AGRICULTUBE BILL.

HL Deb 20 December 1920 vol 39 cc605-98

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments, read.

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

My Lords, I desire to point out to the House what I think is a mistake in the reprinting of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that late on Friday you accepted an Amendment to Clause 32 excluding Ireland from the operation of the Bill. Clause 32, however, has ceased entirely to exist and does not appear in the Bill at all. I am sure the noble Lord on the Woolsack will tell us what steps we should take to secure the reinsertion of the words I proposed.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, it is obviously only a mistake in printing. The proceedings in your Lordships' House are quite clear, and I have my notes made at the time. An Amendment was carried to amend Clause 32 so that it should read, "This Act shall not apply to Ireland," but there was a further clause added afterwards.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The oversight shall be made good. It can be done as a matter of printing.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, before the question that the Report be received is put, I want to ask a question of which I gave private notice, because I am wholly unable, after some of the Amendments made the other day, to understand the application of the Bill to Scotland. Assuming, what is not at all uncommon in Scotland, that an improving lease had been arranged—in other words, that the landlord allows the tenant to have his farm at a reduced rent in consideration of the tenant making certain improvements—will the effect of the compensation clause in this Bill annul the bargain already made, and give the tenant a right to get the compensation for which he has already had allowance?

LORD STANMORE

My Lords, a tenant will be entitled to compensation for any improvements included in the First Schedule of the 1908 Act, whether the improvement was or was not one which he was required to make by the terms of his tenancy—see the First Schedule of the Bill, lines 6 to 9—but in the ascertainment of the amount of compensation there must be taken into account any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the tenant executing the improvements. That is the 1908 Act, Section 1, subsection (2), paragraph (a). If, therefore, the landlord could show that in consideration of the tenant making certain improvements the rent was lower than it otherwise would have been, that would, it appears, require to be taken into account as a benefit given or allowed by the landlord in assessing any compensation for such improvement.

Clause 3:

Appointment, remuneration, and powers of Commissioners.

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be three Commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland jointly, one by the Treasury and one by the Board of Trade.

(2) There shall be paid to the Commissioners such remuneration as the Treasury may determine, and any such remuneration and the expenses of the Commissioners, up to an amount sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(3) The Commissioners may, subject to any directions given by the Treasury, pay to any person required by them to furnish particulars with respect to the subject-matter of their inquiry or to attend before them such reasonable expenses as such person shall incur in respect thereof.

(4) The Commissioners shall not, except with the consent of the person concerned, include in any report or publication made or authorised by them any information obtained by them in the course of an inquiry made by them under this section as to the business carried on by any person which is not available otherwise than through evidence given to them during the inquiry, except with such consent as aforesaid, disclose any such information.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (1) to delete "the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland," and insert "and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland." The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the decision of the House to make the Bill inapplicable to Ireland.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 9, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 10, and insert ("and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, leave out. ("required") and insert ("requested").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 4:

Power to enforce proper cultivation.

4.—(1) The Minister, if in any case he is of opinion after consultation with the agricultural committee (if any) for the area in which the land is situate—

1. (a) that any land not being a park, garden, or pleasure ground or land adjoining the mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity, and not being woodland or land cultivated for osiers, is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or
2. (b) that the occupier of such land as afore said has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
3. (c) that the owner of such land as aforesaid in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies;

may serve notice, in the case of neglect to execute the necessary works of maintenance, on the tenant or owner, as the case may be, requiring him to execute the necessary works specified in the notice within such time as may be so specified, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry:

Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether the works required to be executed are necessary works of maintenance, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such works is reasonable, to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Part IV, of the Act of 1917, and where any question is so referred to arbitration, no action shall be taken for en-foreing the directions given by the Minister until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terns of the award, and, where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration.

(2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord.

(3) No action shall be taken by the Minister or by the agricultural committee (if any) under this section unless a full report in writing signed on behalf of the Minister or of the committee, setting out in detail the matters complained of and the improvements or works required, has been served upon the owner and occupier.

(4)—Where a notice has been served under this section on the owner or occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some works and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable, on summary conviction in respect of each offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:

Provided that—

1. (a) proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
2. (b) the Minister shall be entitled to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the reason able cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

(5) Where a notice his been served on the owner of any land in the occupation of a tenant requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute necessary works of maintenance and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the works in a proper and workmanlike manner, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the works accordingly, and at any time after the works have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in se doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded under the Act of 1908.

(6) A notice under this section shall not require any work to be executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice, unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work should be executed within some shorter period specified in the notice.

(7) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, grossly mismanages the estate or land to such au extent as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon and the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate or land, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such public inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

1. (a) an order made under this subsection shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this subsection, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made, the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
2. (b) an order made under this subsection shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, or the garden or grounds attached thereto, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
3. (c) an order made under this subsection shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate or land which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate or land; and
4. (d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any estate or land under this section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister; and
5. (e) the powers conferred by this subsection shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this section.

The Minister may by an order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration, and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver and manager to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof or to cut or sell timber or underwood thereon except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court.

The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an order has been made under this subsection may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such application the Minister refuses to revoke the order, the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, in accordance with rules of court.

(8) If within one month after the Minister has in pursuance of this section appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land shall be made within three months after the date of requisition by a person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and in default of agreement the cost of making such record shall be borne by the Minister and the owner in equal portions.

(9) Any notice given by the Minister for the purposes of this section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition, shall be sufficient defence to any action or other proceeding in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.

(10) For the purposes of this section the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say):—

1. (a) The maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;
2. (b) The maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, stone walls, gates, and hedges;
3. (c) The execution of repairs to buildings:

Provided that a notice under subsection (1) of this section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person.

(11) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this subsection applies growing upon any land, he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where the occupier unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice the provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall have effect.

The expression "occupier" in this subsection means, in the case of any public road, the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and, in the case of unoccupied land, the person entitled to the occupation thereof.

Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this subsection is to apply.

(12) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for section nine of the Act of 1917.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I propose an Amendment in subsection (1) to prevent any question being raised as to the applicability of the clause to grass land. It is really drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 34, after ("any") insert ("arable or grass").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in subsection (1) (a) after "mansion house," to insert "or garden." The noble Lord said: I hope that this Amendment, which is really drafting, will be accepted by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, after ("house") insert ("or garden").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I ought to have moved a manuscript Amendment in paragraph (a) to leave out from "adjoining" in line 35 to "woodland" in line 37, and insert "a mansion house and required for its protection or amenity Or." It is really only drafting.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

The other Amendment is in line 35.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to move it in this form—"mansion house or garden."

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER

That will save Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment, I think.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The Amendment which I propose would be, in Clause 4, page 3, line 35, to leave out from "adjoining" to "woodland" in line 37, and insert "the mansion house or garden and required for their protection or amenity or."

LORD MONK BRETTON

In those circumstances I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("adjoining") to ("woodland") in line 37, and insert ("the mansion house or garden and required for their protection or amenity or").—(Lord Lee of Farehum.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "cultivated" and insert "managed." The noble Lord said: I desire to move the substitution of the word "managed" for the word "cultivated," for the same reason as the Minister of Agriculture moved his Amendment. just now—namely, to make it clear that it applies to the maintenance of grass land in a high state of treatment, and not necessarily to its being ploughed up.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 38, leave out ("cultivated") and insert ("managed").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was under the impression that my noble friend moved his words solely for the purpose of removing doubt as to the applicability of the clause to grass land. That doubt has been removed by the insertion of my Amendment, and I think, therefore, that his Amendment is unnecessary. It would involve an enormous number of consequential Amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1) (a), after "husbandry," to insert "as hereinafter defined and full advantage being taken of its economic capabilities, with due regard to its character and situation."

The noble Lord said: I should like formally to move this Amendment, in order, if I may, to explain the difficulty which I feel as to the alternative suggested by the Minister of Agriculture. I believe that there may be some difficulty in accepting my Amendment, although I believe that I am right in saying that it probably carries him at least as far as he desires to go in this matter. But what I, and I think a good many other noble Lords, fear—and it is undoubtedly feared by a good many of the county agricultural committees—is that the words suggested by the Minister of Agriculture might authorise the entire alteration of the character of a farm; that in the effort to increase food production by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation orders might be issued which might in fact substantially alter the character of a holding—that is to say, a holding let as a dairy farm to a man who was properly equipped to carry it on as a dairy farm, might be turned into a farm of a different character for which the man had no qualification. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that it would ease my position and that of a good many of my colleagues in this House if he were to accept words that would prevent the alteration of the general character of the holding. I do not think he would be giving away anything if he did, and then I should be prepared to accept his Amendment as an alternative.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD CLINTON

This Amendment, and the one following on the Paper, arise out of what happened on the Committee stage, when we moved out a certain paragraph (b), mainly for the purpose of getting rid of the power to plough up. While doing so we also ruled out that part of the subsection which enabled the Minister to take steps for improving the cultivation of the land. I supported the Amendment because I considered that that power was fully covered by the amended rules of good husbandry which were eventually introduced into the definition clause. That view was not supported by the Minister, nor by Lord Bledisloe, who wish to make it quite clear that in this House we do not desire to do anything to prevent the Minister or the agricultural committee from taking what steps may be really necessary to raise the standard of husbandry and get agricultural improvement. For that reason I am in a sense willing to accept either Amendment on the Paper, but I see certain advantages in favour of our accepting that in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and if Lord Bledisloe is willing to withdraw his Amendment I should certainly be in accordance with him in doing so.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am very much obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken for the attitude they have displayed with regard to this very important point in the Bill, and I agree that it is very difficult to make up one's mind at the first as to which of these two proposals is the better. On the whole—perhaps it is only pride of authorship—I am inclined to prefer my own on the Paper, and the only question is whether the Amendment to it, which I understand my noble friend opposite desires to move, would seriously affect it. At first sight I should say it would not, and my inclination would be to accept that alteration; but I hope that in saying this he will understand that I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter a little further, and if I find it necessary to move a further Amendment on the Third Reading he will appreciate that it would not be a breach of understanding. As far as I can see, the words would be acceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, with the addition, as suggested by my noble friend opposite, of the words "or altering the general character of the holding" after the word "land" in the third line.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, at end insert the following new paragraph: ("(b) that the production of food on any such land as aforesaid can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land or altering the general character of the holding, be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation; or").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think we must all be exceedingly sensible of the very courteous way in which the noble Lord has all through these debates, and in this particular, met your Lordships, but I should like to ask him a question. I am sure he will understand the spirit in which I put this question. He has moved this Amendment, and I understand that he probably will, though he does not commit himself, finally approve of that which has been inserted in it. That will be the decision of your Lordships, no doubt, but my noble friend must allow me to ask him whether we may take it also to be the decision of the Government, because it makes a great deal of difference whether we may take it as the decision of the Government that this Amendment is inserted in the Bill. Personally, I prefer the Bill—in that respect I differ from my noble friends—as it stands without this Amendment, but I understand that it is the Government who themselves move the Amendment and that will make a great difference. Can we have the assurance of the Government on their responsibility—of course, they cannot command the House of Commons—that they will do what they can to carry this through in another place? If that be so it is sufficient for us.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This represents an Amendment for which I have made myself responsible. I do not say that I would not have liked more, but things being what they are, and your Lordships being in a position of power in this matter, I have accepted this Amendment and will do the best I can. I have no control, either, over another place, but I have every reason to believe that so far as the Government is concerned this Amendment is accepted.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I hope it will prove to be the case that the Bill will ultimately be passed in this form. I think the noble Lord opposite will see that words like these go about as far as it is really useful to go in the matter of giving advice for the improved cultivation of the land. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to go very far beyond giving advice to the county committees. Their standards will probably be different. In some cases they may have a higher ideal of what is practical than in others, and it is right to suggest a high general standard in the Bill. Of course, it will be subject to the acts and ideas of those who individually have to carry the Act into effect. It obviously will be impossible for the noble Lord's Department to put more than a limited degree of pressure upon the county committees, and all you can do is to hold up a high general standard in the hope that in years to come it will approach attainment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "in accordance with the rules of good husbandry," to insert "or for securing the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown, and the Minister may, in the same or any subsequent notice so served, provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Minister thinks just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment replaces a provision to the same effect but of wider application so as to cover arable cultivation. The provisions of the Bill as brought to the House are modified. To that extent this is consequential on the deletion of the powers to serve Ploughing Orders.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 19, after ("husbandry") insert the said words.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in the proviso of subsection (1), after "husbandry," to insert "or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or whether such improvement will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is entirely consequential on the insertion of paragraph 4 (b) which we have just put in.

