tenancies. I think it is unfortunate that leases are not as popular as they might be in England, particularly in the South of England, and it has often been put to me in connection with all these questions of disturbance, "Why do not the farmers take, leases of their holdings, if they want to deal with this question?"

I have always felt that the system of leasing was more advantageous to the landlord than the system of yearly tenancies, and that it was very desirable, if possible, to do everything we could to encourage the extension of that system in this country. I will explain why. There is at present, as we know, a sort of traditional reluctance on the part of the English farmer to enter upon a lease, and if we are going to overcome that reluctance it is of no use thinking we are going to do it by saving to the farmer: "If you take a lease for a fixed period you will not get compensation for disturbance at the end of your lease, if it is not continued, whereas if you take a yearly tenancy you will." The temptation, of course, to stick to the yearly tenancy will be very greatly accentuated. On the other hand, there is a purely agricultural argument which Lord Buckmaster has naturally overlooked, namely, that there is a real disadvantage from a purely agricultural point of view, in the present system of leases which come to an end at a fixed period, because there is, always a temptation to the farmer to "farm to leave"—to run out his holding in the last years of the lease—and it is exceedingly difficult, so to speak, to take it out of him when he leaves, under any legislation practically that can be devised The powers of "running out" on what I might call a judicious scale are so great that they can hardly be dealt with, and yet the landlord's interests are very seriously prejudiced in the case of a lease which comes to an end, where the farmer has used his advantages under the present system of a limited lease in that manner.

The advantage from an agricultural point of view of this particular clause was that there would be no longer temptation to the farmer who held his holding on a lease to "farm to leave," because he would know he could go on from year to year and be in exactly the same position, for the purpose of compensation, as if he had only taken a yearly tenancy. That was the main object that we had in view—a purely agricultural object. There is one other point to which attention has not been drawn. I see some noble Lords from Scotland sitting in various parts of the House. I was surprised that they did not rise in their places to protest against these aspersions upon a system which is well-known in Scotland, namely, the system of continuing leases.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This clause does not apply to Scotland.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Because they already have it there.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is why the clause does not apply to Scotland?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes; because in Scotland they are in the happy position of having this very clause, and they like it, and are making a success of it; therefore it is not sought in this Bill to reimpose it upon them. That is the only reason, the clause does not apply to Scotland. I believe—I speak always with great diffidence on matters regarding Scotland— that the system works satisfactorily there, and I would ask your Lordships to realise that what would follow if this clause is struck out would be this, that the Scottish tenant for a term of years will get compensation for disturbance under this Bill, and the English farmer who was rash enough to enter into a lease will not get it. I think it is only fair that the two should be on a similar footing. Those are the reasons which have actuated the Government in including this clause in the Bill, and I hope that they may lead your Lordships to agree to its retention.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord devoted the whole of his defence of the clause to leases which may be entered into after this date. I do not care what happens with regard to leases entered into after to-morrow, but I object to the interference with leases entered into before this Act passes. I am a great believer in leases, but I say "Enter into a bargain with your eyes open." By all means pay this compensation at the end if the landlord knows when he enters into the lease that he is going to pay compensation, but what I do object to is the placing of unfair terms upon the landlord who has entered into a lease, and who at the time he entered into it did not know that these would be the conditions prevailing when the lease expired.

LORD CRANWORTH

I withdraw the Amendment, with the leave of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My next Amendment is only drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 37, leave out ("and this Act").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," to insert "save that no compensation for disturbance shall be payable except in accordance with the conditions prescribed by section 8 of this Act." The noble Earl said: The object of my Amendment is that compensation shall not be paid if a tenant gives notice. As I read the words of the clause, it does not matter who gives the notice to quit, whether landlord or tenant; in either case compensation could be claimed. Obviously that is not the intention of my noble friend.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("save that no compensation for disturbance shall be payable except in accordance with the conditions prescribed by section eight of this Act")—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This deals with a legal point, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was prepared to reply upon it, has been called away, and he has asked me to say to your Lordships on his authority that no claim for compensation for disturbance on a holding can be made except under Clause 8 of the Bill. In these circumstances it is not clear why these words are required. I do not feel, however, in a position to pronounce upon a purely legal point, and if there is any need for an Amendment I will undertake to move it on Report.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I was advised in this matter by a competent authority that it would apply in either case.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am anxious to remove any ambiguity, and will have it removed if necessary.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I cannot understand why there is any ambiguity about the clause. I think it was intended that either party should give notice to the other, and it says so. It says that in the case of a tenancy for a term of two years or upwards the tenancy shall not terminate on the expiration of the term unless a written notice has been given by either party to the other. It does not require any subtlety to understand that there are two parties to the contract, and that both are at liberty to give notice. I think, indeed, that was the purpose of the Bill.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps noble Lards will allow me to deal with the matter on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 11. The noble Lord said: Would the noble Lord in charge of the Bill be prepared to accept the insertion of words "in the case of the tenancy commencing after time coming into operation of this Act." If he were willing to do that, I do not know that we need divide the House. If not, I will ask the House to divide on the clause.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Surely at the present time that would be very disadvantageous to the leaseholder compared with the annual tenant. The annual tenant, even though he has been an annual tenant for the last 20 years, will receive compensation under this Act. It seems to me hard that a tenant who has taken a lease should be injuriously affected because of that fact. I think it is hard to discriminate between the two classes.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord is unwilling to accept the words?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I could not accept them without consideration. It is a very complicated matter.

On Question, whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:— Contents, 53; Not-contents, 71.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Stanhope, E.	Dewar, L.
	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Abercorn. M. (D. Abercorn.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Elphinstone, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M.		Ernle, L.
	Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Ancaster, E.	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Harris, L.
Bradford, E.	Finlay, V.	Hylton, L.
Caithness, E.	Goschen, V.	Kenyon, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Hood, V.	Killanin, L.
Chichester, E.	Milner, V.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E.	Peel, V.	Methuen, L.
Eldon, E.		Muir Mackenzie, L.
Howe, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Parmoor, L.
Kimberley, E.	Bledisloe, L.	Queenborough, L.
Lindsay, E.	Boston, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Lucan, E.	Clinton, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E.	Clwyd, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Teynham, L.
Reading, E.	Dawson of Penn, L.	Wolverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Churchill, V.	Hastings, L. [Teller.]
Richmond and Gordon, D.	Falmouth, V.	Hindlip, L. [Teller.]
Wellington, D.	Harcourt, V.	Holm Patrick, L.
	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Incheape, L.
Ailsa, M.		Leconfield, L.
Camden, M.		Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Askwith, L.	Mostyn, L.
Crewe, M.	Balfour, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormond.)
Exeter, M.	Barrymore, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly)
	Bellew, L,	Redesdale, L.
Albemarle, E.	Berwick, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Blythswood, L.	Romilly, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	St. John of Bletso, L.
Harewood, E.	Cranworth, L.	St. Levan, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	de Mauley, L.	Sandys, L.
Lindsey, E.	Decies, L.	Savile, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)	Saye and Sele, L.
Mayo, E.	Dynevor, L.	Southwark, L.
Morton, E.	Ebury, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Northesk, E.	Emmott, L.
Powis, E.	Erskine, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Westmeath, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Wicklow, E.	Faringdon, L.	Strachie, L.
	Forbes, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Forester, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Chilston, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Amendment of law as in improvements.

13.—(1) Where the landlord of any holding refuses or within a reasonable time fails to consent in manner required by section two of the Act of 1908 to the making of any improvement comprised in Part I. of the First Schedule to that Act, not being an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to that Act, either absolutely or except upon such terms as the tenant is unwilling to accept, the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate may, on the application of the tenant and after giving the landlord or his representative an opportunity of being heard, direct that the improvement shall be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1908 as if if were an improvement comprised in Part II. of the First Schedule to that Act, and any direction given by the agricultural committee under this subsection may be given subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit.

(2) The Minister may by regulation substitute such percentages as he thinks fit for the percentages and period mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of the Act of 1908.

(3) Where a tenant desires to make on his holding or any part of his holding any improvement, comprised in the Third Schedule to the Act of 1908 and the landlord refuses, or within a reasonable time fails, to agree in writing that the holding or that part of the holding shall be treated as a market garden, the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate may, on the application of the tenant and after hearing the landlord or his representative, and after being satisfied that the holding or part of the holding is suitable for the purposes of market gardening, direct that section forty-two of the Act of 1908 shall, either in respect of all the improvements comprised in the said Third Schedule or in respect of some only of those improvements, apply to the holding or to that part thereof, and the said section shall apply accordingly as respects any improvements executed after the date on which the direction is given.

Any direction given by an agricultural committee under this section shall be subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee may think fit to attach to the direction, and where any such direction is given the following provisions shall have effect:—

1. (a) If the tenancy is terminated by notice to quit given by the tenant or by reason of the tenant becoming bankrupt or compounding with his creditors, the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of any such improvements as are specified in the direction unless the tenant not later than one month after the date On which the notice to quit is given or, the date of the bankruptcy or composition. as the case may be, or such later date as may be agreed, produces to the landlord an offer in writing by a substantial and otherwise suitable person (being an offer which is to hold good for a period of one month from the date on which it is produced), to accept a tenancy of the holding from the termination of the existing tenancy thereof, and on the terms and conditions of that tenancy, and, subject as hereinafter provided, to pay to the outgoing tenant all compensation payable under the Act of 1908 as amended by any other Act, or under the contract of tenancy, and the landlord fails to accept the offer within two months after the production thereof; and
2. (b) If the landlord accepts any such offer the incoming tenant shall pay to the land- 481 lord on demand all sums payable to him by the outgoing tenant on the termination of the tenancy in respect of rent or breach of contract or otherwise in respect of the holding, and any amount so paid may, subject to any agreement between the outgoing tenant and incoming tenant, be deducted by the incoming tenant from any compensation payable by him to the outgoing tenant; and
3. (c) If the direction relates to part only of the holding the direction may, on the application of the landlord, be given subject to the condition that the tenant shall consent to the division of the holding into two parts (one such part being the part to which the direction relates) to be held at rents agreed by the landlord and tenant or in default of agreement settled by the committee, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the original holding, so far as applicable.

Provided that where a tenant has been accepted in accordance with the above provision and on the terms and conditions of the existing tenancy, a new tenancy shall not be deemed to have been entered into for the purposes of subsection (3) of section seven of this Act.

(4) The powers under this section of an agricultural committee may in the case of a holding situate in a county borough for which an agricultural committee has not been appointed be exercised by the Minister.

(5) In the exercise of their powers under this section the agricultural committee and the Minister shall have regard to the likelihood of the land being required for any purpose other than agriculture.

(6) If is any case a landlord or tenant by notice in writing given to the other party shall so require the power which under this section may be exercised by a committee shall in that case be exercised by an arbitrator appointed and acting under anti in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1908.

LORD DYNEVOR had an Amendment to delete subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This clause is generally known as the Improvements Clause, and under subsection (1) it may be possible for very large improvements to be ordered to be carried out by an agricultural committee at the expense of the landlord. If your Lordships will turn to Part I of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, you will find sixteen items mentioned which come under the heading of improvements. I do not wish to read all of them, but I would remind your Lordships that they include the erection and alteration of buildings, the formation of silos, the making or improvement of roads or bridges, and weiring. I hope your Lordships have not had the unpleasant experience I have had in connection with the last-named item. Two rivers run through my property, both of which are constantly trying to break their banks, and I have spent a great deal of money in the past few years on weiring. I do not mind doing anything reasonable in that way so long as I can afford it, but I do not want to be ordered by a committee to do something more than I can afford.

Under the 1908 Act no compensation is payable in respect of those improvements unless the landlord has consented, and he is to charge 5 per cent. interest if he carries them out under certain conditions. Five per cent. will not meet the case at all. What we have to consider is the immense amount of money that a landlord may be called upon to spend in one year by an agricultural committee on improvements, especially when we remember that taxation is very high, wages are high, and the cost of material is high. In fact, there is nothing to prevent a landlord being ordered by an agricultural committee to spend more than his rent-roll during the year. The only thing that will be left to loin is the bankruptcy court.

I am aware that there is an appeal to an arbitrator under the clause, but a landlord may be taken by a tenant three, four, five or six times before an arbitrator during the year and would not necessarily always go before the same arbitrator; therefore one arbitrator would not know in the least what the other arbitrator had done or how many orders the landlord had already received. If the tenant gets his repairs done as has already been agreed earlier in the Bill I think that is quite sufficient and he should not expect more than that. I do not see how any landlord can know his position from day to day if these great improvements are always hanging over his head and threatening him.

Amendment moved— Page 19, lines 8 to 12, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I suggest it would be convenient if I put the Question in this form, "leave out the first five lines of subsection (I)," in order to save the rights of other noble Lords.

THE EARL OF SUBORNE

I certainly could not vote for the complete elimination of this subsection. It is founded on a paragraph in the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. I will read that paragraph if you will permit me. It is paragraph 285, and deals with the First Schedule of the Act of 1908, Part I Your Lordships will remember that this is an expression of opinion by a Committee on which the owners were at least as strongly represented as the occupiers— We are of opinion that some means should be adopted for enabling necessary improvements comprised in Part I of the First Schedule to be executed in the event of the refusal of the landlord to give his consent, or his inability himself to carry them out. We have in mind particularly items (8) water supply, (9) fences, and (13) reclamation of waste land. We recommend either that the tenant should be given the right of appeal to the Board of Agriculture… and so on. Just as I could not vote to eliminate the whole of this subsection, so I also think that the subsection as it stands goes too far. The fact is that Part I of the First Schedule contains items of extremely unequal importance, and equal cost. For instance, the items that we pick out are absolutely necessary items if a farm is to be run. You must have a water supply, you must have fences We said that if it ever happened that the landlord was not able, or was not willing, to supply what he was bound to supply, then there should be an appeal, and I think there ought to be. I do not think it is at all unfair on the landowner that there should be an appeal by the occupier against him, if he has neglected to fulfil these elementary duties of supplying fences and a water supply.

But when it comes to the erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings I would point out that since that Report was drafted nearly four years have passed by, and the expense of buildings to-day may be something enormous. And there is nothing in this clause as drafted, to prevent an agricultural committee from agreeing with the tenant to change the whole character of the holding. A tenant might quite honestly think that the holding he has was suitable for a dairy farm. The owner might think it was not suitable for a dairy farm, and entirely decline to go to the cost of supplying buildings which might easily to-day on a large farm run up to £5,000. But the agricultural committee might uphold the contention of the tenant and direct this enormous improvement to be made. What happens if the agricul- tural committee makes a mistake? If the tenant finds he made a mistake he goes, and the burden of the mistake is thrown on the landlord.

A NOBLE LORD dissented.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Certainly it is, because the landlord has then to pay the tenant for the work he has executed. And therefore I hope that my noble friend will consider this clause of the Bill and diminish its present severity. I could not vote for its complete elimination for the reasons I have given.

LORD HARRIS

May I give a practical example of what might happen? A good many years ago one of my tenants requested me to put up a second hop oast. I remonstrated, and in the end he put up the oast and I paid him interest on it. It was a fair arrangement, and he has gone on. Now, I am quite certain that about that period there were many oasts put up all over the hop-growing counties which are now absolutely derelict, and, as my noble friend says, they have been thrown on the landowners' hands. They are no longer required for the purposes for which they were erected, and they are not very useful for any other purpose. It is quite conceivable that the same thing might apply to other classes of buildings, because there is the danger of a tenant being enthused with the idea that he can carry on some other class of business more successfully if he had certain buildings, and the agricultural committee (not being necessarily very good judges of agriculture) may agree, and you might run the danger of a heavy burden being very unfairly, and very unnecessarily from the agricultural point of view, thrown on the landlord.

EARL STANHOPE

I could give examples of this from all along the valley in which I live. All along that valley there are hop oasts, but there are no hops grown in that valley, and these hop oasts are absolutely useless for the purpose for which they were erected, and at very great expense they have had to be converted into something else. The value of these hop oasts to the holding is absolutely nil. I think the Minister of Agriculture rather disputed the question of liability. The governing words are these: "such sums as fairly represent the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant." Who is to decide who the incoming tenant is to be? When the agricultural committee come round they will say, "The outgoing tenant grew hops on this land. We know that he made a loss, because he gave up his farm, but we know that hops were, and are, at this moment being grown on the land; therefore, we consider that a hop oast is necessary for the incoming tenant." The incoming tenant, the moment he has realised what type of land he has to deal with, realises that he cannot grow first quality hops on that land, and only first quality hops would pay. He gets leave to grub up that hop field, and the hop oast is thrown away, but the agricultural committee have already valued that hop oast to the incoming tenant. The same thing can be applied to other forms of agriculture. Take sugar beet. I do not know much about sugar beet, but I imagine that it requires special buildings. Supposing somebody comes and attempts to grow sugar beet. The agricultural committee will again have to value the buildings which are erected for an incoming tenant, who will farm in the same way as the outgoing tenant who has failed. And so in almost every direction. This, I think, will hit the small owner very hardly indeed. The large owner can afford to spend money on his buildings. The small owner is quite unable to meet the cost which may be put upon him in this way, and of all the clauses in this Bill this is the on which interferes most with the management, of estates, and it is the one which will most incline owners to sell their land.

THE EARL OF LINDSAY

I should like to emphasise the point which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has raised regarding dairy farming. Any of your Lordships who come from North of the Tweed will know that there is an ever-increasing demand on the part of tenant farmers in Scotland to obtain licences to carry on dairy farming. These applications come before the county council, and before a licence is granted the Ministry of Health, or the officials of the county council acting under them, are very particular indeed to see that the premises, barns, and buildings where a licence has been granted are up-to-date and meet modern requirements. I have known cases where plans have been brought before the county council being turned down time after time, and I can confirm what the noble Earl has said, that in many cases very large sums of money are required to be spent on these buildings for dairy farming to be carried on. There is a great deal of it in those parts of the country where you have a mixed agricultural and mining population. I admit that in some parts, where you have very large farms—600, 700, 800, or 1,000 acres—no very great hardship will accrue. Nor does any hardship accrue where a farm has been let for dairy farming purposes, but it does scent to me extremely hard on a landlord if he is called at the end of a tenancy to foot a heavy bill for improvements to a farm, without ever having had the opportunity of readjusting the rent, and in the end, when the lease is thrown on his hands, it may very well happen that the incoming tenant has not the means to carry on.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was unable to vote for this Amendment for reasons he made very clear, but at the same time he indicated quite conclusively that the clause as it stands is almost an intolerable burden. As it stands now, an absolutely unknown liability may he imposed on any owner of agricultural land by a body which probably will not be well acquainted with the financial position of the owner in question. While the large landowner can afford it, the position of the small landowner will be quite intolerable.

We are in this difficult position. Unless we have some assurance that some readjustment of the clause will be made I do not see that we have any alternative but to support the Amendment. The clause, as it stands, has effects which really are more open to question and more far reaching than any other clause in the Bill. The keynote of the Bill is security. We are all anxious to see that the occupier should have reasonable and adequate security for all the work and capital he has invested in his farm. But, surely, in securing that for the occupier we ought not totally to disregard the position of the owner; and this clause does place the owner in a position of insecurity of which it is quite impossible to see the end. Personally, unless my noble friend can give us an. assurance that the clause will be very much remodelled, I shall support the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

I have always been in favour of giving every possible freedom to the tenant farmer but I confess that this clause goes too far. I should like to associate myself with the view taken by Lord Selborne who stated the case very clearly.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This question is undoubtedly one of the most difficult points in the whole Bill. I quite recognise the force of many of the arguments which have been used, and particularly the one by the Earl of Selborne when he pointed out that conditions have changed to a striking extent since his Committee made the recommendation in the direction of this clause. The cost of everything has been completely revolutionised and what might have been a perfectly fair charge on the landowner in the year 1914 might be an impossible charge on the landowner to-day. On the question merely of the merits of the proposal I think it would be better if the subjects to which this clause would apply were the same as those which are contained in the Schedules to the Act of 1908. I recognise that for some of those subjects, particularly in connection with building, the cost might be so prohibitive that the clause might operate exceedingly harshly against the landlord.

At the same time I am sure your Lordships are aware of the fact that there has been a strong agitation for many years amongst tenant farmers for the abolition of the division between the three classes of improvements. Their argument has been that the basis of compensation is the value to an incoming tenant, and therefore, the landlord is not unjustly treated if he pays for value in full received. It is quite true that permanent improvements of the kind suggested might really entirely alter the whole character of an holding, and the hypothetical tenant to whom these improvements might be of value might possibly never be forthcoming. That is quite true, and, therefore, in the clause we propose to put a sufficient check, as we think, upon the enthusiasm of the new agriculturist who might think that if he spent an enormous amount of money upon some kind of freak improvement he would produce great crops.

It is for that reason we make his suggestion go through a considerable amount of filtering before any effect can be given to it, and we thought the most appropriate body to examine such proposal, and to find out whether it was fair or reasonable, was the agricultural committee. An opinion was expressed in another place that possibly every one did not feel that complete confidence in their local agricultural committee which I hope as a result of war experience they will do, and, therefore, a special provision was inserted by which the landlord or tenant, if they so desire, can have this question settled by an arbitrator rather than by the county committee. They have their choice as to which they think is the fairer tribunal.

Apart from that, the object the Government have in view is not to deal with any question of security or advantage to the farmer, what they are endeavouring to do is to make it possible for holdings to be equipped in a way which will ensure the greatest amount of production. It is undoubtedly and unfortunately the fact that, as a result of the war and the financial burdens which have come upon us, landlords are finding it more and more difficult to find any money at all for the purpose not of making improvements only but of really doing their duty to the estates over which they have control. I am in hearty agreement with the remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, that landlords who cannot afford to do their duty by their land should not continue to hold it, and, though I am not prepared to go so far as the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, who said that whilst your Lordships were impoverished farmers were rolling in wealth, there are undoubtedly many farmers at the present time who are in a position to provide the funds required for the purpose of making necessary and desirable improvements in their holding. Obviously they cannot be expected to embark upon expenditure of that kind unless they have some chance of reasonable compensation if they are compelled to leave.

We have therefore arrived at a situation which seems to me something like a "stale-mate." You have, on the one hand, a landlord who cannot afford to do it and, on the other, a farmer who can afford to do it but will not because he has no security for his capital. We are anxious that he should put the utmost amount of capital into his holding, of course under the most careful restrictions as to the improvements and expenditure being in every way reasonable. But I would point out to your Lordships that under this provision, if it were passed, if a farmer embarked his capital, having got the sanction of the agricultural committee or the arbitrator for the improvement, he does still put it in at his own risk, because unless the improvement is one which when he is compelled to quit represents an increased value of the holding to an incoming tenant, he does not get any compensation for it. Your Lordships, I know, are not anxious to get rid of a good tenant, and until he is quitting no financial liability falls on the landlord. Supposing he does quit and he has made an improvement out of his own pocket which has obviously added to the value of the holding for an incoming tenant, and the landlord in consequence is able to let the holding to better advantage, surely it would not be suggested by your. Lordships that the landlord should put into his own pocket the value of the improvement effected by his tenant.

That is the general argument which the Government have in support of the proposal, but I come back to the first point with which I dealt and that was the objection raised by my noble friend, Lord Selborne. I freely admit that whilst the germ of the proposal was contained in the Report of his Committee we have gone further than the recommendations of his Committee. If conditions were normal I should be disposed to maintain that our proposal was reasonable, but I think there is great force in the argument the noble Earl has used, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, that the financial circumstances are so abnormal that we must recognise them in dealing with a matter of this kind. Therefore, I would make this suggestion to your Lordships. If you would be willing to accept the principle embodied in Clause 13 I would modify the clause to the extent of including, substantially if not entirely, the Amendment of ray noble friend Lord Strachie which follows, and which greatly limits the subjects to which this clause would apply. There is an obvious misprint in the Amendment. The second item should read "formation of silos", and not "sites." I a should like to be a little careful, because I want to examine the different items, but subject to a possible slight reconsideration of one or other of the items on Report, I should be prepared to accept Lord Strachie's Amendment now and embody it in the clause. I think that is a fair offer and I hope your Lordships will consider it. At any rate, let me retain something in the Bill.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

About which item has the noble Lord doubt?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am not in a position to tell the noble Earl exactly what my doubts are, but it will be open to your Lordships on Report to amend any suggestions that I make. If your Lordships do not approve my suggestions for modification you would have perfect liberty to throw them out neck and crop. I think it would be fair to give me time to consider the matter.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I understand from the noble Lord that in some cases he would expect the landlord out of his own pocket to do these improvements and to take the chance of an incoming tenant paying for them. It is one thing to allow the enthusiasm of a tenant, who thinks he sees a gold mine in an improvement, to do it at his own expense and run the risk of getting recouped by the new tenant, and another thing to put it to the landlord, who does not know where to turn to do existing work, that he must do it. If you allow one man to project a scheme of improvement and throw the final responsibility on the other man it is not fair. The man who has finally to bear the cost ought to have the right of saying whether he will take the responsibility.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that the list drawn up by Lord Strachie is sufficiently comprehensive. Most of us were not parties to the drawing up of the list, and, although I agree in general terms with what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has said—though I was not a signatory to that part of the Report— I feel that there are some other items which the noble Lord should take into account in existing circumstances. For instance, it would still be possible for a tenant, at his landlord's expense, to make new fences or remove existing ones. With the great spread of motor traction on farms it is quite possible that the farmer may decide that it is in the best interest of his motor implements to grub up all the fences—as a matter of fact this is being done in some parts of the country to-day—and his successor may find that his capital renders it impossible for him to use motor traction to the same extent, and he might wish to put the fences back. It is expensive enough to grub them up, but if you are going to reinstate them it would be exceedingly costly. The noble Lord has also left in the planting of hops, and of orchards and fruit trees.

NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Lord Strachie comes from the West of England. He forgot about hops. I am inclined to think that those who hail from the South-East would very much prefer to see hops included, because the planting of hops and the preparation of land for hops are extremely expensive. A farmer requires a good deal of capital to embark on hop growing at all, and if a new farmer came who had not the same capital he might prefer some other form of cultivation. I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, included the reclamation of land. That is very desirable but it is an expert business about which most farmers are profoundly ignorant, and if you left it to a farmer to reclaim land at his landlord's expense he might do more harm than good to his holding and involve a very heavy bill for his landlord ultimately to pay.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have not suggested any list of subjects. I merely said that I would accept the only list put forward by any noble Lord, and I said that it would be open to your Lordships to amend it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Or to yourself.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes, at a later stage. I think that Lord Bledisloe has not given sufficient weight to the fact that a farmer has not a free hand. If it is proved that the improvement was unreasonable and the reclamation a complete failure, he will not get compensation. He takes the risk and he will not get compensation.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I quite admit there are safeguards. If the noble Lord is open to allow us to revise his list I would not press this argument any further. There are a few words that I think he is bound to add. He ought surely to add some proviso against entirely altering the character of the holding as the result of the execution of these improvements. I am quite certain, if you are going to leave these agricultural committees to decide the question of improvements, that in certain parts of England at any rate you will find the improvements will he in the direction of more intensive cultivation. That may or may not be desirable, but it may entirely alter the character of the holding as the landlord has let it to the tenant. I hope the noble Lord will take that into account.

EARL STANHOPE

Lord Strachie drawing up this list, will I hope recognise what interference in the management of the property may mean. I earnestly ask him to think of that. I do not know any part of this Bill which is more likely to cause landowners to give up their land and sell it, which every tenant abhors, than this paragraph. If the interference and improvement is in the national interest, none of us have a word to say against it; but if it is left to the agricultural committee to interfere with private owners in the management of their property, I am perfectly certain they will resent it at once.

LORD DYNEVOR

I cannot accept what the noble Lord suggests unless he can see his way to delete most of the sixteen items in Part I of the 1908 Act. I must certainly reserve the right on Report to move the rejection of this clause.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I thought I made it perfectly clear that this is done without prejudice to further consideration. One of the noble Lords who is a very active critic of the Bill has put down a list of exceptions which he thought reasonable. I have accepted that list, and I have said that the list will be subject to the revision of your Lordships' House. I cannot say more than that at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE

The next Amendment in my name has been accepted. I move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("except—

1. (1) Erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings.
2. (2) Formation of sites.
3. (3) Laying down of permanent pasture.
4. (4) Making of water meadows or works of irrigation.
5. (5) Planting of orchards or fruit bushes").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper altering the wording of subsection (1) so that it would run— Where the landlord of any holding refuses or within a reasonable time fails to consent in manner required by section two of the Act of 1908 to the ranking of any improvement comprised in Part I. of the First Schedule to that Act, not being an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule tot hat Act, either absolutely or except upon such terms as the tenant is unwilling to accept, the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate may, on the application of the tenant and after giving the landlord or his representative an opportunity of being beard, direct that the improvement shall (unless the tenancy is terminated within five years of the execution of the improvement by notice to quit given by the tenant) be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1908 as if it were an improvement comprised in Part II. of the First Schedule to that Act, and any direction given by the agricultural committee under this subsection may be given subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit.

The noble Duke said: I admit that the concessions made by the noble Lord opposite have certainly altered the aspect of the matter, and perhaps this Amendment is not so necessary. I do not quite like the wording myself, but I found it rather difficult to draft. My proposal is with the intention that if it tenant should make a lot of expensive repairs and within a few years give notice to quit, he would not be able to obtain compensation. My idea is that this would be a great check on rash people who might spend a large sum of money in altering the character of a holding. Your Lordships will notice that this proposal takes effect only in the event of notice to quit being given by the tenant; if notice to quit is given by the landlord then he would be liable to pay compensation.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 18, after ("shall") insert ("unless the tenancy is terminated within live years of the execution of the improvement by notice to quit given by the tenant").— (The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Duke did not exactly move this Amendment with enthusiasm. I think his original impression was that it was really unnecessary in the light of the concessions that have been made. The noble Duke took the instance of a tenant having spent a great deal of money on improvements and then giving up his holding, but he forgot, I think, that it is only in cases where the refusal of the landlord to give leave for the improvement is found to be unreasonable that the case arises at all. Such a conclusion would not be reached in any case which would excite apprehension.

TEE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper after subsection (1), to insert the following proviso— Provided that in considering any such application the agricultural committee shall have special regard to the estimated cost of the improvement in relation to the rent of the holding and to the permanent increase in such rent which the improvement might fairly be expected to yield.

The noble Duke said: I think this is a reasonable concession to ask for, and it does not seem to me that there would be much objection to it. It is a considerable safeguard, and I do not think it would complicate matters in any way.