EARL GREY

Ought not the words "or alter the general character of the holding" to be added?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes. The words were put in at Lord Bledisloe's request.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I think that it would be only consequential to add the words "or alter the general character of the holding." I move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after ("husbandry") insert ("or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or whether such improvement will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land or alter the general character of the holding").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the proviso of subsection (1), to leave out "in accordance with Part IV," and insert "as hereby provided." The noble Lord said: This is in order to adumbrate an Amendment which I propose to move to a later clause so as to insert in the Bill itself what is now only included by reference to a former Act. It was Clause 6 when the Bill was in Committee. It incorporates, by reference, certain sections of the Corn Production Act which it is now proposed shall be actually embodied in the Bill itself. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lee of Fareham) will remember that the sections to which I refer are sections of the Corn Production Act relating to damage by rabbits and to the extermination of vermin, and also to the machinery of arbitration. I am moving an Amendment presently in order to embody those sections in this Bill, and this Amendment is merely with a view to adumbrate what I shall move presently.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 27, leave out ("in accordance with Part IV."), and insert ("as hereby provided").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I promised in the Committee stage to consider this proposal of my noble friend, and I have done so. To incorporate in this Bill all the existing provisions of the Corn Production Act, 1917, relating to control of cultivation would involve considerably more than the mere re-enactment of sections 10 and 11 suggested by Lord Bledisloe. I do not say that it would be an impossible thing to do, but it would involve a considerable amount of scissors and paste and the transference of sections from another Bill, and I hope that under the circumstances my noble friend will not press it. In these days of economy it means an enormous amount of additional printing.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like to add a few words. What we are now dealing with is the whole of the Amendment, which is referred to on page 6 of the Marshalled List.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I remind the House that Part IV to which reference is made includes only Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Corn Production Act. Section 9 is already embodied in Clause 4, and there only remains the section relating to damage by rabbits and vermin and what I think it is most important to embody in your Bill, the description of the machinery of arbitration. You will have to refer to another Act and, indeed, when you have referred to that Act you will find a further reference to Yet another Act as regards arbitration. Whereas you can set the whole thing out quite simply as I have ventured to do on page 6 of the Paper. For the sake of those who have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament I hope the noble Lord will consider the advisability of having the whole thing self-contained. I do not want to press it if he has any strong and convincing reason against it, but as one of the county administrators who will have to deal with these matters I am bound to say it will be of great assistance to those who might otherwise have to refer to other Acts of Parliament.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I share my noble friend's objection to legislation by reference, and I think I indicated that very clearly by the complete redrafting that was made of Clause 4 of the Bill before it came from another place. I am informed by those who have more legal knowledge than myself that in order to carry out what my noble friend has in view a great many other alterations would be necessary. I am not, perhaps, in a position to explain to your Lordships exactly what they are, but I am told it would be exceedingly inconvenient to make them. In any case the noble Lord's proposal later on to delete Clause 9 would not be accepted as it covers more ground than the point of the consolidation in this Bill of the whole of those provisions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, in the proviso of subsection (1), after "arbitration" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "the arbitrator shall have regard in making his award to the cost of the execution of the works and." The noble Earl said: I hope the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture will accept this Amendment, It is simply that the arbitrator shall take into account in making his award the cost of the execution of the works. In the Committee stage noble Lords on several occasions referred to the great difficulty of bearing the increased cost of making necessary works, and these words bring it clearly before the arbitrator that he should consider that very much increased cost in making his award.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, after ("arbitration") insert ("the arbitrator shall have regard in making his award to the cost of the execution of the works and").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

On page 4 of the Marshalled List I have an Amendment in these terms: "Page 8, line 7, after 'executed' insert 'and capable of being executed without prohibitive or unreasonable expense.'" If that is carried, as I have no doubt your Lordships will wish it should be, the question of cost will be a matter for the consideration of the arbitrator. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl's Amendment is unnecessary.

EARL STANHOPE

I saw the noble Lord's Amendment on the Paper. The only question is whether it is not advisable to bring it clearly before the arbitrator.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am informed that the Amendment is unnecessary from the legal point of view.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have two manuscript Amendments which I wish to move. They are purely drafting.

Amendments moved— Clause 4, page 4, line 38, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1) of") Clause 4, page 4, line 41, after ("as") insert ("be").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in the first line of subsection (7), to leave out "it is represented to." The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Bledisloe has asked me to move this Amendment, as it stood in my name in the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not know that it is a very important matter, although I have heard strong expressions of opinion in favour of both alternatives. The object is to decide with whom shall rest the initiation of the proceedings for the appointment of a receiver and manager. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill will no doubt recollect that at the beginning of Clause 4 the proceedings in the case of bad cultivation and in the case of appointing a receiver and manager are not on all fours. A feeling was expressed by certain members of this House, as well as by those outside, that it would be desirable if in this case the proceedings commenced with the Minister rather than with an agricultural committee, but that is safeguarded by adding the words "after consultation with the agricultural committee." There are some in your Lordships' House, and no doubt elsewhere, who trust the Minister more and others who trust the agricultural committee more, and a good many who trust neither, but it seems to me if the Minister took proceedings upon the advice of and after consultation with the agricultural committee he would probably get away from a great deal of local bad feeling, and it would probably have to be a very good case indeed before the Minister took it up. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the whole of an agricultural committee will be prejudiced against any individual and you have a safeguard there. As this Amendment was not discussed when the Bill was in Committee, it has been pointed out with strength that your Lordships should express your opinion as to which you would have, after hearing, of course, what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has to say.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, leave out ("it is represented to").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have a completely open mind upon this Amendment. It seems to me a question entirely as to whether your Lordships have more or less confidence in the Committee, than in the Minister or vice versa. In these circumstances the defaulting landowner is between the devil and the deep sea. I suppose the deep sea refers to the committee and the devil must of course be the Minister. I prefer the arrangement suggested in the Bill, but I do not feel strongly about it. The only possible advantage that I can see in the change proposed by the noble Earl is that there is a possibility that some committee might shrink from moving in a matter of this kind even when there was a very notorious case. So far I have not found that is the attitude committees take up. But I am quite prepared to leave it to your Lordships to take whichever you please.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like to support this Amendment because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lee, will admit, whatever may be the qualifications of members of agricultural committees they are not necessarily equipped with any knowledge of estate management, and this is a question of estate management. It is perfectly well known at the Ministry of Agriculture what cases these are and where there is in fact what is now described as gross mismanagement of an estate. Surely in a matter of such enormous importance the initiative ought to be taken by the Government. If the Minister likes to consult the local committee on questions of cultivation, and so on, well and good, but after all it is not cultivation which has here to be considered. It is a question of estate management, and for that purpose I think the noble Lord opposite would agree that he would be a much more suitable person to move in the matter than the local cultivations committee.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I entirely agree with the point that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I infinitely prefer to come before the Minister than the agricultural committee.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As the expressions of opinion have all been in one direction, I accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in the first line of subsection (7), to leave out "by an" and insert "is of opinion after consultation with the". The noble Earl said: The meaning of my Amendment is exactly the same as the meshing in the noble Lord's Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, leave out ("by an") and insert ("is of opinion after consultation with the ").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "or land" where those words first occur. The noble Lord said: The question was raised on the Committee stage as to whether we should leave out the words "estate or" or the words "or land." I think your Lordships eventually came to the conclusion that the words "or land" were superfluous words, and not the words "estate or." The question really is whether you are going to interfere with the improper management or the mismanagement of an estate, or whether you have in mind the cultivation by a landowner, presumably on his home farm or any other farms he may be cultivating, whereas this clause seems to be a clause entirely dealing with estate management. There seems to be no particular reason why you should refer to the cultivation of estate land, which is already dealt with in another subsection of the same clause. I would urge the desirability of omitting "or land" wherever those words occur in this subsection to make it clear that what you want to interfere with is the mismanagement of an estate, and not improper cultivation by a landlord.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 37, leave out ("or land").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I see no objection to the omission of these words.

LORD BLEDISLOE

There are two other Amendments consequential on the decision just made.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 39, leave out ("or land") Page 5, line 40, and page 6, line 1, leave out ("or land").—(Lord Bledishoe.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "and" ["and the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate"] and to insert "or." The noble Lord said: I do not know what Lord Salisbury will say on this subject, because this is really an Amendment to an Amendment of his which was carried in Committee. The question is whether you want to make these conditions alternative or whether they are cumulative; in other words, is there going to be interference with a mismanaging landlord where only the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate is prejudiced, or whether you have got to have the double factor of the pro- duction of food being prejudiced and also the welfare of those engaged in the cultivation of the estate being prejudiced. I should have thought that interference ought to take place where you have gross mismanagement, which would result either in detriment to the production of food or in detriment to the welfare of those engaged in the cultivation of an estate.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, leave out ("and") and inert ("or").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am entirely in your Lordships' hands in this matter. I do not desire to stand between these individuals and their deserts. I am all for them being dealt with severely. But, of course, I am very anxious indeed that these very drastic powers should not affect ordinary landowners who, of course, sometimes make mistakes, like other people, but who are not in any sense bad citizens. The only people I want to affect are bad citizens who happen to be landowners. I shall be quite willing to accept the Amendment. A great deal, of course, depends upon the word "grossly." I know that is not a word which lawyers would approve of, but I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that the tribunals who would have to interpret these words would give full effect to such a word as "grossly." If they did so in the sense in which your Lordships mean the word that would cover my intention.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the noble Marquess was quite correct in saying that the word "grossly" is the key to the situation. While it may not be a legal term it is about as clear an indication as can be given of the intention of Parliament, namely that this shall only apply to the really gross cases. If that is accepted as being the governing word I think there is a good deal to be said for Lord Bledisloe's suggested Amendment, because a situation might arise, for example, where a landlord converted his estate from a food-producing estate to a rabbit warren at the same time employing the people without any detriment to them.

LORD BLEDISLOE

There are two other Amendments consequential on the decision which we came to just now.

Amendments moved— Page 6, line 3, leave out ("or land") Page 6, line 8, leave out ("or land").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (7), to insert the following new paragraph— (a)At any time within three months after the date on which notice of an order having been made under this subsection has been given to the owner of the estate or land, the owner shall have the right to require the Minister to purchase the estate or land, or any part thereof, with the buildings upon it, to which the order applies, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, or at the option of the owner, after notice in writing to the Minister to put up the estate or land or any part thereof to which the order applies for sale by public auction free from the operation of the order made under this subsection.

The noble Viscount said: I have some diffidence in rising to move this new paragraph, having been disabled by illness from attending the House on the last day of the Committee stage. It has always appeared to me that some provision of this kind was needed in order to avoid grave hardships on many landowners at the present time. My justification for the Amendment is this. The position of vast numbers of landowners in this country is really almost deplorable: they are some of the poorest people in the Kingdom. If their estates are not managed as they used to be it is not their fault but because they really do not possess the means of doing so.

Very stringent measures are recommended in this clause to insist upon the good cultivation and good management of an estate. What follows? On some occasions the improvements can be required by the Minister, if I understand the Bill, to be made by the tenant himself utterly regardless of the views and wishes of the landowner who is still to be called upon to make good the cost at which these improvements are made. That is one thing. Another thing is this. We have to take into consideration—and I think in fair justice we should—how far the want of good management is really the fault of the landlord. In a good number of cases it is really owing to the fact that he has not the means to do it. Under those circumstances the Bill proposes that the Minister should have the power, after consulting the county committees and getting all the information he can, of moving the appointment of a receiver or manager of the estate who is to have the supreme power of taking whatever course he pleases and playing "ducks and drakes" with whatever is left of the fortune of the unfortunate landowner. If a British Government is going to take these arbitrary powers into its own hands for the first time in the history of this country I think the least you can do is to give the owner the power of requiring that the Minister should purchase his estate, take it off his hands altogether if he desires it, at a price to be settled by arbitration, or, if the owner requires it, by sale at auction, which is the usual way of ascertaining the fair market value of the estate. I do not think that this is an extreme suggestion under the circumstances contemplated in the Bill and in view of the position of hundreds of landlords, many of whom are among the poorest citizens in this country.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

The noble Viscount has had a longer Parliamentary experience than I, as he began, I believe, as long ago as 1868. He will know therefore better than I do whether this trenches on the financial prerogative of the Home of Commons. However, as he with his vast experience of politics has placed it on the Paper I should like to offer a few remarks in support of it. It has often been said that in a great many cases the tenant has been doing very much better of late than the landlord. That is, I think, perfectly true, and if you will consider the case it must of necessity be so.