Amendment moved— To insert the new proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Duke's Amendment can be accepted down to the word "holding." But the remaining words are open to objection. I think there must he sonic misapprehension in the mind of the noble Duke. The execution of an improvement by a tenant at his own expense will be no justification for any increase in the rent, and the landlord will not have to pay him the cost of the improvement, but the sum that represents the then value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. If the noble Duke is content with the first part of his Amendment, well and good; indeed, I think in any event he must have that, but that does not apply to the last part.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

The point of it was, as Lord Lindsay was saying just now, that a man might possibly turn an arable farm into a dairy farm and spend a great deal of money in erecting buildings and making the faun suitable for dairy work, although it might riot very largely increase the rent of the farm. I daresay the Amendment is badly drafted, but it was meant rather that they should realise what the extra value would be to the bolding.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would be very difficult to assess.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Then I do not press the words after "holding."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Amendment is an addition at the end of subsection (2), which subsection provides for the Minister having power to substitute such percentages as he thinks fit for the percentages and periods mentioned in subsection (3) of Section (3) of the Act of 1908. Those percentages are percentages of interest upon the capital expended by the landlord.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 26, at end insert ("having due regard to the current rates of interest").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I move, at the beginning of subsection (3) to insert the words "Subject to the provision of this section."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It will save time if I say that I am going to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provision of this section").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (3), after "market gardening," to insert "and that there is no other land in the immediate neighbourhood of the holding or part of the holding suitable for market garden purposes and reasonably available to the tenant." The noble Earl said: This is in accordance with the recommendation that my Committee particularly thought was a necessary safeguard.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 36, after ("gardening") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am sorry to have to differ from anything which appeared in the report of my noble friend's Committee, but I venture to hope that he will not press this Amendment. The proposed inquiry as to whether there is other land in the immediate neighbourhood suitable for market gardening gardening, and reasonably available to the tenant, would so extend the scope of this clause as to make it practically useless. I cannot help think- ing that Lord Selborne's committee may not have fully realised the effect of their suggestion, because the cases in which the clause would most frequently apply are cases in which a farmer wishes to utilise a comparatively small part of his farm for market gardening, and it seems futile to have a general survey to consider whether it is possible for the farmer to hire other land and to use it. The use of land for market gardening is in the opinion of the Government a matter which should be encouraged, and any provision which might hinder it we think is to be deprecated. I shall be glad if the Amendment is not pressed.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

This recommendation was not made without due consideration. We felt it absolutely necessary to get over the block which had occurred, owing to the existing state of the law, in the application of land to market gardening, and we made recommendations in the Report which will certainly, I think, have that affect; but we did feel that if there were two pieces of land side by side, equally convenient and suitable for market gardening, and the owner of one was willing that it should be used for that purpose, and the other was not, we could not see the sense of putting compulsion on the unwilling owner, while at his very door was a man who wanted his land turned into a market garden. So we came to the conclusion that in every case there ought to be not a wide survey but a general survey of the circumstances of the neighbourhood, to see whether, as a matter of fact, the land for which application was made was the only suitable land available.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am not sure whether I signed this particular recommendation or not, but while sympathising with the general intention of the noble Earl I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with the words which he proposes to insert. In my county there exists the Vale of Evesham, or rather a part of it, where a very large and increasing tract of country is given up to market gardening according to the Evesham custom, which I hope will be developed in every possible way, in the interests both of the landowner and of the tenant. There happens to be only a certain area on a particular geological formation suitable for this purpose, and I should be sorry indeed if, under any restrictive words, it were found impossible to utilise that particular land for the purpose for which it has proved to be best fitted, namely, the intensive cultivation of fruit and market garden produce. I do not know whether the noble Earl could so alter the terms of his Amendment as to render it possible for the best land to be put to the best possible uses without detriment to the sitting tenant or the landlord.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Amendment does not prevent that at all. I will not press the Amendment, but I think it is quite a reasonable one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved, at the end of the first paragraph of subsection (3), to insert "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the breaking up of meadow land or pasture."

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept this Amendment.

[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment in my name is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "one" and insert "three." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether my noble friend has discovered that this paragraph is not quite consistent as it stands. The offer is to hold good for a period of one month from the date at which it is purchased. If the noble Lord turns to line 24 he will find the words "within two months." The offer is to hold good for one month and the landlord has one month in which to accept it. Therefore I say the offer ought to hold good for three months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 16, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The noble Earl has convicted the Bill and myself of an inconsistency. I must bow to the discovery and accept his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I beg to move the next Amendment on behalf of Lord Lamington. It is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 20, after ("tenancy") insert ('so far as applicable").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The words that I propose to leave out by the next Amendment are quite unnecessary in view of subsection (6) of Clause 30.

Amendment moved— Page 20, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("as amended by any other Act").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is merely to redraft the proviso to subsection (3). I think it is necessary.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, leave out lines 3 to 8 inclusive and insert: ("(4) A new tenancy created by the acceptance of a tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section on the terms and conditions of the existing tenancy shall not be deemed to be a mw tenancy for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to demands for arbitration as to rent.")—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in the Proviso of paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "Act," to insert the following new paragraph— () If the tenancy is determined by notice to quit given by the landlord with good and sufficient cause and for reasons consistent with good estate management the tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation for disturbance.

The noble Earl said: The point of this is that the Evesham custom is complete, and provides for compensation. As the Act is drafted at present the tenant would get compensation under the Evesham custom and also under this Bill, and I think this Amendment is required to see that he only is compensated according to the Evesham custom.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 8, after ("Act") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was not aware of the point that the noble Earl has just made. If a decision is given in favour of the tenant that is no ground for placing him in a worse position in regard to compensation for disturbance than he is already in. I was under the impression—

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am afraid we are at cross purposes. I will not press this Amendment now if my noble friend desires it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I confess the point the noble Earl made is rather new to me, and I have not had an opportunity of considering it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The point is that the Evesham custom is self-contained, and a man would get compensation under it. As I read the clause as drafted at present he would be entitled to compensation twice over, and nobody I imagine wants to pay two lots of compensation.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If that is wrong, I will certainly look into it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBOHNE had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new subsection— ()In any case where the landlord and the tenant have entered into an agreement in writing for the treatment of a holding or part of a holding as a market garden, and the Agricultural committee after having considered the agreement and caused the holding or the part of the holding to be inspected by a competent person, and having considered the report of such person made after such inspection, and made such other inquiry as the committee may think fit, grant a certificate that the agreement secures to the tenant of the holding for any improvement comprised in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Act of 1908 fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making the agreement, the provisions of the said agreement shall have full force and effect in substitution for the provisions of section forty-two of the Act of 1908, and the compensation secured by the agreement shall as respects that agreement be substituted for compensation under the Act of 1908, and subsection (3) of this section shall, during the continuance of the said agreement, rot apply to the tenancy.

The noble Earl said: This is a wholly different point, and is to introduce a recommendation of my Committee. We had it in evidence that there are other customs in the country which have exactly the same effect as the Evesham custom and which were greatly preferred in the neighbourhoods in which they prevail. Such was the case in Essex, for instance, and we recommended that, where it could he proved to the satisfaction of a sufficient authority, other local customs might be substituted for the Evesham custom. It will be seen that the whole thing is put into the hands of the agricultural committee.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I should be greatly obliged to the noble Earl if he would allow me to consider this point also, It is not one which his been brought to my notice. I was under the impression that the points had been covered by an Amendment in my name on the Paper.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The paragraph in the Report of my Committee dealing with the matter is No. 299 on page 76.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough in the meantime to look at my Amendment to Clause 25, which is on page 13. of the Marshalled List, and see whether it covets his point, as I imagine it does. I put it down under that impression.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am not sure, but I will not move now if the noble Lord will look into it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There is a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 18, leave out ("power") and insert ("powers").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert, "Provided that the arbitrator shall he nominated in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution." The noble Lord said: The words proposed are similar to those in Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917. Under the Act of 1908 the Minister of Agriculture nominated the arbitrator in default of agreement by the parties concerned, but under the Corn Production Act, where the Minister is himself to a certain extent an interested party, as he will be in cases likely to arise under this clause, it was thought best to leave the appointment in outside hands, and, if I remember rightly, when that Bill was before your Lordships that Amendment was moved and carried in this House to have the arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. This method has worked most admirably, in fact I have not heard any complaints about it, and I think it would be a very good thing if we inserted the same Amendment here.

Amendment proved— Page 21, lire 22, at end insert ("Provided that the arbitrator shall be nominated in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope that my noble friend will not insist on this Amendment. It is quite true that in those cases where the question is one between the Ministry, or some one acting on their behalf, and the individual, the appointment of the arbitrator has been given to the President of the Surveyors' Institution. But the case now under consideration is solely one as between landlord and tenant, just as in the case of an ordinary outgoing valuation, in which case the appointment under the Act of 1908 is made by the Minister. I am not aware that the selection by the Minister in the past has ever led to any real dissatisfaction, or for any demand that the appointment should be made by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.

Although personally I should be quite glad to be relieved of this responsibility, and although personally also I have very great faith in the impartiality and authority of the officials of the Surveyors' Institution, at the same time in the course of my many conferences and discussions with regard to this question, not merely with the Farmers' Union, but with the tenant farmers generally, I have found a great reluctance on their part to accept the nomination of an arbitrator by the Surveyors' Institution. Rightly or wrongly, the tenant farmers consider that the Surveyors' Institution is more connected with the landlords than it is with the tenants, and, when I have put this question in other connections before them on many occasions, they have always pleaded that there shall be some other nominating body. They do not want a nominating, authority which is any way partial to them; all they say is, "Let us have an absolutely impartial nominating authority," and I have found on many occasions when I have pressed this matter (and I have been rather inclined to the view of the noble Lord) they have not been disposed to accept the nomination of the Surveyors' Institution.

This being so, when it conies to a matter of arbitration the important thing is that the two parties concerned should feel a reasonable amount of confidence in the impartiality of the tribunal. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to insist upon a method of selection which gives to either side a feeling that they might not be fairly treated. I do not want to discuss the question as to whether the Surveyors' Institution is not absolutely impartial. But as the other side will feel there is a grievance I do not think we ought to accept the Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

I have a similar Amendment on the Paper. I rather agree with the difficulties of the case mentioned by the noble Lord. I understand that under the clause he is to nominate the arbitrator from a panel drawn up by the Lord Chief Justice.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not demur to the decision of the Minister, but I should like to say, being an honorary member of the Surveyors' Institution, that the feeling which has arisen is largely in consequence of the unfortunate decision to put into the Bill as originally drafted the Surveyors' Institution by way of counterpoise to the National Farmers' Union. Great regret has been expressed by the members of the Surveyors' profession, and considering their good history, and their undoubted impartiality as between one class and another, nothing should have been done to indicate to the farmers that they were a partial body.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I wish in the most emphatic way, so far as my opinion is of any value, to say that no sort of suspicion of partiality rests upon the Surveyors' Institution.

LORD DYNEVOR

In Part II my noble friend is not an interested party at all except under Clause 13, and that is why I thought it better to have an impartial body.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Compensation for continuous high farming.

14.—(1) Where a tenant who quits a holding after the commencement of this Act on so quitting proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908 that the value of the holding to an incoming tenant has been increased during the tenancy by the continuous adoption of a standard of farming or a system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding than the standard or system required by the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the tenant such compensation as in his opinion represents the benefit accrued to the holding by the adoption of that standard or system:

Provided that—

1. (a) This section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or under the Act of 1908 or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made; and
2. (b) Compensation shall not be payable under this section unless the tenant has, before the termination of the tenancy, given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to claim such compensation; and
3. (c) The arbitrator in assessing the value of the benefit accrued to the holding shall make due allowance for any compensation agreed or awarded to be paid to the tenant for any improvement, specified in the First Schedule to the Act of 1908 which has caused or contributed to the benefit.

(2) Nothing in this section shall entitle a tenant to recover in respect of an improvement specified in the First Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Act of 1908 any compensation which he would not be entitled to recover if this section had not been passed.

(3) The continuous adoption of such a beneficial standard or system of farming as aforesaid shall be treated as an improvement for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The first. Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 29, after ("system") insert ("if any").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

EARL STANHOPE moved, towards the end of subsection (1), to leave out "accrued to the holding" and to insert "accruing to the incoming tenant." The noble Earl said: My Amendment merely adopts the wording of the Act of 1908 which awards compensation according to the value to the incoming tenant. There is elf course another side to it, but when you have a high standard of farming your Lordships will agree that the value really is to the incoming tenant.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, leave out ("accrued to the holding") and invert ("accruing to the incoming tenant").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There is a slight objection to the precise wording of the Amendment. There may not be any incoming tenant. The noble Lord says "to the incoming tenant." As the noble Lord is no doubt aware the whole basis of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act is the value to "an" incoming tenant. If the object of the Amendment is merely to state precisely that the compensation is based on the value to an incoming tenant I will see that appropriate words are moved on Report But I do not think there is any doubt about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I now propose two drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 21, line 37, leave out ("this Act or under"). Page 22, line 15, leave out ("be") and insert ("have been").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (3).

Amendment moved— Page 22, lines 17 to 19, leave out subsection (3)—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will accept that.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I have put down an Amendment to reject Clause 14 in the hope of obtaining from the noble Lord opposite what I have never yet succeeded in obtaining from anybody during the many years in which this subject has been under discussion—namely, some reasoned statement of why compensation should be asked for in respect of a standard of continuous high farming. The phrase always used to be "continuous good farming," and for years compensation for continuous good farming has been asked for by a certain number of farmers. But the phrase has been amended, for obvious reasons, because as originally used it would have seemed to imply that continuous bad farming was the ordinary practice and that anything like continuous good farming ought to be treated with special respect.

There are various reasons, none of which seem to nee satisfactory, why compensation of this kind should be asked for. It might be asked for as a sort of bonus, or good conduct prize, as a reward to a man who has farmed high and well; but I can hardly suppose that that is the intention of its insertion in the Bill, because now we are told that all these matters are to be put on a strictly business footing and anything of the kind would appear rather to belong to the feudal period of landownership, which we are told is now altogether brought to a close. On the other hand, compensation may be asked for on the ground that there are some properties of improvement impalpable, intangible, which cannot be covered by any form of Agricultural Holdings Act. That is to say, that a good farmer can add something to a farm not recognisable by scientific agriculturists as representing a subject for specific compensation, but which will be of value to his successor. I have never discovered from conversation with any scientific agriculturist that any such property can exist, and I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture has been more fortunate in consulting with his scientific advisers at the Ministry.

A third suggestion, which appears to me to be the most likely one, is that this compensation is asked for as one of the steps towards the establishment of an occupation right in the holding which will ultimately become a saleable article and will be accompanied by fixity of tenure. None of these reasons for the insertion of this provision in the Bill appeals to me.

May I offer a concrete instance of the sort of case which I conceive may occur. Take a large mixed farm not of the highest quality land but fairly good land of, say, 400 acres at 30s. an acre, which is £600 a year. It has been extremely well farmed; the fences and gates have been the admiration of the whole countryside; the drains have been carefully looked to and the outfalls, so far as the tenant is responsible for them, have been carefully kept clear. In addition, the farm has been extremely well looked after in the sense of manuring and fertilisation generally, and, if the tenant leaves it, it is a farm which anybody may be glad to occupy. Very likely the tenant has had soma valuable pedigree stock upon it, and altogether the farm has a great name in the neighbourhood. Conceive a tenant vacating such a farm either by his own will or at the motion of the landlord. That difference does not arise in the case which I am suggesting. He puts in a claim for compensation for continuous high farming. Does that mean that such a claim will only be allowed if a landlord can obtain an increase of rent? It by no means follows that even after such farming as that the land may be worth more to an incoming tenant in the matter of rental. The incoming tenant may very well say, "In my opinion that farm is rented up to its full value; I am not prepared to pay any more than £600 a year for it. It is quite true it is in excellent condition, but so far as everything that has been put into the land is concerned the outgoing tenant will receive compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. All the other features of what is called high farming are no use to me. The mere fact that Mr. Giles, who has just left it, has had a herd of highly successful Hereford cattle and a number of Large White pigs is no use to me. It will not make my stock worth any more in the market. Therefore I am not going to pay any more." In such a case, if I read the clause aright, the outgoing tenant in spite of high farming will get nothing, because the farm is of no more value to the incoming tenant.