During the last four or five years the landlord has not been able practically to raise his rent. On the other hand, he has had a great many increased burdens put upon him. First of all, there has been an enormous addition to his expenditure in the increased cost of repairs, materials, labour and management. These increases a landlord has had to bear without any increase of his rent. A great many of these were rents which were put on the land in the old bad times, about the year 1879, when rents were greatly reduced owing to the depression in agriculture due partly to bad harvests. The year 1879 was the wettest harvest I have ever known and occasioned a great fall in prices. On this point I would remind Lord Harris that a fall in prices in that year was not confined to agricultural products.

But in addition the landlord has to bear an increased tithe which on many estates is very heavy. There is also the question of mortgages. Banks and people who have lent money during the last four years, knowing that the landlord was not able to raise his rent and that his charges were getting heavy, became frightened as to the security of the money they had lent on land, and succeeded in some cases in tightening up the terms on which they were willing to lend money and in increasing the amount of interest. And what does not go either in tithe, repairs, management or mortgages, goes in rates. I am quite willing to adopt the suggestion of the Amendment which I feel sure is well founded or the noble Viscount would never have made it. The suggestion is that the Government should take over these estates. They will then have the pleasure of paying for repairs, tithe, mortgages and rates, and at the same time be able to set us an example in farming which we very much want. It might be a rather costly affair to the taxpayers, however. I cordially support the Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I cannot help thinking that both my noble friends have misunderstood the meaning of this subsection It refers not to the case of the impoverished landlord, who has so many burdens to bear as a result of the war, but to the very exceptional cases of the men who grossly mismanage their estates to such an extent as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon and the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estates. It is not a numerous class, I am thankful to say. It would be a great reproach to the landlords of this country if it were suggested that a number more than I can count on the fingers of one hand came under the ban of this particular clause.

Assuming I am right, may I point out what would be the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment? It would be quite possible for one of these "black sheep," if I may so describe them, who grossly mismanages his estate to force his land upon the State at an arbitration price. It would be a perfectly impossible position. It is difficult to see why under this particular clause a culprit should be put in the favourable position of being able to dispose of his estate to the State at a high price. With regard to the observation of my noble friend as to whether there is any financial provision for this clause, I express no opinion. I could not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I have noticed once or twice before when I have raised objections that the noble Lord takes no notice of the substance of my objection. I raised the question the other day of the mischief of trying to award compensation by making an addition to the rent. I never had any reply whatever upon that question, and the objections I have since made have not been answered. The noble Lord says this will apply only to a case where an estate is grossly mismanaged. I pointed out that the reason for an estate being grossly mismanaged in a great number of instances is lack of funds. How is it to be done? Take my own case. I speak from bitter experience. When I succeeded to my estates in the greatest wheat-growing county in the whole kingdom wheat was selling at 62s. a quarter, but within a comparatively short time, in the year 1879, the price fell to 17s. 6d. What industry is there in the whole kingdom, be it cotton, or wool, or iron, or steel, or anything else you may mention, that would not be ruined under such circumstances? Nobody had a word of sympathy then for the unhappy landlord or for the numerous excellent farmers who at that time, one after the other, were ruined. The noble Lord forgets all these things when he talks about the gross mismanagement of an estate. I think he ought to pay some attention to the suggestion I have made. If he really wants to restore production and increase it, which is the avowed purpose of this Bill, the best thing would be to do what I ask him to do in this case—namely, first of all, in justice to the landlord, and secondly for the sake of the best interests of the country, to accept an Amendment which will enable the owner to require the State to purchase at a fair price. If I can get any one to support me I shall certainly go to a Division.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he has any statistics showing the number of estates that have been grossly mismanaged? Is there any real reason why this clause should be in the Bill at all?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am afraid the noble Lord was not here when we had a very full discussion on this clause in the Committee stage. I then gave such particulars as I had, and if the noble Lord had been present he would not have found it necessary to ask that question.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There are now two drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 6, line 13, delete the words ("or land") Page 6, line 18, delete the words ("or land"). —(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (b) in subsection (7), after "mansion house," to insert "or to any land or buildings which are not used, or intended to be used, for agricultural purposes." The noble Lord said: In the Committee stage I promised the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, that I would insert words to prevent a receiver in such cases being appointed without the consent of the owner of any property which is not agricultural in character. The Amendment is moved to give effect to that promise.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 31, after ("mansion house") insert ("or to any land or buildings which are not used, or intended to be used, for agricultural purposes").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD HARRIS

With regard to paragraph (b) I should like to call attention to what seems to me to be an inconsistency and a grave error. If your Lordships will look at the commencement of subsection (7) as it has been amended, you will find that if the Bill passes as it is proposed, it will mean that where a landowner has a home farm and grossly mismanages it he is not to be interfered with. I think that is absolutely inconsistent, inadvisable, and wrong, and I am extremely sorry that that exception has been made. If on the Third Reading there was any feeling in this House that that exception should not be made, I should be very glad to see it cut out.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Surely it is a fact that such a man will be dealt with quite sufficiently under Clause 4, subsection (1), which we have already passed. It is there open to the Minister, after consulting with the agricultural committee, to deal with such an occupier, even if he is also the owner of the land which he occupies.

LORD HARRIS

I will give notice that on the Third Reading I will move the omission of that exception in favour of the home farm. I will move the omission of the words "or of any home farm."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Is it on the Paper?

LORD HARRIS

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Lord would consent it might be more convenient to move it on Third Reading.

LORD HARRIS

Yes, much better. I give notice of it now.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question is, Page 6, lines 34, 36, 38, page 7, lines 11, 16, 21 and 24, to leave out the words "or land."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert: "The Minister shall on the application of a purchaser of any land subject to the provisions of an Order made under this subsection revoke the Order so far as it affects that land." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in response to a promise made in Committee, at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to consider whether the Bill could not be so amended as to secure the revocation of an Order when land subject to a receiver's control was sold. This Amendment carries that into effect.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out subsection (9). The noble Lord sais: The deletion of this subsection is consequential on the deletion of the power in Clause 4 to require land to be broken up.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, to page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (9).—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD CLINTON

I propose the omission of subsection (10). I think it is unnecessary now that we have similar words in the definition clause relating to the rules of good husbandry. The words "except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense" will go out here and I shall have to bring them into the definition clause at a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 4 to 20, leave out subsection (10).—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved in subsection (10), after "executed," to insert "and capable of being executed without prohibitive or unreasonable expense." The noble Lord said: These words are inserted in the definition of necessary works for maintenance, in accordance with a promise made in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 7, after ("executed") insert ("and capable of being executed without prohibitive or unreasonable expense").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That subsection has been struck out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It will come in the definition clause now.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I apologise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is drafting in order to make the numbers correspond to the form of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 27, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is to remove any question whether any proceedings are to be taken in respect of property where the owner is tenant for life or tenant in tail.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 34, at end insert the following new subsection: (b) In this section the expression "owner" includes a person entitled for his life or other limited estate."—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 5:

Arbitration under the Corn Production Act, 1917.

5.—(1) If in any arbitration under Part IV of the Act of 1917 the arbitrator states a case for the opinion of the county court on any question of law, the opinion of the court on any question so stated shall be final unless within the terms and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal, from whose decision no appeal shall lie.

(2) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration under Part IV of the Act of 1917.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "except with leave of that court." The noble Lord said: "This is in response to a promise made in Committee to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who wished me to consider the question whether provision should be made for appeals to the House of Lords. This Amendment enables such appeal to be made in cases where the Court of Appeal considers the matters involved to be matters for appeal.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("except with leave of that court").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am satisfied and grateful to the noble Lord.

Clause 6:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have a drafting Amendment on this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 8:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There are three Amendments on this clause. The words proposed to be left out relate to cases where the agricultural committee have entered into the occupation of land under powers conferred by the Bill. The Bill no longer contains such powers so that the Amendment is consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 10, leave out from ("Act") in line 19 to ("and") in line 23 Page 10, line 24, leave out("the said committee") and insert ("agricultural committees") Page 10, line 25, at end insert ("or a sufficient abstract thereof").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 10:

Compensation for disturbance.

10.—(1) Where the tenancy of a holding terminates after the commencement of this Act by reason of a notice to quit given, after the twentieth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty, by the landlord, and in consequence of such notice the tenant quits the holding, then, unless the tenant—

1. (a) was not at the date of the notice cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry; or
2. (b) had at the date of the notice failed to comply within a reasonable time with any notice in writing by the landlord served on him requiring him to pay any rent due in respect of the holding or to remedy any breach being a breach which was capable of being remedied of any term or condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry; or
3. (c)was at the date of the notice a person who has become bankrupt or compounded with his creditors: or
4. (d) has after the commencement of this Act refused, or within a reasonable time failed, to agree to a demand made to him in writing by the landlord for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for the holding as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord at the date of the said demand;

and, in the case of a notice to quit given after the commencement of this Act, unless the notice to quit states that it is given for one or more of the reasons aforesaid, compensation for the disturbance shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section:

Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this section in any case where the landlord has made to the tenant an offer in writing to withdraw the notice to quit and the tenant has unreasonably refused or failed to accept the offer.

(2) The landlord of a holding may at any time apply to the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate for a certificate that the tenant is not cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry, and, on any such application being made, the committee, after giving to the landlord and the tenant or their respective representatives an opportunity of being heard, shall, as they think proper, either grant or refuse the certificate.

The landlord or tenant may, within such time after the refusal or grant by the committee of a certificate as the Minister may prescribe, require the question as to whether the holding is being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry to be referred to an arbitrator who may grant a certificate for the purpose of this subsection or revoke the certificate granted by the committee. Subject to any such appeal, a certificate granted under this subsection shall be conclusive evidence that the holding is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry.

In the case of a holding situate in a county borough for which an agricultural committee has not been appointed this subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the Minister for an agricultural committee.

(3) Where, after the commencement of this Act, the landlord of a holding refuses, or within a reasonable time fails to agree to a demand made to him in writing by the tenant for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for the holding as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given by the tenant at the date of the said demand, and by reason of the refusal or failure the tenant exercises his power of terminating the tenancy by a notice stating that it is given for that reason the tenant shall be entitled to compensation in the same manner as if the tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord. Provided that such compensation shall not be payable if the circumstances are such that a notice to quit could have been given by the landlord for any of the reasons mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

(4) The provisions of this section relating to demands for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for a holding shall not apply where the demand, if made later than six months after the commencement of this Act, is so made that the increase or reduction of the rent would take effect at some time before the expiration of two years from the commencement of the tenancy of the holding or from the date on which a previous increase or reduction of the rent took effect.

(5) An arbitrator, in determining for the purposes of this section what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding, shall not take into account any increase in the rental value which is due to improvements executed thereon so far as they were executed wholly or partly by and at the expense of the tenant without any equivalent, allowance or benefit made or given by the landlord in consideration of their execution, or fix the rent at a higher amount than would have been properly payable if those improvements had not been so executed, and provided that the arbitrator shall not fix the rent at a lower amount by reason of any dilapidation or deterioration of land or buildings made or permitted by the tenant.

(6) The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum representing such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably incur.

(7) Compensation shall not be payable under this section—

1. (a) in respect of the sale of any goods, implements, fixtures, produce or stock unless the tenant has before the sale given the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation thereof: or
635
2. (b) unless the tenant has not less than two months before the termination of the tenancy given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this section; or
3. (c) where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within six months before the date of the notice to quit; or
4. (d) if in a case in which the tenant under section twenty-three of the Act of 1908 accepts a notice to quit part of his holding as a notice to quit the entire holding, the part of the holding affected by the notice given by the landlord, together with any other part of the holding affected by any previous notice given under that section by the landlord to the tenant, is less than one-fourth part of the original holding, or the holding as proposed to be diminished is reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding except compensation in respect of the part of the holding to which the notice to quit related; or
5. (e) where the holding was let to the tenant by a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, or by a government department or a local authority, and possession of the holding is required by the corporation, department, or authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation, department, or authority; or
6. (f) in the case of a permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing, and which has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen and before the commencement of this Act been let to a tenant for a definite and limited period for cultivation as arable land, on the condition that the tenant shall along with the last or waygoing crop sow permanent grass seeds. Where a written contract of tenancy has been entered into (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) for the letting by the landlord to the tenant of a holding which at the time of the creation of the tenancy was in the occupation of the landlord upon the express terms that if the landlord desires to resume that occupation before the expiration of a specified term not exceeding seven years the landlord should be entitled to give notice to quit without becoming liable to pay to the tenant any compensation for disturbance, and the landlord desires to resume occupation within the specified period, and such notice to quit has been given accordingly.