But take the case where some more rent will be paid by an incoming tenant. Does not that mean that in every case where a farm has been rented somewhat low, and on the change of tenancy a higher rent may properly be charged for it, the outgoing tenant will invariably put in a claim for compensation for his high farming because he can show that the rent has been raised after he left? That seems to me to put an altogether unfair burden on the arbitrator. It is by no means easy for him to say whether the outgoing tenant may not have been lucky in holding the farm too cheaply during the years he farmed it so well, or how far the rise in rent is due to the high standard of farming which is adopted. Obviously the only result will be that a landlord will be very shy of raising the rent, even where it might most properly be done and the incoming tenant is willing to pay a higher rent, for this reason, that in the long run it means that the landlord will have to pay the amount which is claimed by and awarded to the outgoing tenant. He will greatly prefer not to get the increase of rent to which he is clearly entitled, because he would sooner that the incoming tenant should get the advantage of holding the farm rather too cheaply, than that a sum of money should go to the outgoing tenant in whom he ceases to have any interest.

With that in view it seems to me that this provision is of very little value from the farming standpoint; that it may cause a number of claims to be made for which no real justification exists, and upon which it would be very difficult for the arbitrator to give an opinion. There seems to me very little more reason why a man who farms high—and presumably for his own advantage, because if his standard of farming has been so high that he has lost money by it he does not seem at any rate to be a very wise type of tenant—I see no reason why because a man has farmed well for a long time he should be specially compensated, any more than a man who has taken a house for a long lease, with the obligation of painting it every five or seven years, should after the termination of his lease put in a claim for continuous good painting, because he has kept the house so well painted during that series of years. I confess that these claims always seem to me to be thoroughly ill-founded, and I am at a loss to understand how the noble Lord comes to have inserted this provision in the Bill. I know that this has been asked for, as I think thoughtlessly, by a certain number of farmers. I have often asked them to explain why, and I have never received a rational explanation. Perhaps now, at the last moment, I may receive one from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. But as matters stand I venture to think that the insertion of this provision in the Bill is a mistake, and I shall be very glad if the clause can be removed from the Bill altogether.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 14.—(The Marguess of Crewe.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am bound to object on principle to the inclusion of this clause, and although I believe that something of this sort is recommended by the Selborne Committee's Report, I confess that I have never found it possible to agree with the terms of that Committee in advocating this proposal. It puts a premium upon mediocrity in farming. It is rather characteristic of the somewhat decadent days in which we live. I cannot conceive that in the days of Coke of Norfolk and Turnip Townshend such a clause could have been advocated, because in those days only good farming was encouraged by the Government. It reminds me of an advertisement one used to see in the Underground railway in respect of ladies' hairpins, which were advocated for the public to buy because they were "the best best." Every well drawn tenancy agreement provides for farming at the top of the farmer's form.

This clause has a loophole in it, and I am glad it has a loophole. It states that where the tenancy agreement provides for the standard contemplated in this clause then no additional compensation shall be paid. I am quite sure that on every one of your Lordships' own estates, if you are properly advised by your legal advisers, you will take care to include in this agreement words which will prevent any claim being made under this clause. Surely in any case this is a claim which ought to come under the head of unexhausted improvements. Assuming that there is any unexhausted value passing to the successor it ought to be paid for as an unexhausted improvement.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am sorry that my noble friend should be opposing this particular provision. The origin of it was in the Report of the Selborne Committee, and perhaps if I show that the original sin does not lie with me he may be induced to withdraw his opposition. The Selborne Committee said on this point— There is real force in the argument that the man who has done more than this"—[that is, to leave his farm clean, in good heart and condition]—" and who, by high farming, has consistently grown heavier crops and consequently has been able to produce more manure, should not at the termination of his tenancy be required to hand over an improved holding without adequate compensation for its increase in value. We are of opinion that the Acts should be so amended as to make it clear that a claim for improvement of this character may be sustained. They go on to say that the burden of proof should rest on the claimant. I do not notice in the noble Marquess's denunciation of this clause that he really recognised that. He talked a good deal about the adoption of a standard of good farming, but the wording of the clause is— the continuous adoption of a standard of farming or a system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding than the standard or system required by the contract of tenancy. To that extent the farmer is doing something which he is not required to do by the terms of his tenancy, and the question is whether we wish or do not wish to encourage that form of special high farming. My own view is that it is of the utmost importance at the present time, just when we are, I hope, entering upon a new era of scientific discoveries in connection with farming and the use of expedients which do not commend themselves possibly as yet to the average farmer who is very conservative and difficult to convince, that we should encourage special enterprise in every possible way, even when that special enterprise involves, in the opinion of the fanner himself, possibly a real clement of risk. It scents to me vital, if we are going in for an advanced policy to tone up the whole farming in this country, which I think is of the utmost importance, that we should hold out some kind of special inducement to the man who is willing to take the view of that very excellent publication, The Journal of the Ministry, that the application of certain manures in unusually large quantities may produce results which will be extraordinarily beneficial to the holding, and to persuade him to take the risk on the faith of the recommendations of the scientists. If you are to take the other line, and to say to a man "If you do take these risks, if you show the utmost enterprise and desire to take advantage of all the latest discoveries, then you will only be doing what is your duty, and we are not going to recognise that in any shape or form," then I think that would really be a great discouragement.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Surely the outgoing tenant will be paid under the existing Agricultural Holdings Acts for anything that he puts into the land in that way?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

He may or may not be paid. He may not be able to look forward to a sufficient compensation to give him the encouragement which is absolutely necessary. The noble Marquess said he thought this proposal had been put forward thoughtlessly by certain farmers. I think it has been put forward, if I may say so, after very careful consideration of the whole subject not merely by farmers but by the very authoritative body of men who formed the Earl of Selborne's Committee, reinforced, if that is considered of any value at all, by the deliberate and considered opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture. I can assure your Lordships that from the point of view of the encouragement of a higher standard of farming we attach the utmost importance to this provision. I have done my utmost in connection with this Clause. I have accepted every Amendment which has been put down by any of your Lordships to the Clause before it has come to the final question whether it is to be rejected or not. I have shown myself anxious to meet all the criticisms and objections that have been put forward, and I hope at this stage your Lordships will not turn round and reject the whole clause.

LORD HASTINGS

I accept entirely the assurance of the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture as to the excellent intentions of the Ministry in putting this Clause into the Bill. Perhaps it is impertinent on my part to use the words, but believe me it is redundant— it is not necessary. There is not a farming agreement in the country which does not in effect contract out of the Clause already. If a landlord chose to dilapidate his tenant, as his agreement enables him to do, he would in effect be contracting out of this Clause. The noble Lord shakes his head; he is naturally entitled to his opinion as I am to mine, and I honestly believe that is the effect. Every farming agreement which is drawn in this country provides for the highest class of farming, and that tenants do not farm up to the highest class of farming is due in part to the slackness of the land agents of the country, in part to the landowners themselves, and in part to the low standard which arbitrators and valuers generally have set throughout the country. I believe that Clause 14 is entirely redundant and, as such, I think it is a pity that it should encumber the Bill.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.

17. Where a landlord proves, to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding, that the value of the holding has been deteriorated during the tenancy by the failure of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord such compensation as in his opinion represents the deterioration of the holding due to such failure:

Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this section unless the landlord has, before determination of the tenancy, given notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to claim such compensation:

Provided also that this section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in the sixth line of the Clause, to delete "and" and insert "or." The noble Lord said: I take it that my noble friend will accept this Amendment. Surely it ought to be "or" and not "and."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

That is so.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF HOME

On behalf of my noble friend Lord LAMINGTON I beg to move, after the word "tenancy" where it last occurs before the first proviso, to insert "or to leave temporary pasture of at least equal value to the temporary pasture on the holding at the commencement of the tenancy for which the tenant did not pay compensation." If reference is made to the first Schedule of the Bill it will be seen that a tenant gets compensation for leaving better grass at the end of his tenancy than was there when he took over, and it seems only reasonable that if the converse is found to be the case the landlord should get compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, may think this is covered by the last Amendment to this clause which stands in the name of Lord Bledisloe; if that is so, I withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 25, after ("tenancy") insert the said words—(The Earl of Home.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is not for me to suggest whether this particular clause is or is not advantageus to landlords. If your Lordships desire it to remain in the Bill in your own interests it is the intention of the Government that it should go in as a necessary counterpart to the clause which has just been passed. But very strong objections, I know, have been advanced in another direction, and if, upon reflection, you should decide that, on the whole, you regard this clause as being less advantageous, I should not object to its omission. But, if it stands, I do not think the Amendment moved by the noble Lord would really improve it.

THE EARL OF HOME

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, before the first proviso, to leave out "the deterioration of the holding due to such failure," and to insert "the cost of reinstating the holding in the condition in which it should have been left by the tenant according to the rules of good husbandry or under the contract of tenancy."

The noble Earl said: Compensation is awarded on what the arbitrator thinks is the deterioration of the holding due to the failure of good farming. What I suggest is that the compensation should be payable on what it costs to reinstate the holding. One of the chief objects of this Bill, I think, is that we should gradually improve the productivity of the land of this country. What we want to do is to restore the holding, where it has been let down, to the condition in which it should be. Personally, I should be quite prepared to accept any suggestion that the noble Lord might make by which the agricultural committee should compel the landowner to spend what is given in compensation under this clause to reinstate the holding in the condition which we desire. Your Lordships will remember cases in which an arbitrator has given a figure to cover the cost of damage done to a farm which in no way represents the cost which has to be paid in order to restore the holding to its proper condition. This Amendment is intended really to bring before the arbitrator that point of view, in order that he should give a proper figure.

Amendment moved— Page 23, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("the deterioration of the holding due to such failure") and insert ("the cost of reinstating the holding in the condition in which it, should have been left, by the tenant according to the rules of good husbandry or under the contract of tenancy").—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is a great deal in what the noble Earl says, but I am not sure that he has sufficiently realised that if Clause 17 is to be retained in the Bill at all, which at present of course we must assume, it should follow as nearly as possible the terms of Clause 14. The truth is that this clause is a counterpart—

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Well, I venture to think that is so, and I should be prepared to develop that argument. Indeed, I think it is obvious that it must be so. Under Clause 14 the tenant obtains as compensation an amount representing the improvement of the holding.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Well, I think it is so.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I will develop my argument presently.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Clause 14 says— Where a tenant who quits a holding after the commencement of this Act on so quitting proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908 that the value of the holding to an incoming tenant has been increased during the tenancy by the continuous adoption of a standard of farming or a system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding than the standard or system required by the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the tenant such compensation as in his opinion represents the benefit accrued to the holding by the adoption of that standard or system.

EARL STANHOPE

There has been an Amendment which would bring the value to the incoming tenant, and the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture is going to consider words to meet that case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No doubt. I do not know what words my noble friend will accept. I was aware that there had been discussion on a small Amendment, which does not in the least affect the principle of Clause 14, and no Amendment, I can assure the noble Earl, which my noble friend is in the least likely to introduce will affect what is the fundamental object of Clause 14. The fundamental object of Clause 14 is to give to the tenant as compensation an amount which represents the improvement of the holding in cases of what is called continuous high farming. The Amendment that my noble friend is likely to accept will not affect the principle of Clause 14.

That being the object of Clause 14, I was entirely right in saying that Clause 17, rightly understood, was its counterpart. In Clause 17 the landlord is to obtain a sum representing the deterioration of the holding, which might or might not be the same sum as the actual cost of reinstating the holding to the conditions referred to in the Amendment. If that is not correct, and Clause 17 is not found to be the counterpart of Clause 14, I shall be much surprised.

LORD CLINTON

The noble and learned Lord tells as that this is a counterpart to Clause 14. No doubt he is correct in words, but really it is not so in actual fact, because Clause 14 is a new power given to the tenants to claim compensation under this measure. This clause does not give a new power at all. Landlords have already the right to claim for dilapidations in their leases and in common law. The only thing that this Clause does is to enable them to claim these dilapidations under their leases. I know that the clause has been put forward as a concession to landowners. It is nothing of the kind.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Really that makes it easy for the Government. I was of opinion that this clause was valued by landowners. My noble friend says that it is not valued by landowners, and if it is not valued by landowners I have no difficulty at all in accepting the Amendment. What we are trying to do is to keep the balance of the Bill, and I thought this was a clause which landlords valued as a counterpart to Clause 14. If I am told by those who support the landlords that they do not want this clause I will of course accept the Amendment. I am astonished.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I want this clause left in. It will be of assistance to landowners to snake good claims to that to winch they are entitled now. My quarrel with the Lord Chancellor is this. It is not a counterpart to Clause 14 of this Bill, but it is a counterpart to the compensation for improvements in the Act of 1908, an Act which ought to have contained a clause like this.

LORD BLEDISLOE

On reflection I consider this clause wholly illusory. It is rather in the nature of camouflage, because it suggests that there is a counterpart here by way of compensation given to landlords, whereas in every case the custom of the country or the contract provides for exactly what this clause makes it a little more difficult for the landlord to get. It is for that reason that I am going to move the insertion of a proviso which will save the rights a landlord now has under his tenancy agreement or the custom of the country.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out the second proviso. The noble Earl said: I want to leave out the words about the record of the condition of the holding. If the last paragraph of Clause 17 is really a counterpoise to Clause 14 I agree that the record should hold, but I contend that it is a counterpoise to the Act of 1908, which contains no provision for a record.

Amendment moved— Page, 23, leave out lines 33 to 36 inclusive.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I shall put the Amendment to leave out lines 33 and 31 in order to safeguard the following Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not at all sure that the difference, if there is a difference, between the noble Earl and myself is not merely a difference about words. I agree that the provisions of this clause would have been not only a more precisely strict but a more contemporary counterpart of the clause the existence of which the noble Earl has reminded us in the Act of 1908. That does not prevent it being even a belated counterpart to Clause 14 in the Bill. I do not wish to re-argue that, but I think it must be assumed from the fact that the last Amendment was not persevered in that the House as a whole assents to the same view. The first Amendment of the noble Earl, if I understand it rightly, is substantially drafting and I think it is unobjectionable. The lines proposed to be left out are— Provided also that this section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made. It has been suggested already in debate, in answer to Lord Lamington's Amendment, which was not pressed, that this clause may prove to be embarrassing to landlords instead of being beneficial, but if it is desired, as I gather it is desired, to maintain it, the Government are very willing to carry out what is almost a pledge which they gave, because at one time in the discussion this clause was considered to have value. If it is desired to retain the clause, as to which the Government have a very open mind, it is only reasonable that so far as possible we should make it a strict counterpart, and as a tenant can only claim for improvement shown by a proper record—

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

No. He can only claim for special improvement under Clause 14 if he produces a record, but the other improvements do not require a record.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is true. We are dealing with this matter, and if you limit it to this it is after all a considerable equipoise to what is contained in the clause. Nobody contended that the two clauses should be precisely analogous. That is not the suggestion. As a tenant can only claim for improvement shown by a proper record—that is the effect of Clause 14, however amended—so the landlord should under this clause only be entitled to claim for deterioration shown by the same kind of record. If the clause survives at all I am persuaded that it must survive in relation to those considerations.

EARL STANHOPE

I hope the noble Earl will insist upon his Amendment. We all know of cases in which a farm is taken in a bad condition by a tenant, and it is the common practice to set the rent at a figure which would cover the farm when restored to a good condition but to give abatement, for a certain number of years. Therefore any record of the holding—as to which I shall have something to say in a few moments—would entirely disregard an arrangement of that, kind, which was a contract between a landowner and a tenant agreed upon by both with their eyes open, the understanding being that the farm is going to improve during the terms of tenancy. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that this clause should be taken out. As regards the record of the holding I am informed that under the Act of 1908 records can be taken, but they have been found in practice so valueless that in very few cases are they actually taken by either side.

Amendment moved— page 23, line 36, at end insert ("Provided that nothing in this section prevent a landlord from claiming compensation for dilapidations or for the deterioration of the holding under the contract of tenancy."—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It might save time if I were to say that I did not challenge the last expression of opinion because I could see that your Lordships were in a clear majority upon that question. It is quite possible that those who now regard Clause 17, if there be any left of the faithful at all, as conferring some benefit on the landlord, will find that the benefit is very problematical and that the clause merely complicates their present rights of enforcement and claims for breach of contract of the tenants. That being so, I think between now and Report the very existence of Clause 17 will have to be explored. I am not prepared to dispute the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment, but would rather recommend to him, if I may presume to do so, that he should not move it now but leave it as always open to be dealt with hereafter in the light of what I have said.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Had it not been for the last Amendment which evidently has been taken as accepted—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Not as accepted, but as an Amendment we are not in a position to dispute with sufficient strength.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Quite so. Allow me to put it like this. If it had not been for the last Amendment I should have hesitated to press this matter. I shall most certainly move to omit this clause altogether on the Report stage; but left where it is, I think it is better to insert my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

it is completely meaningless. I have no other objection.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Provisions for expediting and reducing costs of arbitrations.

18.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister may by rules make such provision (not bring inconsistent with the rules contained in the Second Schedule to the Act of 1908) as he thinks desirable for expediting, or reducing the costs of, proceedings on arbitrations under the Act of 1908.

(2) On an arbitration under the Act of 1908 the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit—

1. (a) make Separate awards in respect of he several claims referred to him; and
2. (b) make an interim award for the payment of any sum on account of the sum to be finally awarded.

(3) A rule made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent thirty days on which the House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "may if he thinks fit" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: There is a provision in the Bill that the arbitrator may if he thinks fit make separate awards. We have tried in many Acts in recent years to make these second awards compulsory upon the arbitrator. It is of real importance both to the owner and the tenant that they should know in any findings issued the exact terms on which the arbitrator has found them, and I suggest that the words "may if he thinks fit" should be left out and the word "shall" inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 2, leave out ("may if he thinks fit") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Clinton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think this Amendment proceeds upon a slight misconception as to the effect of the subsection and the existing provisions of the Act of 1908. The present position is that it is at any rate extremely doubtful whether the arbitrator to whom the claim of the tenant and the counterclaim of the landlord are referred can make more than one award in the arbitration, and it is more than clear that he cannot make an interim award for payment on account. It not infrequently happens that certain claims and counter-claims admit of prompt treatment, but other matters involve further evidence or a decision of the courts on points of law, and in those cases it is only fair that there should be an award as regards matters which have been decided. But experience of some of the provisions in other Acts has suggested that this should be left to the discretion of the arbitrator. That is the whole point, because the arbitrator may conceivably be satisfied that the postponed claims, although not definitely ascertained, will counter-balance the claims which have been ascertained. It is not a point, however, on which the Government have strong feelings at all. On the whole I should prefer the clause as it stands, but, as I have said, the Government hold no strong view about it.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "him" to insert and in all cases the amounts awarded in respect of claims by the landlord and by the tenant respectively shall be shown separately in the award."

The noble Lord said: The object of this is to ensure that there shall be shown separately in the award claims in respect of improvements on the part of outgoing tenants, and of dilapidations on the part of the landlord. This is a matter which has been raised by the Council of the Surveyors' Institute who say that it may be difficult otherwise for the landlord to insist that the amount awarded for dilapidations shall be actually expended in making them good.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 4, after ("him") insert ("and in all cases the amounts awarded in respect of claims by the landlord and by the tenant respectively shall be shown separately in the award").—(Lord Bledis1oe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I greatly doubt whether this Amendment is necessary. After all the landlord or tenant can, under the existing law, require an arbitrator to specify the amount awarded in respect of particular matters. This Amendment goes a little further. As matters are at present, the arbitrator advises by the prescribed form of award the amount awarded to the landlord and the amount awarded to the tenant. It is possible that this Amendment means that he has to specify in every case the amount awarded in respect of each item of claim of the landlord and tenant respectively. I do not know whether the noble Lord means that, but the language is capable of that construction. I think this is too precise.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I did not mean to be so meticulous as that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is an obligation that the landlord or tenant should require the arbitrator to specify the amount awarded in respect of particular matters. I should have thought that would have given the noble Lord all he required.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It is possible that, the contention of the noble and learned Lord is correct. The professional view is that it may be difficult for the landlord to apply the amount in respect of dilapidations on making good those dilapidations, unless the items are kept absolutely distinct.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I am right in my construction, though having made a slight error in the last Amendment I will not be too dogmatic. If the noble Lord will allow me I will look into it between now and a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

LORD HINDLIP moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause— 20. Not withstanding the provisions of section seven, subsection (4), paragraph (d), of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, no person shall exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act as a member of a Committee referred to in the said subsection unless he has a practical, commercial, technical or scientific knowledge of agriculture, and no such person shall be interested financially, either directly or in directly, in any farming operations carried on or conducted by the said Committee?.

The noble Lord said: The first part of my Amendment was discussed in another place. That part of the Amendment is quite clear, and I propose to leave it to the sense of the House. The last part of the Amendment possibly requires some short explanation. In the House of Commons, the Under-Secretary, if I remember aright, objected to the words, and I have altered them to try and meet his objection. He also said that he would have words to cover the Amendment inserted. I do not think that quite meets the point or provides sufficient safeguards. I do not think very many people ever see the Orders and certainly no member of the public does.

The object of the last words is to bring, insofar as it is possible, the obligations of the committee more or less in line with the obligations of those in the Civil Service. I desire to prevent any member of any committee having any financial interest in any farming operations that are carried on by that committee. No member of the committee who is, perhaps, a member of or agent for a firm supplying seeds, implements, manure, or anything of the sort should supply such articles or commodities to the committee for use on the land which the committee is cultivating. I think it is framed to meet any possible abuses.

Amendment moved— After Clause 10 insert, the said new clause.—(Lord Hindlip.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This is one of those difficult questions in regard to which my sympathies are in principle with the noble Lord. It is true, and I think it was due to your Lordships, that a special provision was inserted in the Ministry of Agriculture Act to the effect that only such persons should be appointed to county agricultural committees as had practical, commercial, technical, or scien- tific knowledge of agriculture or an interest in agricultural land. Those last words were put in because it was held—and I think rightly that if they had been omitted those of your Lordships who were deeply interested financially, and otherwise, in agricultural land might have been disqualified from service on these committees; whereas it is not only desirable that your interests should be represented, but I feel convinced that you represent some of the most useful elements upon them and they would be very much weaker without your assistance.

These definitions are always exceedingly difficult of enforcement, particularly when you are dealing with local authorities. Remember that these committees now are statutory bodies of the county councils. I do not want to make any complaint against county councils because I think on the whole they have acted both up to the letter and the spirit of the Act. I have taken immense pains in going through the lists of these county committees, wherever possible redressing the balance in any case where a particular interest is not sufficiently represented. On the whole I think we may have a reasonable hope that these committees will carry out their responsibilities in a highly efficient manner. At the same time I do not pretend that there have not been a few cases—three should say at the most—where advantage has been taken of the rather vague phrase "interested in agricultural land" to appoint individuals whose agricultural knowledge it would be exceedingly difficult to detect or even to suspect. I do not know that in practice they ready do very much harm and therefore I am an optimist as regards the future of these committees.

The real point before the House is what, if anything, could the Ministry do to interfere in a case of that kind. What could your Lordships do by way of any further provision put into the Bill which would ensure any better result. In practice the county council appoints certain people to serve on the agricultural committee. You may suspect that the individuals selected do not exactly comply with the terms of the Act. You represent that to the county council and they say "We are the responsible body. We are thoroughly familiar with the terms of the Act. We have given them the utmost consideration. We have stayed up hours weighing the claims of these individuals and we have come to the conclusion that they comply with the teems of the Act." Is the Ministry or this House to set up a sort of competitive examination as to whether this individual can or cannot pass this standard of requirements? And in the end, of course, the county council, if it chooses to take up that line, is bound to win.

It is true that I leave taken this precaution, that in all eases where I felt any grave doubt I have requested the county council to give a certificate that they have complied with the terms of the Act and that their nominees are fully qualified. That request has been objected to in more than one quarter; but it is I think as far as we can go. But in any case it is quite impossible for this Bill to amend the Act of 1919, which does not come within the scope of this Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see that it is quite impossible to accept his Amendment with regard to that particular point. But with regard to the second part of the Amendment, that is another matter altogether. I am quite prepared to accept that, as indeed would leave been quite prepared to accept the first part of the Amendment of Lord Clinton, who did not move.

THE MARQUESS OE SALISBURY

I am glad that the noble Lord is willing to take the second part, because it is clearly in the interest of the high standard which ought to prevail in regard to these committees. As regards the other part, I must say it is perfectly true that nothing would be more humorous than if, by the action of the House of Lords, we cut all of ourselves off front representation on these committees. I am sure that was not the intention of my noble friend. I should have said that most of us had a commercial interest in land—at any rate a good many of us live by it—and I am rather surprised that these words do not cover it, but we must accept the answer of the noble Lord.

LORD HINDLIP

The noble Lord has satisfied me personally.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment, as altered, will read as follows— A member of a Committee referred to in subsection (4), paragraph (d), of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Act shall not be interested financially, either directly or indirectly, in any farming operations carried on or conducted by the said Committee.

Clause 20:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think that my Amendment, which is to the proviso, is necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 12, after ("tenant") insert ("and the reduction of the rent").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept that.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Prohibition of removal of manure, etc., after notice to terminate the tenancy.

23. Where after the commencement of this Act notice to terminate the tenancy of a holding is given, either by the tenant or by the landlord, the tenant shall not, subject to any agreement to the contrary, at any time after the date of the notice, sell or remove from the holding any manure or compost, or any hay or straw or roots grown in the last year of the tenancy unless and until he has given the landlord a reasonable opportunity of agreeing to purchase on the termination of the tenancy at their fair market value, or at such other value as is provided by the contract of tenancy, the said manure, compost, hay, straw, or roots.

LORD STRACHIE

I have a manuscript Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved. Page 26, line 7, after ("landlord") insert ("or incoming tenant").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept that.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved towards the end of the clause, to leave out "on the termination of the tenancy." The noble Marquess said: I hope the noble Lord will accept this as a drafting Amendment. I think there is little more in it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not know why this Amendment has been moved. The clause provides that the landlord shall have the opportunity of taking over the manure, hay and straw, on the termination of the tenancy, but until its termination the tenant has the right. It is only on the termination that any question would arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Record of holding.

24. If the landlord or tenant of a holding at any time during the tenancy so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches and cultivation of the holding, and if so required by the tenant a record of any existing improvements executed by the tenant or for which the tenant is, under section seven of the Act of 1908, entitled to claim compensation, and of any fixtures or buildings which, under section twenty-one of that Act, the tenant is entitled to remove, shall be made by a person to be appointed in default of agreement by the Minister, and in default of agreement the cost of making any such record shall be borne by the landlord and tenant in equal shares.

EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of the clause, to leave out "by the landlord and tenant in equal shares" and to insert "by the person requiring the same." The noble Earl said: it seems to me that the person requiring the record should pay for it.

Amendment moved— Page 26, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("by the landlord and tenant in equal shares") and insert ("by the person requiring the same.").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As the record is made between the landlord and tenant in order to avoid disputes it is reasonable that they should share the expenses.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Repeal of s. 4 of the Act of 1908.

25. Section four of the Act of 1908 (which relates to agreements as to compensation for improvements comprised in Part III. of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be repealed:

Provided that this section shall not affect the operation of any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause, to leave out "be repealed" and to insert "after the commencement of this Act apply only to improvements to which the provisions of section forty-two of the Act of 1908 applies or are directed under this Act to apply."

The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 25 deals with Section 4 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, which enacts that where a written agreement secures compensation for improvements in Part III. of the First Schedule to that Act, which is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances existing at the time of making the agreement, compensation so secured shall be substituted for compensation under the Act; that is compensation based on the value to an incoming tenant. Lord Selborne's Committee recommended that Section 4 should be repealed subject to special provision for dealing with market gardens. The Amendment proposes that Section 4 should still be left in force as regards market garden improvements, and in substance, though not in precise terms, I hope the noble Earl will agree that it does carry out, the main suggestions of the Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 26, leave out ("be repealed") and insert ("after the commencement of this Act apply only to improvements to which the provisions of section forty-two of the Act of 1908 applies or are directed under this Act to apply").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Minor amendments of 8 Edw. 7, c. 28.

27. The amendments in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act (which relate to minor details), shall be made in the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, specified in the first column of that Schedule.

LORD STRACHIE moved, after "1908" to insert "and the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919." The noble Lord said: This is to be read with an Amendment to the Schedule. The object is to meet the case in which a farm was bought by auction in 1919 and the tenant has been under notice to quit in 1920. Under pressure for the county council who desire the land for small holding some part of the tenant's holding is taken and his notice to quit is null and void. He is given a fresh notice to quit at Lady day, 1921. Then he obtains another year. Your Lordships will see the difficulty. It cannot be the object to prevent the resale to the county council for the creation of small holdings as otherwise the effect would be to prevent for another year the small holder coming into occupation of the farm bought by an owner perhaps in some cases with the object of dividing it and letting the county council buy some part either for small holdings or, what is more likely, to put an ex-soldier on the land. It seems hard that it should be impossible in these cases to do so.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 23, after ("1908") insert ("and the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understand that some discussion has already taken place in reference to this Amendment, and the noble Lord has been told that an attempt will be made to meet his object by what is considered a more suitable form of words.

LORD STRACHIE

On Report?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD STRACHIE

I am satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after Clause 28, to insert the following new clause— 29. If any person falsely or maliciously, or without reasonable grounds alleges as against any landlord or tenant that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or that any land is being cultivated or managed in a manner inconsistent with good estate management, and so as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively or in addition thereto to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.

The noble Earl said: I do not wish to detain your Lordships more than a few moments. My object is to make it clear that we shall not steer straight for the unfortunate Irish system which has given so much anxiety for so many years and which is largely responsible for the condition in Ireland to-day. This Amendment is not my own invention, but a suggestion put in my hand by a tenant farmer. On a previous Amendment the noble Lord in charge of the Bill referred to an Amendment, whatever it was, as introducing an interminable vista of litigation. It would be more simple if we had a definite clause of this sort in the Bill, instead of wandering down that interminable vista of litigation.