(8) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holdings or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.

(9) The landlord shall, on an application made in writing after the commencement of this Act by the tenant of a holding to whom a notice to quit has been given which does not state the reasons for which it is given, furnish to the tenant within six weeks after the recipt of the application a statement in writing of the reasons for the giving of the notice, and if he fails unreasonably so to do the notice shall be deemed to have been given without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management.

(10) If any question arises as to whether compensation is payable under this section or as to the amount payable by way of compensation under this section the question shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1908.

(11) The expression "holding" in this section shall not include any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house, or any land adjoining the mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity, and the compensation for disturbance payable in respect of a notice to quit given in respect of any such land shall be that which would have been payable under section eleven of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed.

(12) Compensation payable under this section shall be in addition to any compensation to which the tenant may be entitled in respect of improvements, and shall be recoverable in the same manner as such compensation and be payable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

(13) When determining for the purposes of this section what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding, which is held otherwise than on yearly tenancy, the arbitrator shall, failing agreement between the landlord and tenant, fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph— (b) had at the date of the notice deteriorated the holding by failure to cultivate it according to the rules of good husbandry.

The noble Lord said: I was unable to be present when this Amendment was moved before by another noble Lord, but I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill postponed it until the present stage in order that he might satisfy himself about certain things. I do not know whether he wishes me to explain the point, or whether he understands it and has conferred upon it.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not think that in a case where the tenant is admittedly taking such action as is possible to bring a holding into good condition any notice given with regard to some past failure can be looked upon as a proper notice. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

In the case of a long lease it is possible for the tenant to miscrop his farm for a considerable time and, when the period for his notice is near, to improve the holding to a certain extent and so get very large compensation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph— (c) had at the date of the notice prejudicially affected the interests of the landlord by committing a breach which was not capable being remedied of any term or condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry; or.

The noble Marquess said: The effect of this Amendment, if accepted, will be to disqualify for compensation a tenant responsible for any irremediable breach of the terms of his tenancy, such, for instance, as the cutting down, without the leave of his landlord, of standing timber. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill will remember that in Committee I had put down an Amendment which would, among other things, have had the effect of disqualifying any tenant who was guilty of conduct prejudicial to good estate management, and the House will remember that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was good enough to tell me that the matter would have the attention of the Government, but that the words were extremely difficult to frame. The words that I have put down are really mere crumbs of the loaf that I originally endeavoured to obtain, and I trust that the noble Lord will accept them.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 11, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquees of Linlithgow.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the noble Marquess's point is one of substance, and if he will agree to a slight alteration in his Amendment I will accept it. The words which I suggest are "materially prejudiced" instead of "prejudicially affected."

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I will move the new paragraph in that form.

LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph— or (e) had at the date of the notice refused, or within a reasonable time failed, to comply with a demand made to him in writing by the landlord requiring him to execute an agreement setting out the existing terms of the tenancy.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept the Amendment.

LORD FORESTER moved, at the end of the first paragraph of subsection (2), after "certificate," to insert "within fourteen days after the application has been made to the Committee." The noble Lord said: I brought this Amendment forward on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think the noble Lord said he would look into the matter. It is a question of the county agricultural committee being given a time limit as to when they will grant a certificate to the landlord to say that the tenant is a bad farmer. I did mention a concrete instance in my own county where the county committee hung about a considerable time, in consequence of which the farm was practically ruined. I believe that my noble friend, Lord Jersey, has an Amendment for the same, purpose, and if that would be more acceptable to the Minister of Agriculture I shall be quite agreeable to withdraw mine.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, after ("certificate") insert ("within fourteen days after the application has been made to the committee").—(Lord Forester.)

THE EARL OF JERSEY

Perhaps it might be convenient if I said a few words. The object of the Amendment is that the applicant should get an answer from the county committee within a reasonable time. I think several noble Lords, at an earlier stage in the debate, pointed out that now that the county committees no longer have the power to terminate tenancies, it would rest with the landlord to get rid of an unsatisfactory tenant, and I think it seems reasonable that before giving notice the landlord should have an opportunity of ascertaining whether he has the support of the county committee in giving notice on the ground of bad farming. It has also been pointed out that the tenant might make a slight improvement at the time the county committee was going round to inspect, and so would tide over the date at which the landlord could give notice, and would thereby be able to continue his tenancy for another year. Meanwhile he might let the farm down again, and by making a little effort in the following year would be able to prolong his tenancy indefinitely. I think, therefore, it is desirable to insert some such words as I propose. It has been suggested that instead of adopting the words "within a period not exceeding one month" which I have placed on the Paper, it would be better to insert the words "within one month of the date of application."

LORD FORESTER

I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, after ("certificate") insert ("within one month of the date of application").—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think there is a real point here, and I am prepared to accept Lord Jersey's Amendment in the form he has moved it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in the second paragraph of subsection (2), to leave out "such time after" and insert "seven days after the notification to him of," and to leave out "as the Minister may prescribe." The noble Lord said: Here again my noble friend Lord Selborne pressed in Committee that these proceedings should be as speedy as possible, and with this view this Amendment is proposed to provide that an appeal from the decision of the county committee shall be made within seven days.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 38, leave out ("such time after") and insert ("seven days after the notification to him of") Page 11, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("as the Minister may prescribe").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN and LORD HASTINGS had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (3).

LORD HASTINGS

Your Lordships will recollect that, on this important subsection, I ventured to bring before you in Committee reasons why it should be omitted from the Bill. I hold the same opinion now as I did then, and I might possibly be able to bring forward certain additional reasons why the subsection should be displaced. But I have to recognise that I have tested the sense of your Lordships once, and have been defeated. While ready to insist upon victory, at the same time I think it proper to recognise defeat when it is necessary to do so, and unless noble Lords desire to pursue this subject I shall not move the Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I feel with regard to this particular Amendment that we had considerable discussion upon it in Committee, and finally I left it to the judgment of the House without the Government Whips. Your Lordships, after due consideration and deliberation, decided against it, and I do not feel in those circumstances that it should be pressed again.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I certainly do not press it in those circumstances. I was not aware that the noble Lord had left the matter to the open judgment of the House. Had I known that I should not have put the Amendment down.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (5), after "execution," to insert "or which the tenant was under an obligation to execute under the terms of his contract of tenancy or the rules of good husbandry." The noble Lord said: This is a very real point, upon which I should like to have your Lordships' sympathy. It provides for the case where you may have the rent of a farm deliberately fixed at a low figure on the condition that the tenant shall execute certain improvements, or carry out certain work, during his tenancy. In such an event I suggest that it would be quite wrong for the arbitrator to take into account this work of improvement, which had been done as part of the arrangement between landlord and tenant, with a view to avoiding any increase in the amount of rent to be paid by the tenant. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a case in which it would not be right for the arbitrator to avoid increasing the rent where there has been an arrangement between the landlord and tenant to the effect that the rent should be increased if certain work should be carried out by the tenant on a low rented farm.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I feel no difficulty as regards the words down to and including "tenancy,", which would include any implied obligation to observe the rules of good husbandry as that term is ordinarily interpreted; but, in view of the possible statutory meaning which may be given to the expression by this Bill, I think the words "or the rules of good husbandry" should be omitted from the Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 41, after ("execution") insert ("or which the tenant was under an obligation to execute under the terms of his contract of tenancy").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (6), to leave out all words from "sum" to the end of the subsection, and insert "equal to one year's rent of the holding or, where the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and unavoidably incurred by the tenant upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or stock on or used in connection with the holding, together with any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation) exceeds that sum, such sum not exceeding two years' rent of the holding as represents such loss and expenses."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment sets out the compromise which I suggested in Committee, and which I now invite your Lordships to accept in preference to the basis of compensation at present inserted in the Bill. I have had the opportunity since the Committee stage of a good deal of discussion with some of your Lordships who are most interested in this matter, and I put this proposal forward in the very earnest hope that it may prove acceptable, or at any rate that it may be looked upon as a way out of the exceedingly difficult position in which we are placed with regard to this really vital point of the whole Bill. It is true that the words in the Bill, which I think were moved by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, are perhaps wider. They cover every possible claim that could be put forward in reason, and they might involve in certain cases a very heavy charge for compensation on a landlord; in fact, a charge which would have no maximum limit whatsoever. At the same time the words in the Bill are open to the objection of being indefinite, and from the experiences we have had in connection with the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, where we had trained minds working on this sort of problem, it has been found exceedingly difficult to ascertain precisely what loss has or has not been sustained in similar circumstances.

The proposal which I have put forward cannot be defended on grounds of logic, and it is quite conceivable that in some cases the minimum proposed might be more than the quitting tenant would actually obtain as a result of arbitration. However, as I expressed to your Lordships on a previous occasion, I think there is a real advantage in the fixed sum, which is of a sufficiently substantial nature, I believe, to avoid the necessity, or the likelihood at any rate, of these arbitration proceedings in the great majority of cases. This is a proposal which seeks to cover both arguments put forward in this connection. There is first the argument of those who say that they wish for a fixed sum because it would be preferred by the comparatively small farmer, who is afraid of litigation and arbitration. At the same time the proposal embodies the principle with regard to any larger compensation that if it is to be awarded, the claimant must prove his claim.

I think your Lordships ought to consider this in connection with the offer of the Government to withdraw altogether from the Bill the proposals for compensation in the case of capricious disturbance, which might have amounted in some cases to an extremely large sum, and which would have exposed landlords in many cases to unwarranted charges of capricious eviction. They would never know in any given case whether or not they would be charged with capricious treatment. After all the temptations of the ordinary tenant leaving to have a sporting try at the larger scale of compensation are very great, and if he claimed that it was capricious it would be rather difficult for the landlord in many cases to resist. I was anxious that your Lordships should remember, in connection with this proposal, that we are giving up the basis of capricious disturbance altogether. I have had this on the Paper I hope sufficiently long for your Lordships to be in a position to consider it in all its bearings. But it has been suggested to me by some noble Lords that the wording is not perhaps as good as it might be, and alternative wording has been suggested which would be quite satisfactory to the Government.

If it is your Lordships' wish I will move the Amendment in the altered form. I think there are noble Lords present who are aware of what has taken place with regard to this matter, and who will express their views as to whether the Amendment in its altered form is more advantageous or not. The Amendment as altered is in these terms— Page 13, line 7, leave out from "sum" to the end of line 9, and insert "the compensation payable under this section shall be a sum representing such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation) but for the avoidance of disputes such sum shall for the purposes of this Act be computed at an amount equal to one year's rent of the holding unless it is proved that the loss and expense so incurred exceeds an amount equal to one year's rent of the holding in which case the sum recoverable shall be such as represents the whole of the loss and expense so incurred up to a maximum amount equal to two years rent of the holding. I am prepared to move it in that form if that will be more acceptable to your Lordships, and I shall be glad to hear the views of the House upon it.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 7, leave out from ("sum") to the end of line 9, and insert the said words.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

This is an extremely difficult question, and I am the last man to wish to appear dogmatic about it, particularly as I regard the words now proposed to be omitted (which were inserted by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe) as an absolute masterpiece of logic and drafting; yet I am going to ask your Lordships to strike those words out and to place the words proposed by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in their place. I do that for this reason. Since the Committee stage I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the representatives of the Surveyors' Institution who are, after all, more qualified to advise in such a matter than any other body, and they are considerably alarmed at the indefiniteness of the possible claim to be made on the landlord under the words which now stand in the Bill. They are of opinion—and I think they are largely influenced by their experience under the War Compensation Acts—that a perfectly good landlord who is acting according to the best of his belief consistently with the rules of proper estate management might be let in for a very large sum.. They are, therefore, alarmed that there is no maximum and no finality in the words existing in the Bill.