We have some reason for our fears, which are justified by recent events. We know perfectly well that one of the outcomes of the unhappy system of land tenure in Ireland was the Land League, and I think that with these newly-organised bodies connected with the land we are shortly going to have an organisation closely analagous to the Irish Land League. My fear is somewhat increased and justified by recent cases in the Law Courts of which no doubt the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is fully aware. Only recently we had the case of members of a certain organisation trying to prevent an owner of land doing what he liked with his own. I hope His Majesty's Government realise that these fears, shared by other members of your Lordships' House, are reasonable and well-founded. Another point is that only to-day I heard of the manager of a certain large farming estate in the country who was extremely unpopular in his neighbourhood, and attacks upon him were becoming more frequent, for no other reason than that he was a very honest man. If you can imagine an organisation attacking a man for a fault of this sort there is no limit to its activities. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill or the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will give an assurance that instead of depending on the very uncertain issues of a long, expensive and cumbrous ease some clause shall be inserted which will prevent busybodies interfering with other people's affairs.

Amendment moved— After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl, who is a very old friend of mine and who, if he will allow me to say so, I suspect has pursued his researches into the law as slightly as I have carried mine into the field of agriculture, gratified my curiosity in relation to his Amendment almost in the first sentence of his speech, because he said that this Amendment did not come from a landowner but came from a tenant farmer. If I might give my noble friend some advice which may save him a great deal of money if he lives long enough, it is that if he wants law he should not go to tenant farmers for it. He may reply to me, that if I wanted agriculture I should not go to lawyers. If my noble friend Lord Buckmaster were here I should not be disposed to quarrel with that either. But really my noble friend has placed himself in a very high position among the humourists of the House by this Amendment, and I am only sorry that it was not moved at a moment which would have secured for it the degree of publicity that it deserves in the Temple. Although my noble friend appears to be unaware of it, the law, when dealing with defamatory statements, has already undergone quite a considerable degree of development in the course of the last two or three hundred years, and for a defamatory statement, whether it deals with a man's skill as a cultivator or whether it deals with the reputation of his wife, our law with complete impartiality has already provided tribunals, and the vigilance of the noble Earl would have possessed the highest value if it had not been that sonic three hundred years ago others devoted their attention to this matter and made alternative suggestions, which on the whole I prefer. [Much laughter.]

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I really do not withdraw anything. I think it is a matter for a compromise in Court. [Renewed laughter.]

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 29:

Dwelling-house occupied by workmen employed in agriculture.

29. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, where under any contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture current at or made after the commencement of this Act, the provision of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house for the occupation of the workman forms part of the remuneration of the workman, and the provisions of sections fourteen and fifteen of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, are inapplicable by reason only of the house or part of the house not being let to the workman, there shall be implied as part of the contract of employment and as from the commencement of the occupation or of this Act, whichever date is the later, the like conditions as would be implied under those provisions if the house or part of the house were so let, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if incorporated in this section with the substitution of "employer" for "landlord" and such other modifications as may be necessary:

Provided that this section shall not affect the obligation of any person other than the employer to repair a cottage to which this section applies or any remedy for enforcing any such obligation.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out Clause 29. The noble Lord said: This is rather a technical question, but I hope I shall be able to make myself clear. One is in favour of these houses being kept in proper repair, but this clause appears to me to be outside the scope of Part II. of the Bill, as it deals with workmen employed on agriculture and has no bearing on the relation between landlord and tenant on an agricultural holding. This clause causes great confusion. It appears to me to be an amendment of the Town Planning Act. If your Lordships will look at Clause 33, page 32, lines 21 to 23, you will notice that it distinctly says:— Part II. of this Act shall be construed as are with the Act of 1908, and that Act and Part II of this Act may be cited together as the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1920. Therefore I do not think that the Town Planning Act comes in at all. I am afraid endless confusion will arise if this clause remains as it is in the Bill. Will the agricultural committees have control of these cottages and buildings under Clause 4, or will the Ministry of Health be the controlling body? I do not think we want dual control in this question, which might lead to dispute between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health. I hope that my noble friend (Lord Lee of Fareham) will make it quite clear whether these houses come under him or under the Minister of Health.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 29.—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is, as the noble Lord says, an important matter and also a little technical. The sole object and effect of the clause is to remove the existing distinction as regards the repairs of cottages between the case of a cottage let to a workman by a farmer and a cottage provided by a farmer for the use of a workman without payment of rent, but as part of the consideration for his employment. If the farmer lets a cottage, under the material sections of the Act of 1909, under an implied contract defined in that Act he has to keep the cottage in all respects fit for human habitation. The effect of the clause which the noble Lord wishes to strike out is that where a cottage is provided without payment of rent as part of the remuneration for employment, the employer will be subject to the same obligation; and the whole point, if I may put it in a short and intelligible sentence, of the Amendment is this, that if you let a cottage in return for services and not for rent the owner shall not be under any obligation to keep it in repair. That is rather a serious matter, and I cannot help thinking it would be a mistake to accept this Amendment. I am not at all sure that without this clause the same object could not be secured under the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Housing Act, 1919.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Clause 28.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. The local authority might take steps either to secure the closing of the cottage or the execution of the repairs, but those are circuitous remedies, and I base myself on the broader proposition that if it is right to put this obligation on the owner who lets his cottage for rent, it is equally right to put it on the owner who lets his cottage for services rendered. I am fortified in this view by the thought of the attention which the noble Earl has given to this subject. The Amendment of the law which is proposed in no way affects the question as to the person upon whom the expense will ultimately fall. It may be the farmer has undertaken to keep the cottage in repair, or by reason of an arrangement between the farmer and the landlord the obligation will fall upon the landlord. I am hopeful that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD DYNEVOR

I should like to have an answer to the last part of my question—namely, to whom will the appeal he—to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture—if the repairs are thought to be too great to be carried out?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My impression is that the appeal would lie to the Minister of Agriculture. But has my noble friend any words in the Clause in his mind which lead him to use the term "appeal."

LORD DYNEVOR

I am afraid I have no words. I was in hope that the Government would accept my, Amendment, have the Clause deleted, and then on report bring forward a new Clause.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was only pointing out that the main jurisdiction in all these matters is with the Minister of Agriculture. I do not see any appeal raised in this Clause. I have had an opportunity of re-reading it, and I am still in the dark as to what the noble Lord means when he talks of appeal. There is no appeal referred to in the Clause.

LORD DYNEVOR

Clause 15 of the Town Planning Act says that the landlord, and I believe the farmer, may appeal to the Local Government Board against any notice requiring him to execute works.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That appeal is to the Ministry of Health.

LORD DYNEVOR

Then there will be an appeal.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, in that respect.

Clause 30:

Interpretation.

30. In this Act, unless the context otherwise roquires—

1. (1) The expression "the Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries:
2. (2) The expression "Wales" shall be deemed to include "Monmouthshire":
3. (3) The expression "agricultural committee" means the agricultural committee established for a county or borough under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919:
4. (4) The expression "rules of good husbandry" means the rules of good husbandry generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied:
5. (5) The expression "the Act of 1908" means the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and the expression "the Act of 1917" means the Corn Production Act, 1917:
6. (6) References to the Act of 1908, or to the Act of 1917, or to any provision of either of those Acts, shall be construed as referring to that Act or to that provision as amended by any other Act, including this Act:
7. (7) References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of or of an agreement relating to a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The Amendment in my name is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 21, at end insert ("or when, the powers of an agricultural committee with respect to the matter in question have been delegated to a sub-committee that sub-committee").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "husbandry" ["rules of good husbandry"] to the end of the subsection, and insert— shall for the purposes of this Act (due regard being had to the character of the holding) include—

1. "(a) the maintenance of the land (whether arable, meadow, or pasture) clean and in a high state of cultivation, condition, and fertility;
2. "(b) the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;
3. "(c) the maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, stone walls, gates, and hedges;
4. "(d) the execution of repairs to building, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed; and in addition
5. "(e) Such rules of good husbandry as are generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied:

Provided that the foregoing definition shall not imply ail obligation on the part of any person to maintain or clear drains, embankments, or ditches, if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of subsidence of any land or the blocking of out-falls which are not under the control of that person, or in its application to land in the occupation of a tenant imply an obligation on the part of the tenant—

1. "(i) to maintain or properly repair farm roads, fences, stone walls, gates, or hedges where such work is not required to be done by hue under his contract of tenancy; or
2. "(ii) to execute repairs to buildings which are not required to be executed by him under his contract of tenancy."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the same as that in the name of Lord Bledisloe, with the exception of a few brackets at the beginning. Its purpose is to attempt to improve and strengthen the rules of good husbandry as they are at present known. The rules at present in subsection (4), are the rules of good husbandry generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied. Those rules are referred to in at least two places in this Bill, and if they are to be relied upon for the purpose of husbandry they will do nothing whatever to improve the standard of husbandry to which we have more than once during the debate referred. The rules of good husbandry have very largely lost their meaning since they were altered by Small Holdings Act of 1908. If we are merely to say that the standard required of one man shall be that of his neighbour we shall not advance very far. The words I have put down are very general. The important part of them is in paragraph (a).

The remaining paragraphs are taken verbatim from Clause 4 of the Act. The rules, I think, are fairly easily interpreted, and I believe that if your Lordships will be good enough to adopt them they will do more to grade up the system of husbandry than anything else which has been done in the Bill. They will make one general scheme of good farming for the whole of the Bill, and we have safeguarded them by the words in the brackets at the beginning—"due regard being had to the character of the holding." Therefore, there is no idea of it being necessary to apply a scheme of high farming when that might be quite uneconomical as applied to a particular class of holding. It is obvious that on a bare hillside or in bog land it would be absurdly uneconomic to apply the same system of husbandry as to more fertile land. For that reason it seems necessary to safeguard certain farmers, and I hope it will be done by those words.

These rules will refer, first of all, to Clause 4 and I believe they will enable the Minister to get out of the clause all the advantages he would have got out of it before it was amended with the exception only of his power to break up pasture land. I think it is possible, and it certainly is intended that under these words he will be able to improve existing methods of husbandry. Those words formed part of paragraph (b) which was deleted from the Bill, and I know that my noble friend attaches considerable importance to them. I have no objection to them, but I believe they are covered by the rules which are laid down in this Amendment, and it is certainly preferable they should all be brought in under the same terms.

The rules will refer also to Clause 8. I am sorry that my noble friend objects very much to them in that clause because he asserts that they will practically prevent any farmer receiving compensation. That is by no means the intention of the words and if the noble Lord can show that they will have that effect I will endeavour to alter them so that the principle of compensation is still preserved. Having accepted that principle we do not want to do anything to retract from it. I have taken what advice I can on them and I am assured there is nothing which need cause the noble Lord to anticipate the results he fears.

These words will to some extent affect Clause 14, because the continuous good farming which will be compensated for will be something on a higher scale than it would be under the existing methods of good husbandry. I do not see why the noble Lord should object to that because, after all, if we are to pay for continuous good fanning it should be for something of an exceptional nature. I believe it is of extreme importance that the rules should be the same for all parts of the Bill.

I think it was somewhat under pressure that the noble Lord accepted these words for Clause 4, but your Lordships will recollect that he moved them into the Bill. We did not accept them but he was willing that they should be there. He objects, however, to having them for Clause 8 and he said that they were "a standard of cultivation which is really in excess altogether of the ordinary high standard of farming in any particular district and practically would make a dead letter of the compensation clause altogether." I refer to that again because you may have this very peculiar position. Having applied the words to Clause 4, the Minister or his executive committee may find that some tenant is not acting up to them. They proceed against him, and a fine is imposed with a continuing penalty of £1 a day. While that unfortunate tenant is, perhaps, languishing in gaol for the non-payment of his fine, the landlord proceeds to serve notice to quit upon him and although he is fined by the Minister for farming so badly, yet the landlord has to pay him a heavy compensation for giving him notice to quit. Even though extreme words are used, if you have a difference of standard in the two quarters you may always have the same thing happening— in the one case the Minister is fining the tenant for farming badly, and in the other case the landlord has to pay a year's compensation if he gives him notice to quit. I believe that there is in this a germ which may eventually greatly improve our system of farming in this country.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 22, leave out from ("husbandry") to the end of subsection (1) and insert the said words.—(Lord Clinton.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Is it really necessary to include farm roads? Although it is necessary to have good farm roads dealt with in a Bill of this nature it might in this case be misconstrued. I think the words "good husbandry" are themselves sufficient to include reasonable roads. If a man has not got decent farm roads he cannot get his rent. I am suffering from it myself at the present moment. In the case of two farms I have got the road is extremely bad, and I have not had time to repair it. One day a cart broke its axle, and I have had to mend it at considerable expense, and the horse broke its leg, and, as I could not mend that, I had to replace the horse. I have also had to take one of the farms into my own hands. It is obvious that the best thing I can do is to repair that road as quickly as possible. That is a case in point. But cases may also arise near towns, or in places where there are very long roads. You might have people desiring to make motor roads—many farmers use light motors now-a-days, and you practically have to bring roads up to the standard of second-class county roads. There are other long roads with houses along them, and the committee might be tempted to make a considerable outlay upon them.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am inclined to second the appeal winch is made by the noble Duke. I think the words "maintenance and proper repair of farm roads" are very wide indeed. If some such words could be added as "sufficient for agricultural purposes," I should be quite satisfied. It would be a great temptation, where these roads are used for short cuts, to take advantage of this and insist upon their maintenance and proper repair.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I should like to support the appeal of the noble Duke. The term "farm roads" is very wide. You cannot define what it means. There are some farms with miles and miles of roads, and you are putting out of the control of the county committees what is a purely domestic matter. As to the point as to whether the condition of the farm roads hampers the farmer in the cultivation of his farm you can get at him through the provision which compels him to cultivate his farm properly.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I shall certainly not press for the inclusion of my Amendment beyond using words ensuring that there is a due maintenance of the farm roads for purely agricultural requirements. In my judgment this is the right way to secure a larger output of food. The average standard of farming in this country is absolutely and relatively below that of other countries. All that is intended by the Amendment is to level it up, not to a standard of extravagance but to a higher standard all over the country, and yet beyond the stage with which we were satisfied sixty years ago. There is a slight difference between the Amendment of my noble friend and my own Amendment. My idea was to give to the Minister a little more than is proposed by Lord Clinton, and my Amendment would carry the process of intervention on the part of the county committee somewhat further than his. This is with a view of trying to meet, the Minister's point on the subject of ploughing up. If you are only able to take the fullest advantage of the economic capabilities of the soil by ploughing it up it would be possible for the Minister to give an order to that effect. It is the economic results you have to look to. No amount of pressure can have the smallest effect if it is not, economically defensible, and, therefore, if it can be justified on economic grounds, second rate pasture land can be ploughed up under these words and arable crops grown. We have given the noble Lord the choice between two formulæ; and one carries him a step further than the other.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This is a point of first importance in connection with the Bill and I will endeavour to indicate the views the Government hold with regard to it. The first point I should like to make is that whatever may be the precise wording of paragraph (a)—whether Lord Clinton's or Lord Bledisloe's—I cannot see how paragraph (b), (c) and (d) can be put in as a matter of course under the head of good husbandry. Many of the duties described in these paragraphs are obligations on the landlord, except in special cases where they are put on the tenant. The maintenance and repair of fences, stone walls, repairs to buildings and other things are common obligations of the landlord, and the effect of the definition, if paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are passed as they stand, would be that the obligations would be shifted by a mere definition from the landlord to the tenant, who would be guilty of contravening the rules of good husbandry if—

LORD CLINTON

I am afraid I must, interrupt the noble Lord. Has he read the last few words of the proviso? The clause cannot imply any obligation on the part of the tenant already in occupation. They are the noble Lord's own words.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Does it cover all the words?

LORD CLINTON

It is intended to, do so.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If so, I must apologise and withdraw what I said. But it seemed to me that the obligation was being transferred by definition, and I am sure that that is not the intention. It the noble Lord disclaims it, of course the matter is in order.

LORD CLINTON

They are your own words in the Bill.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Then it was my mistake. In any case I submit that paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are for the first time appearing in the category of good husbandry. They are generally included in management, and I thought that was what my noble friends had in view when they wanted to change the word "cultivates" to "manages."

LORD BLEDISLOE

No. The sole object was to include the improvement of grass as well as arable land.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

That is a comparatively small point. I do not know whether Lord Bledisloe was empowered to speak for your Lordships as a body in regard to this Bill, but the noble Lord has offered me the alternatives of his paragraph (a) and Lord Clinton's. Of course, his goes very much further than Lord Clinton's, and it is, if I may say so, for comprehensive purposes admirably drafted and seems to cover almost everything that could reasonably be demanded in the interests of the policy that I have in view in order to make the utmost use of the soil based always on economic considerations. I agree with him that the word "economic" is of the utmost importance as putting a proper restraint on any kind of wild cat schemes which might injure the land.

If your Lordships think fit to include that definition in Clause 4 it would go a very long way, if not sufficiently far, to meet the real objection which I have felt and expressed to the deletion of part of Clause 4 (1) (b) which I was anxious to retain in the Bill. I felt that the rules of good husbandry alone which I sought to insert in the Bill did not go far enough to carry out the main policy which we have in view, and it would have been necessary for me to try and persuade your Lordships at a later stage to consent to the re-insertion of Clause 4 (b) down to the word "cultivation," and cut out the power to inaugurate any great scheme of ploughing. I must say that Lord Bledisloe's words in (a), if put in place of the truncated 4 (b) which I should wish to restore if possible, would really meet everything which the Government could reasonably demand. I am sure that an arrangement might be come to on that basis.

Lord Bledisloe's proposed definition of the words "good husbandry" sets up what I believe to be the ideal at which we ought to aim in connection with farming generally in this country. I ventured to say I thought it was a very comprehensive and well-drafted summary of what we ought to aim at, but it must necessarily be some time before there is any hope that the farming community generally could reach that high ideal which will be set before them. At the same time it is always desirable to set a high ideal in order that the agricultural committees may have something before them, and may point to the standard which it is desired to reach, and use all legitimate means under the powers which are conferred upon them to raise gradually the standard of farming in the country up to that level. That policy seems to me to be admirable, and it would not be fair, nor do I desire, to ask for anything more.

I agree that it would be possible to do what I personally am exceedingly anxious to do, and have repeatedly confessed an anxiety with regard to, and that is to improve the grass lands of this country and to enforce in a reasonable way all the latest discoveries with regard to the improvement of grass land, which I am convinced you would not be able to do under the more limited definition (a) of Lord Clinton. His definition, if I may say so, gives a normally high standard, but does not hold out the ideal which I think Lord Bledisloe's words do.

Having expressed the willingness of the Government to meet your Lordships on that point if it could be so arranged in place of any other alteration to Clause 4 (b), I must also point out that the standard of high farming, which is the ideal to which we ultimately wish to attain, could not be adopted at once as the standard which you are going to apply to all quitting tenants as a condition of their getting any compensation for disturbance. That really would have the effect, which I know your Lordships do not wish, of practically saying to a man, Unless you can pass a sort of senior wrangler examination in farming and prove that you have used your land to the utmost of its economic possibilities you cannot qualify for compensation for disturbance at all. The effect of it I think would be that if you tried to apply the same standard to Clause 4 and Clause 8, you would really make Clause 8 illusory so far as compensation for disturbance is concerned, and you would inevitably give the impression that a standard had been set up so high that while you had expressed your willingness to recognise the principle of compensation for disturbance you, in fact, gave the farmer only the shadow in place of the substance. It would almost amount, to what in law corresponds to denial of justice—a litigant has to go higher and higher in his appeal and becomes exhausted.

I recognise the desirability in theory of having one form of words which would cover all parts of the Bill, but I do not see how it is practicable, because I think that the form of words roust be so watertight as to be totally insufficient for the purposes of Clause 4. It would put it out of our power to deal with complicated questions of improving grass land, and several other important operations would lie altogether outside the scope of the words which have been moved yesterday and which I endeavoured to insert in Clause 4 (a), hoping that in addition we should have some modification of Clause 4 (b). I am advised that the words moved yesterday, and indeed, Lord Clinton's words to-night, would not cover in connection with grassland slagging, limeing, mole drainage, etc., and that therefore the Amendments would not go far enough.

LORD DYNEVOR

Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting, but under the Schedules of the Agricultural Holdings Act the tenant can claim compensation for these items as unexhausted improvements.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes, if he spontaneously applies these things to the land, but we are endeavouring to stimulate the use of these things, and, if necessary, desire to put pressure upon the tenant, if he is not sufficiently alive to their importance. To sum up in a sentence, it seems to me that the Government has two alternatives which we would like to suggest to your Lordships. Either in this connection you should adopt a standard of words applicable to all parts of the Bill you such for example as the words used by Lord Clinton, and at a later stage of the Bill you should enable us to get some substitute for the powers we are seeking in Clause 4 (b) without reference to ploughing up, or you should allow us to have the words of Lord Bledisloe, which I should prefer, as the standard of good husbandry in Clause 4, without any Clause 4 (b) at all. And that for the purposes of Clause 8 you should have a standard of good husbandry more in accordance with the standard suggested by Lord Clinton, which I think would cover all that your Lordships have in mind with a view of seeing that compensation only went to a tenant who has farmed his land well. Those are the alternatives. I should be glad to hear your Lordships' views upon them.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am in some doubt as to where we are going and as to what we are to vote upon. I have heard a considerable speech from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in answer to a long and complicated Amendment of Lord Clinton. Apparently the noble Lord is prepared to accept some parts of Lord Clinton's Amendment, and some parts of Lord Bledisloe's. What on earth are we to vote upon? We do not know what it is that we are to accept. I think the speech just made opens up a vista and there is a possible danger to those interested in land that obligations are going to be put upon them which hitherto have been unknown and which they cannot afford to undertake. There is the further difficulty that the noble Lord has said that because certain deletions were made in Clause 4 he wanted to make some additions apparently here. Clause 4 is in the first part of the Bill and to a large extent it stands or falls by the guarantee.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This is a definition clause.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope at this hour we shall not accept in this state of the House anything which seems to reverse a decision that we have already come to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

We are I think getting into a somewhat difficult position with regard to these proposed standards. What I understand the noble Lord in charge of the Bill desires is that there should be a standard of husbandry of a decent but moderate kind which will enable the tenant when he leaves the farm to obtain compensation of a year's rent. There is to be a somewhat higher standard which the agricultural Committees are to be allowed to impose. Under Clause 4 they are to compel people to act up to the standard of making the utmost use of the economic capabilities of the land in the terms of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is all subject to appeal.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

There is to be a third standard of a magical character under which the people are to obtain further compensation under Clause 14— something even more lofty than my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has ever dreamt of. I ask whether it will not be possible to take the terms of Lord Clinton's Amendment and apply them throughout. I find it very difficult to accept the statement, which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill made, that if no stronger words than those were put in, under clause 4 the committee could not recommend the enforcing of such very simple operations those of applying some basic slag to a pasture. I have no doubt the noble Lord is so advised but I cannot help wondering by whom. If a land is to be kept in a high state of cultivation, condition and fertility, it surely must mean that it receives the necessary dressings which may be required at certain times. The noble Lord also mentioned lime. It seems to be incredible that under those words the committee would find themselves, if they got into a Court of Law, unable to enforce an application of manure of that kind. I hope the House will agree to concentrate upon the terms used by Lord Clinton in his Amendment. I quite see the merit of terms suggested by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe in his Amendment. I can see that it might be said that for all purposes of obtaining ordinary compensation that is too picturesque a standard at which to aim. If so, it seems to me an unreasonably high standard which is to be forced on all farmers everywhere by local committees.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is all subject to appeal.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

If you are not to push the standard of cultivation too high it surely is not fair to push the standard of obligation too high upon everybody. I do not believe as a matter of fact that the country committees would so push it, but there is no object in inviting them to do so by placing words in the Bill which suggest what may be regarded as an impossible standard. I trust the course I suggest will be followed.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I would strongly advise the Committee to accept Lord Clinton's Amendment and leave the noble Lord, Lord Lee, perfectly free to move a strengthening of Clause 4 on Report.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I said that I had only two alternatives and that was one. I am not saying which I select.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Of course, we should be quite free when we heard the Amendment, and it would be quite open to us to take our own course. I do not want there to be any idea of a breach of faith.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes, quite So.

LORD CLINTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and I am glad he has found my words rather more innocuous than he thought. I am sure we will consider anything he puts forward. There was a suggestion made that I should leave out the words "farm roads." I said I was sorry to leave them out, and I think the noble Lord gave exceedingly good reasons for keeping them in. I do not desire, however, to insist upon them if it is thought they ought to go out.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Why not put in "for agricultural purposes"?

LORD CLINTON

"With due regard to the holding." But I think it is the general wish that they should go out.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Application to Scotland.

31. This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

1. (1) Unless the context otherwise requires—
1. (a) The expression "the Minister" (except in the section of this Act relating to the appointment, remuneration, and powers of Commissioners) means the Board of Agriculture for Scotland:
2. (b) The expression "agricultural committee" means the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Act of 1917:
3. (e) The expressions "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," and "the Act of 1908," mean the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and references to sections twenty-one and forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to sections twenty and twenty-nine respectively of the said Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act:
4. (d) "High Court" means "Court of Session," "receiver and manager" means "manager," "arbitrator" means "arbiter," and "costs" include "expenses":
2. (2) The provision requiring that proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted except by the Minister shall not apply.
3. (3) In the application of subsection (3) of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance "five years" shall be substituted for "two years."
4. (4) For references to becoming bankrupt or compounding with creditors there shall be substituted references to 545 becoming notour bankrupt or executing a trust deed for behead of creditors:
5. (5) The sections of this Act relating to extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years and to notices to quit shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
1. (a) Subsection (1) of section eighteen of the Act of 1908 shall, in the case of a lease granted for a term expiring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, have effect as though for the words "three years" there were substituted the words "two years";
2. (b) The provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, relating to removings shall, in the case of any holding to which section eighteen of the Act of 1908 applies, have effect subject to the provisions of that section as modified by paragraph (a) of this subsection:
6. (6) In the section of this Act relating to amendment of law as to improvements, for the words "a county borough," occurring in subsection (4) of that section, there shall be substituted the words "an area":
7. (7) Section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of small holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, for small holdings as defined by the small Holders and Allotments Act, 1907, and any reference in this Act to the said section twenty-three shall be construed as a reference to the said section as so applied:
8. (8) The section of this Act relating to amendment of section forty of 8 Edw. 7 e. 28 shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
1. (a) Section twenty-eight of the Act of 1908 shall have effect as if for the words "The powers by this Act conferred on a landlord (other than that of entering on a holding for the purpose of viewing the state of the holding)" there were substituted the words "The powers by this Act conferred on a landlord in respect of charging the land";
2. (b) This subsection shall apply in relation to the exercise of any power whether before or after the commencement of this Act:
9. (9) for subsection (1) of section eleven of the Act of 1908, there shell be substituted the following subsection:—
1. (1) All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, be determined, if the parties so agree, by a single arbiter agreed to by them in accordance with the provisions 546 set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, and, failing such agreement, shall, upon the application of either party, be determined by the Scottish Land Court, which, for this purpose, shall have the like powers and jurisdiction as they have for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919. References in this Act or in the lease to arbitration or to arbiters shall be construed accordingly:
10. (10) The section of this Act relating, to the constitution of a panel of arbitrators shall not, apply, and references in this Act and in the Act of 1917 to arbitration or arbitrators shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the immediately preceding paragraph of this section.

LORD STANMORE

The Amendment standing in my name on the Paper is merely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 29, after line 7, insert the following new paragraphs: (b) A reference to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, shall be substituted for the reference to the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919: and a reference to the Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894, shall be substituted for the reference to the Arbitration Act, 1880; (c) A reference to the sheriff shall be substituted for the reference to the county court; a reference to Act of Sederunt shall be substituted for the reference to Rules of the Supreme Court; and a reference to either Division of the Court of Session shall be substituted for the reference to the Court of Appeal.—(Lord Stanmore.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new paragraph— (c) The provisions of section two subsection (2) of the Act of 1917 relating to the ascertainment of the average prices of wheat and oats shall not apply, but the weekly averages for the purposes of that provision shall be taken to be the average price per quarter for that week of wheat or oats, as the case may be, as ascertained in representative markets in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

The noble Lord said: I feel bound to say, through I know I shall get little support, that, it is a grave scandal to commence the application of this important Bill to Scotland at a quarter to twelve at night. We have not had a single word of explanation from anyone representing any Department as to the effect of this Bill upon Scottish agriculture and the differences which exist between it and England. Of course if I were of an obstructive nature I should move that the House be resumed in order that we might have a fuller attendance and a longer time than is possible now to discuss some of the points raised on the application of the Bill to Scotland. I will confine myself, however, to saying that I think it is a grave injustice that we should have this limited time to discuss matters affecting Scotland and it is only because I am very anxious not to give trouble that I do not make that proposal and take it to a Division. A great deal of my future conduct in regard to this Bill will depend on whether the Government accept some of the suggestions which will be made for the application of the Bill to Scotland. if Clause 31 is to stand us it is I would infinitely sooner see the whole Bill destroyed than that we should be put under the Land Court and some of the conditions of this clause.

All through this Bill the calculations are made on English costs and English prices. The conditions are different in the two countries. I may be told that I am up against a question of privilege in this Amendment, because I am quite aware that, if my Amendment were carried, it would involve a somewhat larger guarantee to the Scottish farmer. I do not think that is a sufficient answer to the Scottish farmer, who will undoubtedly suffer under this clause. It is not-iced before the Bill becomes law that the calculations which are taken as a standard for Scottish agriculture are absolutely absurd, illogical, and unfair, and I do think that, as the mistake has been noticed before the Bill passes into law the least we who are interested in Scottish agriculture can ask is that the Amendment should be made. If you are going to give a guarantee to the Scottish farmer make it a real guarantee. What you ought to do is to take the cost of production without profit, and then take the prices actually received, and make the calculations between the two. That, as I understand it, is the principle applied to England; it is not in the case of Scotland, because it is perfectly notorious—it cannot be denied—that the prices, as the Bill stands, will be, in the case of oats, about 3s. each quarter to the detriment of the Scottish farmer.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 12, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD STANMORE

In the Amendment no provision is made for the use of the prices when they are ascertained, and, to meet the Scottish case, the figures must either be added to the English figures after being duly ascertained, weighted according to the Scottish acreage, and the average figure thus obtained used for both England and Scotland; or separate costs of production must be ascertained for Scotland, and the bounty paid in accordance with the Scottish prices and the Scottish costs of production. The latter method involves additional expense, and can scarcely be justified without admitting that the North and South of England should also have separate prices and separate costs, as these two areas possibly differ as much from each other as England and Scotland. The former method is feasible, provided that Ireland obtained separate prices, and that the three sets of figures, duly weighted, combined to give a flat figure for the United Kingdom. In order to effect that object it would be necessary to amend Clause 2 of the Bill. It is obviously impossible to provide for England and Ireland by an Amendment to the Scottish clause.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Lord does not deny the injustice that has been created by the joint action of the Minister of Agriculture for England and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. It is a grave dereliction of duty that we should be prejudiced in this way.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STANMORE

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 28, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsection (4)").—(Lord Stanmore.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the paper at the end of subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection:— ("(4) In the application of subsection (5) of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance 'rent' means rent after deduction of the county, parish and other local rates payable by the owner.")