They agree, I understand, with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that it is a real advantage both to the owner and occupier in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred to know exactly the sum that will pass. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the owner will know that he will have to pay the equivalent of one year's rent, and that in no case can he possibly have to pay a sum equivalent to more than two year's rent. Therefore those with whom I have discussed this matter prefer on their merits the words now moved by Lord Lee. Then I come to the actual words as read to your Lordships' House and not those which are down on the Paper. I have had some responsibility in suggesting this change to my noble friend because I wanted to avoid, so far as it is possible to do so in drafting, any appearance of giving the tenant the two years' rent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I wanted as far as possible to make it quite plain that the words "two year's rent" have nothing whatever to do with the matter; that if they appeared at all they appeared simply for the avoidance of disputes and for the purposes of this Act as a rough and ready but adequate method of assessing the claim and avoiding disputes.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am not an accomplished draftsman, and if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thinks that my words do not carry out what is intended I hope that he will tell us so, but I think your Lordships will approve of what I had in my mind. Now a word about the disappearance of compensation for capricious eviction. In a real case of capricious eviction there is not one of your Lordships who would have any sympathy whatever with the landowner.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Indeed your Lordships' sympathies would be exclusively with the occupier. Therefore, if all of us knew exactly what capricious eviction would mean in every case I do not think any of us would want to cut those words out.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

But I believe it passes the wit of man to define "capricious disturbance" in an Act of Parliament. Look at what might happen. With perfectly honourable and reasonable intentions a landowner might give a tenant notice to quit and might find to his amazement that an equally honourable and well-intentioned arbitrator might hold a different opinion and might consider that he has been capricious. The landowner would find that out when it was too late to withdraw the notice and might be fined four years' gross rent or the equivalent of twenty years' net rent. I think that is a risk which ought not to be run. Therefore for my part I am very glad that my noble friend has made this proposal.

LORD ERNLE

I should be glad to express an opinion upon this particular Amendment, because when the subject was discussed in Committee I had an Amendment on the Paper which was in the direction of that now placed on the Paper by the Minister in charge of the Bill. That Amendment was framed after consultation with the Surveyors' Institution and it was aimed at precisely the same objects as those at which the Minister in charge of the Bill is now aiming, and I think I may say for precisely the same reasons—that it is a compromise between logic and practical convenience, and it is an Amendment that commended itself to men of vast experience in the particular class of case to which the clause that we are now discussing referred.

We may claim for it this merit, that, though it is illogical, it will in nine cases out of ten satisfy the claim for compensation at the year's rent. And it has this great advantage that, from the moment the contract of tenancy is entered into, both landlord and tenant know precisely what they will have to pay. If there are other cases where the expenses exceed, then I maintain that there is a great advantage in having a limit to the liability. If you have an unlimited liability I am quite sure that it will be discounted against you very liberally, whether you are selling your property or trying to let it. In the one case the unlimited liability will be assumed to be as high as possible, and in the other the unlimited liability will be assumed to be as low as possible, and either way you will lose.

Another advantage is that when you come to bring a case before an arbitrator there is always the personal element which must come in, however good the arbitrator is. It is desirable to limit that personal element as far as possible, and you limit it here within the range of these figures. I should have said also that, owing to the way in which the clause is drawn, it eliminates all claims for goodwill, all claims for carrying on trading operations in connection with the farm, all extraneous loss in which there is no privity between the landlord and the tenant and from which the landlords derive no interest. Those are very great advantages.

Some of your Lordships may think it rather unfair that you should have to pay a year's rent when really it is more than the tenant can fairly claim. I think that is a grievance perhaps, but you are using the rules of good husbandry here in two different ways. In the first place you use them as an instrument of production, but in this Part II you are using them as a measure of compensation, and all along the line it is dead against the tenant. I feel I must put the point before you because it is one of extreme importance; you are tightening up the rules of good husbandry. That is to say you are reading into every contract of tenancy, whether it is for a year or a term of years, a stricter interpretation of the common law duties and obligations to farm according to the rules of good hus- bandry. And so, when you come to what is now Clause 10 (1) (a) you find that a man cannot obtain compensation if he is not farming according to the rules of good husbandry—not merely the rules of good husbandry under which he accepted his tenancy but the more strictly defined rules of good husbandry which now appear in the Bill. Again, in Clause 10 (1) (b) you will find that the landlord may claim that the tenant has committed breaches of covenants consistent with good husbandry. That may open the door to breaches of covenant which were not in the tenant's strict obligation—which were there only by vague and general implication. Again, the landlord may go to the agricultural committee and get a certificate that the tenant is not cultivating according to the rules of good husbandry—not the rules on which he entered into his contract, but the more strictly defined obligations and duties which are contained in the present Bill.

And if you pass on to Clause 15 you offer there to the tenant compensation for continuous good farming. Yes, and you make it illusory, because you put the standard—the datum line so to speak—additionally high under this Bill. And under Clause 18 you enable the landlord to claim damages against the tenant for deterioration of the holding because he is not cultivating according to the rules of good husbandry—not the rules of good husbandry under which he entered into the tenancy, but the new ones which you have put into this Bill. That is a very grave circumstance, and I do not think, considering the way in which the rules of good husbandry are, in this Part, used as a measure of compensation, that it is giving up much to say that the tenant who cannot prove his claim to a year's rent shall yet get it.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Amendment as my noble friend has himself amended it. I am sure that practical certainty is on the whole better for the landlord and tenant than logical uncertainty, and also that it is very much better for those who indulge in mortgages, and who will have eventually to pay death duties—not, I hope, before their time. My noble friend who has just sat down has drawn a picture on the other side. I should like to remind him that tenants are to be tuned up under this Bill as well as landlords.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I want to ask a question about this. I put down an Amendment on the Paper to define what should be rent while rent was still in the Bill a measure of basis of compensation. Rent has disappeared from the Bill, and the actual costs incurred were substituted. Now the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to bring back rent. The question I want to ask is this—In taking one year and possibly two years' rent, as he proposes, would the noble Lord take as the rent which should be calculated as the basis of compensation the gross rent, including the tithe, or any other charge? Because it seems to me quite clear that the tithe was really put upon the landlord for convenience some years ago, but it does not come to him; it is no part of his income. And it seems to me clear that if there is any charge which is collected connected with the rent, but which is not a charge payable to the landlord, that charge ought not to be included in the rent on which the landlord is to be assessed for purposes of compensation. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will tell me either that the law is clear at present, or that he intends to make it clear, I shall not have occasion to move my Amendment. In some districts we know that the tithe at one time was very nearly half the rent, and I think Lord Salisbury's Government had to introduce a Bill to provide, that, with the great fall of rents, where the tithe exceeded a certain percentage of the rent the tithe should be cut down. But, at any rate, it is quite essential that the owner of land should not have to pay compensation on that which was never part of his property, or part of his rent.

LORD BLEDISLOE

At the urgent solicitation of several members of your Lordships' House to whose opinion I am bound to defer, I am going to acquiesce in the substitution of this Amendment for the one which I asked your Lordships to embody in the Bill on the Committee stage. I hope I shall not be deemed affirmatively to consent, because I regard any system of this sort as not only wholly illogical but in some respects, in many respects indeed, unfair to the landlord and unfair to the tenant.

We cannot get away from the fact that immediately you introduce one year or two years as the definite amount of money compensation, whether as a minimum or a maximum, you are dealing with something which has no reference whatever to the amount of loss a tenant has actually suffered. In a large number of cases you must be giving to the tenant considerably more than the amount of loss he has suffered, and in some cases letting the landlord off a very substantial amount which he ought to pay if he is to make good the loss which his disturbed tenant will sustain. What I object to most of all in any provision of this sort is that you have undoubtedly commenced the process of dual ownership; you have carved a slice out of the proprietary interest of the landowner and handed it over to the tenant without the tenant giving any sort of consideration for the gift which you are conferring upon him.

One certain effect of the introduction of this provision will be a depreciation of capital values. You are interfering also with the mortgage security. I am sorry to say that in the case of most old-fashioned landlords—I am not referring to those rich gentry who have lately purchased British estates—the estates are very often mortgaged, some of them more heavily than others. There is no great margin of security to play with. Whatever the National Farmers' Union may say to-day there must be a very large number of men who have bought their farms during the last two years at enhanced values, and in the long run they will not thank your Lordships for seriously depreciating the capital value of the land they have purchased. I hope your Lordships will not expect me with any enthusiasm to consent to the course you are taking. I think it is absolutely wrong. I am not sure that it is honest; but I am sure that it is absolutely illogical.

When Lord Ernle, who has made such an interesting speech to-day, says that this arrangement is a compromise between logic and practical convenience, I only say that there may be a good deal of practical convenience about it, but there is absolutely no logic in it whatever. It may be, as the Surveyors' Institution has pointed out, extremely difficult for valuers to assess what is the actual loss a tenant suffers when he leaves his farm; and if they succeeded, that some landlords may have to pay an unreasonable amount in connection with goodwill or some business other than farming which the tenant carries on in connection with his farm. That may be so. Still when I hear two noble Lords, Lord Parmoor and Lord Phillimore, both of whom are of high judicial authority—one of them has had more to do with arbitrations than any other member of the legal profession—say that no such difficulty as is suggested by the Surveyors' Institution exists, I am bound to accord a considerable amount of faith to the opinions they express.

I am sincerely sorry that the, Minister, apparently unsolicited, has abandoned altogether the differentiation between the innocent disturber and the capricious evictor. The latter deserves to be penalised, and ought to be penalised, whereas against the former no case has been made out for his penalisation whatever. The only objection to the original scheme of the Bill as regards the capricious evictor was that you proposed to pay to the tenant a sum which in no way represented the amount of his loss. You could have got over that by paying his money in some other direction; but I do hope when this Bill passes from your Lordships' House to another place, and if and when it comes to be commented upon by the agricultural community, it will not be thought that your Lordships are prepared to carry capricious landlords on your shoulders as men with whom you have any sort of sympathy and who do not deserve to be treated on very different lines from those men who, for family or other reasons, find it necessary to resume possession of part of their estates.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to be informed what is the position of the Government in regard to an Amendment which was moved in Committee stage defining one year's rent as regards Scotland; because the conditions differ between Scotland and England. I understood that a different application of one year's rent as between the two countries was to be accepted by the Government, but owing to the alteration of this clause that Amendment was not moved because it was useless, the words "one year's rent" having been omitted. If this Amendment is now put in I want to know whether the Government are prepared to resume their acceptance of the Amendment which defined one year's rent as a different thing in Scotland.

LORD STANMORE

The Amendment is again on the Paper in my name, and I shall move it in the event of the present Amendment being accepted.

LORD LAMINGTON

I have handed in an Amendment to omit from the Amendment the words "and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration determine the amount of the compensation)." Apparently the landlord is to provide the tenant with the necessary funds for drawing up his claim. It is an unfair and barbaric proposal. There is no precedent for it in our legislation up to now. It is, of course, only a minor point compared with the question which the amendment deals with, but it is an important point. Apparently there is no limit to the preparation of a claim, and I hope the noble Lord will see fit to exclude these words.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

We are indebted to the noble Lord for having placed this Amendment on the Paper. It gets us out of a difficulty. It is obvious that it will not be quite fair; some will gain and others will lose. There is, however, the point that it will avoid a great deal of legislation, and in connection with that I would urge my noble friend to accept the proposal which has just been indicated by Lord Lamington. Nothing in the Amendment will lead to so much litigation as those words. We know that in several classes of life, not especially in farming, there are people who are always looking about to get up cases. I may say that that is one of the principal arguments in favour of the clause. There is one point I would ask my noble friend's attention to, and that is with respect to the case of multiple farms. In the case of a large hill farm the compensation will be out of proportion to the compensation in the case of a large arable farm.

LORD SHEFFIELD

May I press for an answer to my question.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I can only speak with the leave of your Lordships on this matter. First of all, I will deal with Lord Lamington's Amendment. I would prefer that it should not be pressed for the reason that the proposal which I put forward has been the result of considerable negotiation. If you are going to take out something from it which disturbs the balance of it, even if only to a slight extent, it would be a pity. I would like to move the Amendment in its present form, if your Lordships will allow me to consider the matter before the Third Reading. I agree that it is not of the first importance, but I am very anxious, having put this proposal forward and it having received so much support from your Lordships' House, that it should not be disturbed.

LORD LAMINGTON

I shall press the point later.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

With regard to Lord Sheffield's question, he has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this subject and I should have dealt with it when the time came. The tenant is not concerned with tithe rent charge, and in considering what rent shall be paid the fact that a man is subject to tithe rent has no bearing on the question at issue.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I should like to move to amend this Amendment by adding "The word 'rent' shall only include rent payable to the landlord, and not any money he may collect from the tenant on behalf of any other persons."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has not indicated where his Amendment comes in. Perhaps it would be better if he would put it on the Paper for Third Reading.

LORD SHEFFIELD

This is a new Amendment sprung upon us. We have not seen it on the Paper. It is a little hard that we should be asked to vote on an Amendment which has not been put on the Paper.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly have the Amendment which he proposes put on the Paper, indicating the place where he proposes it should go in.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Then I would press that the Amendment moved from the Front Ministerial Bench should also be put on the Paper.

LORD HARRIS

I am extremely surprised to hear the reply of the noble Lord to the question of Lord Sheffield. I understood him to say that the payment of tithe had nothing whatever to do with rent.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I did not say that. I said the tenant is not concerned with tithe rent charge.

LORD HARRIS

In effect that means that his land has no concern with the tithe rent charge. All I can say is that in my humble opinion a more grossly unjust statement I have not known during the discussion on this Bill. The tithe rent charge is unquestionably a charge upon the land. It is perfectly true that it was taken off the shoulders of the tenant and put upon the shoulders of the landlord. When it was paid in kind it was one-tenth of the produce of the land. The Commutation Act of 1836 turned it into a tithe rent charge calculated upon the average price over seven years of the three cereals. The tithe map would show what was chargeable. If the land was not cultivated, it was not payable. I am sorry to say the landlord now has to pay the tithe rent charge whether the land is cultivated or not. The whole estate may go out of cultivation and the landlord will still have to pay the charge. Therefore the noble Lord is within his legal rights in saying that the tenant has nothing whatever to do with the tithe rent charge. I agree he has been exempted by law, and the liability has been put upon the shoulder of the landlord. I dare say a great many of you know there are lands where the tithe rent charge at this moment is worth more than the rent, and you are actually going to put upon a man who has the misfortune to own such poor land the burden of paying both tithe rent charge and rent although he is receiving nothing. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, said the other day that in Scotland a very heavy charge for the minister was placed upon the land, besides rates and other things, and finally not even half a crown went into the pocket, of the landlord; and there are pieces of land in this country where the landlord is really paying the tithe rent charge and is receiving no rent at all. But now owing to the alteration you are going to throw the liability upon the unfortunate landlord who will have to pay the compensation out of the rent and the tithe charge as well.

VISCOUNT MILNER

Does the noble Lord desire that the tithe rent charge should be added to the rent to form the basis of compensation?

LORD HARRIS

No. I want the tithe rent charge to be deducted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have here an Amendment in the name of Lord Lamington.

LORD LAMINGTON

On the undertaking that the noble Lord will look into the matter I will postpone it to the Third Reading, and if necessary press it then.

LORD LEE of FAREHAM moved, in subsection (b), to leave out "not less than two months." The noble Lord said: These words were inserted in Committee On the ground that the landlord ought to know in good time where there was a claim made against him for capricious disturbance, but "capricious disturbance" has now disappeared from the Bill and I think on that ground the matter ought to be reconsidered.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, leave out ("not less than two months").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Do you think there ought to be no term mentioned at all?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The words were put in deliberately for the purpose of dealing with capricious disturbance.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The paragraph would run "unless the tenant has before the termination of the tenancy given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this section."

EARL FORTESCUE

Unless some period of notice is required it will be difficult for the landlord to take advantage of subsection (a) which requires a tenant to give a landlord the opportunity to make a valuation of the stock. Two months may not be necessary, but there should be some notice.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not see why the noble Lord wishes to omit these words altogether, because, as a matter of business, a tenant should indicate to the landlord whether or not he wishes to claim compensation. It is possible that he would be conscious of the fact that he is a bad farmer and that his farming had conflicted with the rules of good husbandry, and he would have no claim to make, but the landlord should know in good time whether there is a claim or not.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If my noble friends will look at paragraph (a) I think they will see that the ground is sufficiently covered, but I am prepared to consider this on Third Reading if noble Lords would put down some alternative. We think that two months is unnecessarily long.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Make it one month.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will withdraw the Amendment I have moved, and move it in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one month").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (e), to insert "or appropriated under any statutory provision." The noble Lord said: I was requested during the Committee stage by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, to find some words which would carry out his intention and to which no legal objection could be taken. I think these words will be satisfactory.

Amendment moved — Page 14, line 2, after ("authority") insert ("or appropriated under any statutory provision")—.(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. So far as I know these words meet the case perfectly. Perhaps, as there is no Amendment on Clause 11, the noble Lord could answer a question which I put to him. It refers to Clause 11, subsection (1), in the Bill as reprinted. It says that "The provisions of this Act … shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden." The London County Council are not quite sure——

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will deal with that when we get to it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

There is no Amendment down for that clause, and this refers to the same matter. The point was whether paragraph (e) of subsection (7) of Clause 10 over-rides the statement in subsection (1) of Clause 11, that compensation applies to the case of allotment gardens, or whether the two can be so read together as to make it clear that there is no compensation for these London allotments.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know how far we ought to go on discussing Clause 11 when we are really on Clause 10, but perhaps I may say in sentence that I am rather surprised that there is no Amendment in the name of the Government providing for a proper arbitral tribunal in Clause 11. Surely the arbitrators appointed by the Lord Chief Justice in all that very large machinery would not be very suitable for the case of an allotment. We want a much smaller tribunal. The same question arises, and I am going to raise it, when we come to Clause 12. It appears to be necessary for the Government to consider between now and to-morrow whether when dealing with Clauses 11 and 12 they are satisfied with the arbitral tribunal on so important a matter as provided by Clause 10.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps in answer to the noble Marquess I may say that paragraph (e) of Clause 10 (7) does apply to Clause 11 (2). It covers both.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

That is the point of which I wished to be sure.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I understand that the matter has been referred to the London County Council, who are quite satisfied.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am much obliged.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, leave out ("where") and insert ("or (g) where").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

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

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (9), to omit all words from "unreasonably" to the end of the subsection, and insert "compensation shall be payable under this section as if the notice to quit had not been given for a reason specified in subsection (1) of this section." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rendered necessary by the deletion of the provision as to capricious disturbance, and if the landlord refuses to give his reasons he cannot afterwards set up the plea that the notice was given on account of the default of the tenant.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("so") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("compensation shall be payable under this section as if the notice to quit had not been given for a reason specified in subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next two Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 15, line 14, leave out ("that which") and insert ("such compensation (if any) as") Page 15, line 24, leave out from ("arbitrator") to the end of the subsection and insert ("may, on the application of the landlord or tenant, direct that the reduction or increase shall not take effect unless the tenant or landlord as the case may be agrees to renew the tenancy for such period as the arbitrator shall determine").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 12:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

These are drafting or consequential Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 16, line 31, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("workman"). Page 17, line 7, leave out ("workmen") and insert ("workman") Page 17, line 21, leave out from the first ("of") to ("there") in line 23, and insert ("compensation to be ascertained by reference to the provisions of the said section") Page 17, line 29, leave out ("of section seven") and insert ("and paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of the said section") Page 17, line 30, leave out from ("apply") to the end of line 3, page 18.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I desire just formally to move this Amendment—I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture is likely to say—to omit the words "district wages" and insert "agricultural." Without repeating what I said on the Committee stage, I want to draw attention to the fact that already the county agricultural committee has to consider exactly the same question under another Act of Parliament altogether—namely, the Rent Restriction Act—in connection with the question as to whether a disturbed cottage tenant is or is not essential to the successful working of a farm. It seems exactly the same problem to be solved, and there would be overlapping if a totally different authority were brought into the field to decide the same issue.

Amendment moved— Page 18, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("district wages") and insert ("agricultural").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is a question which is not without some difficulty. There is no doubt whatever that as Clause 12 stands at this moment it is not thoroughly satisfactory, nor was it possible to put it in a thoroughly satisfactory condition until your Lordships had come to a final conclusion as to what Clause 10 should be, the procedure of which is embodied in Clause 12. The House is aware that Clause 10 has undergone very considerable modification this evening, and therefore I do not know if any very severe blame is to be attached to anybody that the matter was not set right before. But Clause 12 is not in a satisfactory condition at this moment. It is not merely in respect of the point which my noble friend behind me has raised, that there has to be some adequate tribunal to judge whether a particular labourer is suitable from the agricultural point of view. That is the point upon which he is at, this moment. There is also paragraph (e) which deals with misconduct. That issue has also to be tried in the last resort, and if appeal is made to some tribunal or other there is no tribunal provided in the Bill except the arbitration tribunal, consisting of gentlemen appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, who would be suitable for arbitration in a great case of a tenant farmer but who would be wholly unsuitable in deciding the issue whether in a small village or on a farm a particular labourer has been guilty of misconduct or not. Therefore it is clear there has to be some tribunal provided which will deal not merely with the point with which my noble friend is dealing, but with paragraph (e) also. I do not think that he, or any practical man, will suggest that there should be two different tribunals who should have to decide the fate of this hypothetical labourer, and the suggestion I would respectfully make to my noble friend is that he should let this matter stand over for twenty-four hours, and permit me to try, after consultation with my noble friend in charge of the Bill, whether I can draft some words which will provide a tribunal in both instances that would be suitable.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am very glad to hear what the noble Marquess has said, because I think there is a certain absurdity in the clause as it stands. As he rightly observes it would be rather ridiculous to have these trivial cases brought before an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and my own preference in the matter is for the district wages board. That, after all, is a tribunal upon which the employers and employed are equally represented, with some impartial persons as assessors. It seems to me that obviously is a tribunal which will command more confidence, at any rate from the labourer, than this rather distant and elevated committee, the agricultural county committee, with which he would have no contact in the ordinary sense, and of which I think he would be rather frightened. Under these circumstances I should have preferred the Bill, but I think the suggestion of the noble Marquess that my noble friend should leave the matter over for twenty-four hours would be best, in order to see whether some more useful suggestion may be made.

LORD BLEDISLOE

In the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 7, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("workman").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 14:

Amendment of law as to improvements.

14—(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 1 of the First Schedule to that Act except—

1. (i)erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings;
2. (ii) formation of silos;
3. (iii) laying down of permanent pasture;
4. (iv) making of water meadows or works of irrigation;
5. (v) planting of orchards or fruit bushes;

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 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:

Provided that in considering any such application the agricultural committee shall have special regard to the estimated east of the improvement in relation to the rent of the holding.

(2) The Minister may by regulation substitute such percentages or period as he thinks fit for the percentages and period mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of the Act of 1908, having due regard to the current rates of interest.

(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:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the breaking up of meadow land or pasture.

Any direction given by an agricultural committee under this subsection 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 661 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 three months 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 so far as applicable, and, subject as hereinafter provided, to pay to the outgoing tenant all compensation payable under the Act of 1908, 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 landlord 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.

(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 new tenancy for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to demands for arbitration as to rent.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

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

LORD HASTINGS had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I find myself in some difficulty, for this reason. When we were discussing this clause in Committee, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill recognised that the wording of the subsection as it stood was not such as could be accepted by the House, and he offered to insert certain modifications of it himself, and then added a proviso that if those modifications were not approved of we should then have an opportunity of throwing out the clause as a whole. I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and those are the words that I have found, rather to my surprise.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am afraid I must have been mis-reported. I have no recollection of them.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord did ask for an opportunity of putting down modifications of the clause himself.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think that is a misunderstanding. I hope I am within the recollection of some noble Lords who are present, but I suggested that I should accept an Amendment which I think was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, subject to reconsideration on the Report stage. I said that I could not necessarily agree with all the items he put forward, but I would accept the Amendment on condition that I was free to alter it on the Report stage. We are all free to alter it as far as that is concerned. But my undertaking went no further than that.

LORD HASTINGS

I was not suggesting that the noble Lord made any undertaking. That was not in my mind, and I did not make myself clear. What the noble Lord said was that if we did not approve of the Amendments which were put down in his name on the Report stage we should then be free to leave out the subsection as a whole. But that is apparently what I am not free to do, because I am informed that the rules of procedure would require that when an Amendment is put down to leave out a subsection it has to be dealt with at once without the mover of it having previously had the advantage of hearing the arguments on the Amendment. That placed me in rather an awkward position, because I did not necessarily intend or desire to leave out the whole subsection. I desired to hear the explana- tions of the noble Lord of the Amendments which have been put down in his name then if those explanations were not in accordance with my view I should take the liberty of moving the deletion of subsection (1).

Would the noble Lord allow me to draw his attention, in the first place to the last three lines of subsection (1) of Clause 14? This is a minor point. They are lines 38, 39, and 40 on page 18 of the Bill as published on Report, and are as follows— any direction given by the agricultural committee under this subsection may be given subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit. As far as I am able to see, these words are so wide that they will enable an agricultural committee to charge upon a land-owner who is making an improvement the immediate cost of making it. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, when dealing with the matter in Committee, pointed out, what I am sure we all intended, that where tenants were in possession of funds which would enable them to make improvements which their landlord from want of cash was not able to make, it was desirable that the tenants should have an opportunity of making those improvements, the object being that the tenant should make the improvements and if he should leave his farm or did leave it he should be entitled to compensation for the improvements so made. I think I am correct. That was all right.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am afraid I do not understand what Amendment the noble Lord is moving.

LORD HASTINGS

I am moving to leave out subsection (1), which covers the whole ground.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes.