The noble Duke said: This is unnecessary as Clause 11 has been struck out. I hope the noble Lord, however, will give an undertaking to consider the point should circumstances necessitate it.

LORD STANMORE

Certainly.

LORD STANMORE moved, at the end of subsection (3) (4), to insert the following new subsection— (5) In the application of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance in case of allotment gardens the expression "allotment garden' means an allotment under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, and a reference to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or to the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall be construed as a reference to the said Act of 1892 as so amended or applied.

The noble Lord said: This puts back into the Bill the subsection on Clause 9 which I moved to omit on that clause.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 30, to insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stanmore.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, at the end of subsection 4, to insert the following new paragraph— () In the application of proviso (1) (d) of section ten of this Act to Scotland any dispute as to whether the workman has, or has not, been guilty of misconduct shall be determined by the sheriff.

The noble Duke said: My reason for moving this Amendment is that this is a matter affection a man's character. It has referred to a judicial and impartial tribunal such as the Sheriff.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 34, insert the said proviso.—(The Deke of Atholl.)

LORD STANMORE

As the matter stands it is a question for an arbitrator and would be determined by a single arbitrator agreed on by both parties, or failing agreement on by Land Court. The Sheriff is not elsewhere mentioned and there seems no reason why he should be in this instance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection— (5) compensation for disturbance under sub-section (5) of Section (8) of this Act shall not be payable in respect of any permanent grass park held for the purposes of a business or calling not primarily agricultural or pastoral including that of butcher, cattle dealer and the like.

The noble Duke said: These words appear in the Scottish Small Holders Act 1911. They may not be necessary in this Bill, but some people think they are, and if they are they should be put in. Probably it should appear in Clause 8, on page 15, line 34.

Amendment moved— Clause 31, page 29, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Duke is right in supposing that the matter has not been lost sight of. But this would not be the right place for it. We should have to refer to an earlier stage. It will be borne in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STANMORE moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert the following new subsection: (5) The section of this Act relating to notices to quit shall not apply.

The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the omission of Clause 11.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stanmore.)

Loup STANMORE

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 15, after ("Scotland ") insert ("as if that section had been enacted in Part II of this Act).—(Lord Stanmore.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert the following new subsection: (9) In subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act for the words ("the Lord Chief Justice of England") there shall be substituted the words ("the Lord President of the Court of Session"),and in subsection (2) of the same section for the words ("registrar of the county court") there shall be substituted the words ("auditor of the sheriff court").

The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to secure arbitration in Scotland on the same lines as in England. If it is refused for Scotland there must be some justification for not giving us equal treatment. While I desire to press the matter I do not wish to indulge in jeremiads about the Land Courts. The original Land Court had nothing to do with large farms or anything of that sort. The body concerned was a small body of politicians with advanced views but not very progressive as regards farming. The result is that the present Land Court is very much over-rated and the majority of people who hold land in Scotland do not look upon it as a Court in which they can obtain Justice. I will say nothing against the present individuals. The Chairman is a most excellent man and a Judge. But so far as the Land Court itself is concerned it consists of three farmers. That they happen to be of one political persuasion is a matter I believe of incidence of birth. Landlords naturally are therefore suspicious that the present Court must look upon the matter from, I will not say a biassed, but from a prejudiced point of view, and possibly not tending to be perfectly fair. They think they can get fairer treatment at Quarter Sessions from a Judge who is perfectly impartial.

Some of the members of the Farmers' Union may be in favour of the Land Court, and the reason is pretty obvious, for the average farmer in Scotland, rightly or wrongly, hates the landlord because he represents good agriculture. I will not say whether it is right or wrong, but there is prejudice. I will put it in this way to the noble Lord. If he had been charged with the crime of murder but was not guilty, would he rather be tried for that crime before the relations of the unfortunate man who had been murdered, if there had been a great deal about his case in the newspapers and so on, or would he rather he tried, we will say, by my noble friend the Lord Chancellor? I think he would prefer to be tried by the Lord Chancellor. All we want is to have a fair trial.

LORD STANMORE

The noble Lord has said that Scotland has not been fairly treated compared to England with regard to this matter, but in England there is nothing corresponding to this ready-made panel of experts. I think the employment of this tribunal should be supported on three grounds, the first being uniformity. Uniformity is of great importance: it favours agreement and lessens the number of disputes. This, no doubt, is a main reason for instituting a panel of arbitrators, but the result can be much better secured by reference to a Court which, even when not composed of the same members, follows an established practice.

The second ground is economy. Economy is, of course, desirable in the interests of all concerned. The Land Court has been relieved by recent legislation—the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919—of important duties now transferred to the Scottish Board of Agriculture: its Chairman is of opinion that the work devolving on the Court under this Bill as it stands can be accomplished without delay and without increase of personnel or staff. There will be no remuneration of arbiters, and other expenses ought to be moderate. The Court can, of course, sit locally.

Efficiency is the third ground. By their experience during the last ten years the members of the Court are expert in local conditions throughout Scotland. That hitherto they have dealt with holdings of moderate size does not affect applications of principles or of local knowledge of rentals and values. It may be noted that in the other House no attack was made on the impartiality and efficiency of this Court, which as at present constituted is thought to enjoy general confidence. I hope, on these grounds, that the Committee will not agree to this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I ask whether the noble Lord considers that three very much over-worked individuals, who are complaining that they cannot get through their work, can go on end take on the whole of the land of Scotland and deal with it. By Whitsuntide they will be flooded out with these claims, and it means that they will have to give the work to arbitrators. In that case it is just as well to have official arbitrators.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have never in my public life spoken with a greater sense of responsibility, and I earnestly trust the House will accept the Amendment. To put this duty on to the Land Court will be to destroy confidence all over Scotland in the fairness with which the duties are discharged. I have never been so certain of anything as I am that it would be a grave and serious mistake to give the Land Court these duties. I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, and will do the best I can to see it is carried out, but if this Clause stands as it is I shall vote against the Bill on the Third Reading and on every other possible occasion.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Application to Ireland.

32. This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

1. (1) References to the Minister (except where they occur in relation to the appointment of Commissioners), shall be construed as references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland (in this section reform to as "the Department"):
2. (2) Part II, of this Act and the provisions amending section nine of the Act of 1917 (other than the provisions of the now subsection to be inserted therein as to the rules of good husbandry) shall not apply:
3. (3) The Third Schedule to the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

1. (a) An order of the department under the said schedule prescribing the minimum tillage portion of holdings may, in addition, prescribe the date or dates before which the sowing of that portion or any specified operation preliminary thereto is to be completed, and if in any year in which such order is in force the occupier of any holding to which the order applies does not complete the sowing of the minimum tillage portion or any other operation preliminary thereto which is specified in the order before the date prescribed in that behalf by the order he shall be deemed to have failed to cultivate the minimum tillage portion of the holding in that year, and the provisions of the said Schedule shall apply accordingly, with this modification, that any amount payable by way of penalty in respect of such failure shall be payable by the person who is occupier at the date aforesaid, notwithstanding any subsequent change of occupiers:
2. (b) The proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8 of the said Schedule is hereby repealed.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

There are two Amendments on the Paper with exactly the same object—namely, to secure that this Bill shall not apply to Ireland. The second part of the Bill already more or less applies to Ireland as it is, and has done for many years. We have enjoyed for a long time most of the privileges which the Bill designs to confer upon landowners and their tenants. We have had every opportunity which the Bill provides of impoverishing ourselves and enriching the members of the legal profession by unprofitable litigation, and the system which the Bill threatens to set up in England has been in operation in Ireland for a great many years, and I think my noble friends from Ireland will agree that it has been tried and found wanting. I have endeavoured to final out exactly what effect upon Ireland the rest of the Bill is going to, have, and as far as I can ascertain its principal effect will be to perpetuate the Corn Production Act of 1917, and to deprive farmers in Ireland of the small relief which under that Act they receive of being allowed to count in the aggregate of their acreage under tillage the land which they have under first and second crop hay. We always looked, rightly or wrongly, upon the Act of 1917 as a war measure designed to meet a great national emergency, and Irish farmers, regarding it in that light, have done their best to carry out its provisions, very often at, considerable detriment to their land and at great loss to themselves. Your Lordships, are well aware that Ireland is not a corn, producing country but a stock raising, country, and you will also remember that a great deal of the store cattle and of the young horses which come to this country are produced in Ireland. If by the imposition of this Bill more of the grazing lands of Ireland are to be destroyed and turned into indifferent corn producing, lands, the industry of raising cattle and producing young horses is bound to suffer very much.

Ireland can grow corn, but the difficulty of harvesting it in such a climate is extreme. I have no heavy land myself, but I believe in very heavy land, owing to the dampness of the country, the corn grows to such an inordinate length that it will lodge in it dry year, and it we get a wet harvest time the farmer is faced with something like disaster. A further calamity that will result from the breaking up of-grass lands in Ireland is that we shall be shorter even than we are at present of milk, and that shortage has already occasioned considerable anxiety. Why do the Government want to apply the Bill to Ireland? Your Lordships have just passed through all its stages a Bill giving to Ireland no less than four Houses of Parliament, and a Council, and I should have thought that so domestic a question as the regulation of the conduct of agriculture in Ireland might have been left to one of those Assemblies to decide. It may be that the Government are so doubtful as to whether their Home Rule proposals will ever be operative that they think it better to go on legislating for Ireland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 21, after ("shall") insert ("not").—(The Earl of Wicklow.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

I should have thought that after the long days and weary nights, that we have spent in passing a Bill for the better government of Ireland that this was not the moment to introduce into an English Bill provisions that could apply to Ireland. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill said that the Farmers' Union in England agreed with the Agricultural Bill and that a large majority of their branches had passed resolutions in favour of it. The Irish Farmers' Union have very strongly urged that this Bill should not apply to Ireland. Why? Because Ireland is not a country that it is easy to grow corn in. It is easy to raise cattle and sheep there, but the corn lodges; we have very wet weather and cannot grow corn properly in that country. We do not want to plough up more of our demesnes or our grass-lands. From what has happened before in this way the Department of Agriculture there has now only insisted upon 15 per cent. of the land being cultivated.

But there is another matter that I should like to draw attention to. Clause 32 (3) (b) provides that the proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8 of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1917 shall be repealed. That is, so to speak, hidden away in the clause, but it really means that the first crop and second crop hay is not allowed to be counted as tillage. I consider that to be a very unjust provision to put into the Bill and the Irish Farmers Union—which I referred to before as a strong body—have objected very strongly to it. Why on earth should not the first and second crop hay be allowed as tillage? It will alter the whole sequence of tillage and crops if it is not allowed. What can be the object of applying this Bill to Ireland? There are, as the noble Lord has said, four Parliaments coming into existence, and surely we can look after our domestic affairs without being interfered with by an English Bill of this sort.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would very gladly listen to the voice of any other noble Lord from Ireland who might add something to what has been said by the noble Earl. We were certainly of opinion that just as it was considered that advantages were given by this Bill to the farmers of Scotland, England and Wales, so it contained the prospect of much material advantage to the people of Ireland. But I am certainly bound to take note of the circumstances to which the noble Earl who spoke last has adverted, that we have certainly spent some days and some nights in discussing Irish matters. I gather that noble Lords who represent Ireland—I see the noble Earl, Lord Midleton here—are of opinion that this Bill will not give any advantages to that country which in their judgment will be the equipoise of the objections they have to it.

The noble Lord has summoned to the assistance of his argument the views of the Irish farmers. If it be true that the Irish landlords do not want this Bill, that the Irish farmers do not want it, and that noble Lords who represent Ireland in this House do not want it, I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that we ought to take our pearls elsewhere. This conclusion, from which I should certainly not dissent, nor will the Government dissent, involves of course a view of the merits of this Bill to which I must not be taken as being assentient. We think this is a very valuable Bill which brings great advantages to the agricultural community. If we find that the whole of the agricultural community in any part of these Islands takes a different view, and that noble Lords take a different view certainly at tile moment when we are giving them the control of their own affairs, I do not think that I could possibly justify resistance to this Amendment. My only hope is, in stating this conclusion, that when the bridegroom of prosperity, which we believe this Bill will prove to be, arrives noble Lords from Ireland will not have cause to reproach themselves as imprudent virgins.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

There is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 21, leave out from ("Ireland") to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Wicklow.)

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CLONCURRY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause— 32.—(1) Subsection (1) of section nine of the Corn Production Act, 1917, shall, as respects its application to Ireland, be amended by the addition of the words provided that it shall not be deemed to be cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry, or necessary for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the production of food, to break up grass lands of a quality suitable for the fattening of cattle. (2) Save as in this section provided this Act shall not apply to Ireland.

The noble Lord said: On the second reading stage of the Bill the noble Lord in charge told us that of the 46 million acres under his control there were about 20 million acres of such a quality that nobody but a lunatic would plough them up. If those acres had been in Ireland not less than four millions of them would have been compulsorily ploughed up by his Department. Not only that, but in the coming year there would be a further 15 per cent., or another three million acres on his calculation. I had intended to bring before the House some very flagrant instances of abuse of power by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, but I am very glad to say that I shall not have to do that now. Some officer of the Department has been within the precincts of your Lordships' House and heard the Minister in charge of the Bill say that first-class pasture lands are not intended to be broken up, and I have reason to believe that they will not object to my offering to your Lordships a small Amendment referring to that section of the Act of 1917, under which all this breaking up of pasture land has taken place. I would ask permission therefore to substitute for the Amendment on the Paper the following Amendment. 32. The Third Schedule of the Act of 1917, so far as it authorises the ploughing up of first-class pasture, shall cease to operate.

Amendment moved accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has put his Amendment in a form which is not really objectionable, and I do not think it is necessary to oppose his Amendment in that shape.

Clause 33:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There are a number of consequential Amendments to this Clause.

Amendments moved—

Page 32, line 20, leave out ("to") and insert ("and"),

Page 32, line 22, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1913").

Page 32, line 23, leave out ("and") and insert ("to"), and at end insert ("and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, and Part II of this Act as that Part applies to Scotland may be cited together as the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 to 1920").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 3, leave out ("before") and insert ("whether before or after").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had an Amendment on the Paper to make (16b) read as follows:— In the case of arable land the removal of bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders, or other like obstructions to cultivation. The noble Duke said: I want to be certain that it is on arable land.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 30, after ("l6b") insert ("In the case of arable land the").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I Will accept the Amendment.

LORD STANMORE

My. Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved:—

Page 34, line 42, leave out ("twenty-three").

Page 34, line 43, leave out from ("apply") to ("and") in line 46.—(Lord Stanmore.)

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule:

LORD STANMORE

My Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 32, in column 3, after ("holding") insert ("in the").—(Lord Stanmore.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 44, third column, after ("two") insert ("and (save as respects Ireland)").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule:

LORD FORESTER

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 44, after ("nine") insert ("section ten, section eleven").—(Lord Forester.)

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.