LORD HASTINGS

If a tenant had made an improvement under this section and the improvement afterwards proved to be a mistaken improvement, one which was not an advantage to the farm as a whole—a thing which very often happens—as he only gets compensation for that improvement when he leaves the farm he would suffer for his own mistake, because the improvement would be of no value to the landlord, and the arbitrator would not accord the tenant any compensation for that mistaken improvement. Under these last words it appears that the agricultural committee, if it so desired, by this power which is given to it of giving any directions it may think fit would have the power to order the landlord to pay for these improvements on their creation, which means that the landlord would bear the burden of the possible mistake. I have taken advice on this subject and asked much opinion, and what opinion I have been able to get has been similar to my own—namely, that those words are so wide that the landlord would under them be required, or might be required, to pay for the improvement as it was made.

I turn to the Amendment of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is extremely difficult to understand exactly what it is the noble Lord wishes to arrive at. I notice that he has expressly removed the "erection, alteration, or enlargement of buildings," but that in other respects all he has removed is the Third Schedule to the 1908 Act. That Schedule contains a certain number of apparently unimportant provisions, dealing exclusively with the conversion of ordinary farm land into market gardens—by the laying out of strawberry plants, fruit bushes, and the like. But whilst the noble Lord only takes out buildings and these market gardens he leaves in the whole of the very large list in the First Schedule of the 1908 Act, which comprises alterations and improvements of an immense and extremely expensive kind. If that is his intention, I hardly think your Lordships would think it a sufficient concession to warrant you in passing the subsection as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord. I gather that any Regulation which the Minister desires to make must be laid on the Table of the House, but the Regulations have to be annulled by a petition—from the parties interested, I take it. But that annulment is not of very great importance. What is really of importance is that, although Lord Strachie carried an Amendment that some five items of expensive improvements should be removed from the First Schedule of the Act of 1908, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has only accepted the removal of one of these items. If the noble Lord were willing to increase the concessions that he has put down on the Paper, I might not desire to move the omission of the subsection, but, if he is not, I shall be compelled to do so, and I think I shall have a large amount of support in the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 20, to page 19, line 3, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Hastings.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The case is not exactly as my noble friend supposes. I agree it is rather awkward. On Report our procedure is just the inverse of what it is in Committee. In Committee we amend a subsection, and then move to throw it out; on report the Motion to throw it out comes before Amendment. And therefore my noble friend is quite right to raise these points now, because now is his only opportunity of throwing out the clause if he can induce your Lordships to do so. May I, first of all, draw attention to these words in the clause— 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. I do not quite know what these words do mean and I shall be glad if the noble Lord will explain them exactly. I know that they do not mean what Lord Hastings thinks they may mean. for this reason. This clause refers exclusively to improvements effected by a tenant and, therefore, at the cost of the tenant. They are improvements effected at the cost of the tenant and it could not possibly be directed that part of their expenses should be borne by the landlord.

Now I come to the Amendment on the Paper by Lord Lee of Fareham. What happens is exactly what, he said just now. We have accepted Lord Strachie's Amendment that omitted from the operation of this clause the five items in Part I of the First Schedule of the Act of 1908 as printed in the Bill. But he made no promise to revise that list or bring up a fresh list. He reserves to himself the right to put down Amendments, and of course the same right remains to all of your Lordships. What my noble friend has done, unless I mistake, is this; he has cut out two, three, four, and five, leaving as excepted altogether and always from the operations of this clause only one, the erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings.

As regard the others he has not replaced them in the clause but he leaves it to himself and his successors by Regulation to propose any of those items now printed in the Bill except one, and any of the other items in Part I of the First Schedule of the Act of 1908 may be brought under the operation of Clause 14. But if he does that he is going to lay on the Table of this House and of the House of Commons a draft Regulation making that proposal. For instance, suppose that he thought the formation of a silo ought to be brought under the operation of this clause and that a tenant ought to be able to make a silo to which his landlord objected if the agricultural committee or the arbitrator agreed it ought to be made.

If that is his opinion, or the opinion of his successor, a draft Regulation will be drawn up which will be laid on the Table of this House and the House of Commons for thirty days. If within that time either in another place or here a Resolution is moved and carried objecting to the regulation it will then have no effect at all. Therefore, it leaves it within the power of either House to object in future to a proposal for bringing within the ambit of this clause any of the items of Part I of the First Schedule of the Act of 1908, except the erection, alteration, and enlargement of buildings, which is altogether excluded. That I understand is the meaning of the noble Lord in proposing his Amendment. I think there is some convenience in it. If we try here and now to deal with all the sixteen items in the First Schedule of Part I of the Act of 1908 we shall be here all night and all to-morrow. It will be an interminable programme. But this proposal leaves it entirely in the power of this House to object hereafter to any of those items winch are proposed to be included.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

As I ventured to make a remark on this clause yesterday, perhaps I may be allowed now to touch on it. I quite agree with Lord Hastings that it is a little difficult to deal with the question of leaving out the whole subsection unless one is permitted to touch on some of the Amendments that are proposed. Therefore I should like to refer both to the Amendment of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and also to a manuscript Amendment which I myself have handed in.

Dealing with his second Amendment which proposes to lay a regulation on the Table of the House, may I say that, as I understand it, the first proposal of the noble Lord is that the buildings should be left permanently out of the scope of the authority of the agricultural committee, and as regards the rest it is perfectly true that he has limited in certain directions the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, but in other directions he has gone further because he proposes that all the other fifteen items should be outside the scope of the committee until a regulation dealing with it has been laid on the Table of the House. In one respect, therefore, he has limited it, but in the other he has extended it. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the draft regulation, but I notice that in Lord Lee's proposal it is not proposed to lay before the Houses of Parliament a draft regulation, but the regulation itself. Would the noble Lord accept an Amendment substituting a draft regulation instead of the regulation itself?

The difference as I understand it is this. If he lays the regulation on the Table of the House agricultural committees can act on that regulation until a petition has been presented against it. If, on the other hand, a draft regulation is laid on the Table of the House no action can be taken until the draft regulation itself has materialised. It seems to me that this would be rather a valuable concession, and also that it is only reasonable where we are introducing permanent legislation in respect of a class of improvements and not individual improvements, as for instance when Lord Selborne referred to the case of an agricultural committee wishing to sanction the setting up of a silo. I may be mistaken, but I take it that the matter goes further than that, and that no draft Regulation can be submitted in respect of a particular improvement.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I did not mean a particular improvement.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I beg your pardon. It would have to be submitted in respect of a class of improvements. Therefore as we are dealing with a very wide question and not with individual instances I think it is only reasonable that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of considering the effect of any such proposal as might be put forward. I have therefore ventured to draft an Amendment which perhaps I may be allowed to read. I suggest that in the place of the noble Lord's Amendment on page 19, line 3, it should read— A draft of any regulation made under this subsection shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations. I think that would be an additional and a very valuable safeguard. I was in favour of the clause as it stood, but so far as I am concerned that would satisfy any objection which I might feel towards the proposals under this subsection.

Before I sit down I would like to endorse the suggestion that we should be told a little more as to the meaning of those last few words "subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit." I think it would be of assistance to us in coming to a decision if we might know whether those words really limit the powers or whether they extend them. It would be an advantage if it were made clear that those powers are confined to the provisions of this subsection and do not in any way override the provisions of this subsection or restrictions under the Act of 1908, and it might be an advantage if some words could be inserted so as to remove, if possible, misapprehension on the subject.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The speeches that have been made on this Amendment have made the position perfectly clear, but I should be glad if the noble Lord would enforce what has been said with regard to the meaning of the last three lines on page 18, as to which I, too, have been somewhat in the dark. I should also like to know if the noble Lord would give us some notion of what the policy of his Department is in this matter of tenants' improvements. It strikes one that if a list such as exists in the Schedule to the Act of 1908 is to be treated as a list of subjects which it is expected in the ordinary course tenants may regard as improvements to be made by them, subject only to the subtraction from that list of some particular item on which the noble Lord places a Regulation on the Table of Parliament——

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It is the other way round.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes, precisely. My fear is that if this list is left without special description it is likely to be assumed, or it may be assumed at any rate, that these will be regarded as probably tenants' improvements. The list will be there, and it may be expected that the particular items in it will be asked for, so to speak, by the noble Lord and his Department as subjects which may properly be regarded as tenants' improvements. Therefore what I should like to know is whether it is the expectation of the Ministry that in future, owing to the altered circumstances by which so many landlords have been made poor and a considerable number of tenants have been made rich, this particular class of improvements is likely to become tenants' improvements. If they are so treated on a large scale it is quite clear that a marked change would take place in the relations between landlord and tenant as we know them. Most of the items in the list in the Schedule have been regarded in the past as purely landlords' improvements, and supposing it to be the case that they are transferred as a sort of matter of moral expectation to the list of tenants' improvements, there will be a very abrupt change in the whole system of land owning as we know it in England. If these improvements are habitually made on a large scale by tenants I greatly question whether you will be able to stop at regarding them simply as subjects for compensation when the tenant leaves. They will be regarded, I think, almost inevitably and naturally as giving the tenant some further direct interest in his holding than he can be stated to have at present, and for that reason I should be very glad to know what is in the mind of my noble friend and his Department on this matter of tenants' improvements, speaking generally.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like to know upon what principle the noble Lord rules out permanently all the improvements contained in the Third Schedule of the Act of 1908, because it operates in rather a curious way. It requires at least the tacit approval of Parliament before the tenant can construct silos, make osier beds, remove permanent fences, or reclaim waste land, but even with the assent of Parliament he is not able to plant asparagus or vegetable crops or even plant his orchards with fruit trees. I wish to know on what principle he proceeds to authorise provisionally these important improvements and yet rules out altogether work which many farmers nowadays would be inclined to embark upon.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Admittedly this is a very important question, and I am very glad to give the information for which the noble Marquess asked when he said "What is your policy with regard to this matter." The policy of the Government is quite simple, and it is to effect in this Bill, if it can, everything necessary to encourage a higher standard of cultivation, and in the event of good cultivation and increased production being held to be impossible owing to the lack of necessary improvements of this character, they are anxious, so far as practicable, to facilitate the making of these improvements by the tenant in cases where the landlord himself is not able to undertake them. We have no idea beyond improvements necessary for the proper cultivation of the holding, and were it not for the reasons which I put forward in the course of the debate yesterday, when I recognised the present financial conditions and the absolutely abnormal cost of everything, I should have been very loath indeed to agree to any whittling down. whatever of this Clause. But I think I frankly admitted that, the times being as exceptional as they are, it is necessary that the special difficulties and hardships of the landlord in this connection should be recognised, and for that reason, and that reason only, I displayed a willingness to consider reasonable safeguards and limitations with regard to this particular matter. I addressed my mind, as I was bound to do, to the possibility of amending the list which had been suggested by Lord Strachie, but for the reasons given by Lord Selborne I found that if we were actually going to consider every one of these items, and possibly have a debate on each one there would be at least as many Peers who wished to argue these questions as there are subjects, and we should have got into an interminable controversy about a catalogue of items. Therefore I suggested the plan which stands in my name on the Paper. I do not think that I can explain it any better; indeed, I am sure I cannot explain it half so well as my noble friend Lord, Selborne, who made crystal clear what is proposed, and with every word of whose speech I agree. On this matter I should like to disabuse the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who was under the impression that these regulations had to do with individual instances of an improvement being ordered by a committee.

LORD HASTINGS

I wanted to be quite sure.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

They have no cognisance of the acts of the committee. They are regulations which say that a certain class of improvement should or should not be included, and it seems to me that every safeguard which even your Lordships could give is thrown round this power. I am sorry that there is any exception. Buildings are excepted for the reasons which I have just mentioned, and because it was very strongly pressed on your Lordships yesterday. That, after all, would be the item which would be most likely to be expensive, and therefore I agreed to that one exception. But I feel that it would be quite a mistake to try and make out any further list of exceptions. The landlords' rights are perfectly safeguarded in this matter, at any rate so long as your Lordships take any interest in the fate of land, because all that the Minister can do is to put regulations on the Table of this House and of another place for thirty days, and if they are objected to by either House they are nugatory and of no effect.

I am anxious to be as reasonable as I can in all these matters, and I am prepared to consider the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. He said "If you put a regulation on the Table a committee might act upon it, and at the end of thirty days or some period your Lordships may throw out that regulation, and where will the unfortunate landlord be?" I am the last to wish to initiate a system which would lead to a ridiculous situation of that kind, and I am prepared to agree that the regulation should only be laid in draft, and that no action should be taken upon it until the matter has been approved by Parliament. In those circumstances I am sure your Lordships will feel that the landlord's position is sufficiently safeguarded. Having this desire in every way to facilitate better cultivation of the land and increase production, I feel certain that if later on times change, financial conditions become less stringent, and it is obvious to your Lordships that, at no unreasonable expense necessary improvements can be effected, any draft regulation which is submitted by the Minister to Parliament will receive the favourable consideration of your Lordships. But we have to wait. We do not know what our conditions will be. In the meantime, the position of the landlord appears to be sufficiently safeguarded. I feel the more sure that I shall have the sympathy of your Lordships in this matter, because all through these debates you have expressed a consistent and strong desire to see farming in this country toned up, and I have endeavoured to recognise that in the proposal I have made.

I have been asked by several noble Lords who preceded me, "What is the precise meaning of the words at the bottom of page 18, "any direction given by the agricultural committee under this subsection may be given subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit?" One noble Lord said that he was not sure whether those words were limiting words. They are put in as limiting words, and I have legal advice to the effect that they are limiting words, but if your Lordships feel any uneasiness I am quite prepared to insert, after the word "conditions," the words "for the protection of the landlord," to show that they are limiting words in the interest of the landlord. It is quite clear, I think, without that. Still, if it will give any comfort to your Lordships with regard to those particular words I shall be very glad to insert them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure we shall be very grateful for those words, but with reference to what my noble friend has said as to Lord Jersey's proposed modification I hope he will consider it favourably.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I said I should be glad to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The point is that under that Amendment the draft Resolution can be amended as well as approved or rejected, which is a very great advantage.

LORD DYNEVOR

There is one other point as regards the proviso to subsection (1). The proviso says: "The agricultural committee shall have special regard to the estimated cost of the improvement in relation to the rent of the holding." That is a new proviso which has been added. Would that proviso equally extend to the arbitrator who would be appointed under subsection (7) at the top of page 21? Would he also have to take into consideration the costs of improvement? It does not say so. The subsection there only says, "acting under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1908."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is quite true that this is a new paragraph, but it equally applies to the arbitrator; there is no question about it.

LORD HASTINGS

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Lee) for his explanation. I am perfectly well satisfied with it, and will, with your Lordships' leave, withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "except—

1. (i) erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings;
2. (ii) formation of silos;
3. (iii) laying down of permanent pasture;
4. (iv) making of water meadows or works of irrigation;
5. (v) planting of orchards or fruit bushes;

not being an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to that Act," and insert "(other than the erection, alteration, or enlargement of buildings or an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to that Act) which is declared by regulation made by the Minister to an improvement to which this subsection applies."

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a necessary Amendment, and follows what has been done before.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 24, leave out from ("except") in line 21 down to ("Act") in line 31, and insert the said words.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

There is the omission of a word in the last line but one, and I think the word "be" ought to be inserted.

LORD HASTINGS

I think my Amendment will cover that.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It follows, does it not? It is the first Amendment, page 18, line 24, which is being moved, and the other will follow.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to move in the form Lord Jersey desires and to accept Lord Jersey's words.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The noble Lord has not put in the words he promised after "conditions" in line 40 on page 18. Perhaps he will put an Amendment down for the Third Reading, as I understand it is too late now.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, towards the end of paragraph (a), to leave out "two" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: I promised to make this Amendment to remove an inconsistency which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, called my attention to in the Committee stage.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 8, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert the following new paragraph— (d) 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: As these clauses were drafted it was not clear whether a tenant coming under the Evesham custom might not get double compensation, and my noble friend undertook to look into the matter. I have therefore put down this Amendment to meet the point.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 28, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am informed that this is a misconception of the actual position, because the only effect of applying the Evesham custom to the whole or part of the farm is that the tenant will only be able to get compensation for his market garden improvement on the area to which the custom is applied, firstly, if he leaves of his own accord and can find a suitable successor whom the landlord declines to accept, for reasons good or bad; and, secondly, if the landlord gives him notice to quit. The existence of this position as regards, perhaps, only a small portion of his farm cannot possibly affect the merits of the question as to whether he should have the same right to compensation for disturbance as all other agricultural tenants in addition to the value of his market garden improvement. There is no question, as was suggested, of drawing compensation over again.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection— (4) 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 agree shall as respects that improvement be substituted for compensation under the Act of 1908, and subsection (3) of this section shall, during the continuance of the said agreement, not apply to the tenancy.

The noble Earl said: We recommended in my Committee, to meet certain customs that were found to exist, that those customs should be substituted for the Evesham custom where the agricultural committee found that they were adequate. This clause is introduced to give effect to that recommendation.

Amendment moved— Page 20, after line 28, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think this second Amendment appears to be covered in effect by the Amendment made in Committee to Clause 27. That Amendment will enable agreements to be made as regards compensation. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

But those agreements are agreements before the commencement of this Act. The case my Committee tried to meet is this. The Evesham custom is a local custom, but there are other local customs not so well known or so widespread, but greatly preferred in their own county, and I can see no possible objection to allowing them to have the same privilege as the Evesham custom if the agricultural committee of the county is satisfied that the conditions of these agreements are adequate. It was very carefully considered by my Committee, and the recommendation was unanimous.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am afraid I must have misunderstood the meaning of the noble Earl's Amendment. If he will give me another twenty-four hours I will see that it is dealt with on Third Reading.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It is an alternative to the Evesham custom. I will move it on the Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "the Second Schedule to the". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 5, leave out ("the Second Schedule to the").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 15:

Compensation for continuous high farming.

15.—(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, if any, 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:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of the first paragraph of subsection (1), to leave out "benefit accrued to the holding by" and to insert "value to an incoming tenant of". The noble Lord said: This and the next Amendment I promised in response to an appeal by Lord Stanhope during the Committee stage.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 16, leave out ("benefit accrued to the holding by") and insert ("value to an incoming truant of").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The other is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 21, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("of the benefit accrued to the holding") and insert ("value to the incoming tenant.").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 18:

Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.

18. 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 or 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 nothing in this section shall prevent a landlord from claiming compensation for dilapidations or for the deterioration of the holding under the contract of tenancy.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out Clause 18. The noble Lord said: I am not convinced myself that this clause is of any advantage to landowners. Certain amendments were made to it which the Lord Chancellor regarded with some amusement and perhaps ridicule, but they seemed to provide some little protection to the landlord against being deprived of the advantages which he already has under a contract of tenancy. But even with the Amendments I cannot see what the landlord gains by this clause. Obviously it is intended for his protection only, and I should be rather sorry for it to appear to the House of Commons and to the tenant farmers that we were demanding a clause of this character which, in fact, provides us with nothing of advantage which we did not enjoy previously. I am advised by expert surveyors that the landlord will get no advantage out of this clause other than what he gets under a well drawn contract of tenancy or under common law. I suggest we should not indulge in this possible camouflage by giving the idea that we were obtaining great advantages which, in fact, are non-existent.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 18.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD CLINTON

I rather agree that the landlord has ample powers under his contract of tenancy or in common law to obtain compensation for dilapidations equivalent to what is given under this measure. The only possible advantage in getting this Amendment into the clause is that when you have weekly valuations between landlord and tenant you can claim dilapidations under this Act in addition to or apart from bringing in claims either under the common law or the contract of tenancy. I see no vast importance in keeping this clause in the Bill, but on the whole I think it might be of some advantage and perhaps it would be a misfortune to turn it out of the Bill.

LORD BLEDISLOE

If any noble Lords see any advantage in keeping it in the Bill, I do not desire to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19:

Provisions for expediting and reducing costs of arbitrations.

19.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister may by rules make such provision (not being 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 shall—

1. (a) make separate awards in respect of the several claims referred to him; and may, if he thinks fit
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 that 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 LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection 2 (a), to leave out "make separate awards" and insert "state separately in his award the amounts awarded." The noble Lord said: I think this carries out the intention of the noble Lords who desired an amendment of this clause. Separate awards are not really required in each case.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 21, leave out ("make separate awards") and insert ("state separately in his award the amounts awarded").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 21:

21. A member of a committee referred to in subsection (4), paragraph (d), of the Ministry 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.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out Clause 21. The noble Lord said: I have no objection to the principle of this clause, but I omitted to notice when I accepted it that the agricultural committees have no longer the power to take possession of the land and carry on farming operations. The clause, therefore, is unnecessary.

LORD HINDLIP

I beg to differ from the noble Lord, with all respect. They are in possession at the moment of a considerable area of land, and in many parts of the country they are carrying on agricultural operations on a considerable scale. I imagine they are carrying on their operations under the Corn Production Act, and this Bill makes that Act permanent.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord. I omit Clause 21 because it refers in terms to a portion of the Bill which has now been deleted, but I was willing to accept the manuscript Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who was moving an Amendment in similar terms which would apply to all parts of the Bill. I was going to suggest to him that if he would be good enough to move that as a new clause after Clause 30 so as to apply to all parts of the Bill, I would accept it.

LORD CLINTON

I will move the clause when the right time comes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am a little anxious about this. Does this mean that no one who manufactures agricultural machinery will ever be able to sit upon one of these committees and take part in the ordinary conduct of this business?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps it would save time if I read the words that Lord Clinton proposes in the clause— No member of an agricultural committee shall take part in any decision of the committee which relates to the land of which he is the owner or occupier or the agent of the owner or occupier or to any bargain or contract contemplated or entered into by the agricultural committee in which such member is directly concerned. It seems to me that those words are wide enough to cover everything.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "or appropriated under any statutory provision." The noble Lord said: This is the same Amendment as was inserted in Clause 10.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 37, after ("authority") insert ("or appropriated under any statutory provision").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

Clause 29:

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

29. 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 COZENS-HARDY moved, after "1908," to insert: "and the Agricultural Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary to lay the foundation for the Amendment which appears later on page 17, and it is unintelligible without reference to that other Amendment. Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I should say now what I have to say with reference to that later Amendment. The Act, as your Lordships will remember, is a short one of one section only. It is an Act to amend the law of notice to quit given to tenants by owners of agricultural land prior to the sale of such land. The section in question is as follows— On the making, after the passing of this Act, of any contract for sale of a holding, or any part of a holding held by a tenant from year to year, any then current and unexpired notice to determine the tenancy of the holding given to the tenant, either before or after the passing of this Act, shall be null and void, unless the tenant shall, after the passing of this Act and prior to such contract of sale, by writing, agree that such notice shall be valid. It is common knowledge that that Act was passed in order to avoid admitted mischief in the case of sales of land to syndicates.

But the language of the Act is peculiar, and I am informed that one Court certainly has held that the section relates not merely to a tenant and owner, but to third persons who are for the moment not connected with either the tenant or the owner. The Act applies only when you have a notice to quit and in addition a contract for sale. That is a clear case between a tenant and an owner. But it has been held—and I venture to submit that this decision is not within the scope of the Act, and it certainly produces very great inconvenience—that the Act extends to other persons. If, for instance, the owner sells and the notice becomes void and a new notice is given, and the owner, before the completion of the sale, enters into a new contract for sale, the new notice is again made void. I submit that this is entirely outside the scope and purpose of the orignal Act of 1919. That Act was directed against the sale by a person who has given notice to quit and it seems a little extraordinary that the act of a third person, a stranger to both, should interfere with rights which have been acquired under the Act. I move this Amendment now with a view to inserting in the Schedule, in that section, after "shall," where it first occurs, the words "if the contract for sale is made by the person by whom the notice to quit was given." If it was made by any other person the notice to quit is not void.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 8, after ("1908") insert ("and the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I can best express my agreement with the noble Lord by pointing to the fact that this Amendment is also down in my name. I am aware of the technical difficulties that have arisen owing to a case before the Courts. I think the Amendment is necessary, and I am prepared to accept it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause—

Delegation of powers by agricultural committees. () Any powers authorised by any Act to be exercised by an agricultural committee may, unless otherwise expressly provided by that Act, be delegated by a committee to a sub-committee.

The noble Lord said: This is really essential as a matter of convenience. Agricultural committees meet at somewhat long intervals, and great inconvenience would be caused if they could not delegate to their sub-committees power to issue certificates.

Amendment moved— After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD CLINTON moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause— () No member of an agricultural committee shall take part in any decision of the committee which relates to the land of which he is the owner or occupier, or agent of the owner or occupier, or to any bargain or contract contemplated or entered into by the agricultural committee in which such member is directly concerned. The noble Lord said: This will easily follow Lord Lee's new clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept the Amendment.

Clause 32:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 13, leave out ("The expression").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

LORD DYNEVOR

The next is, I think, purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 41, leave out ("farm roads").—(Lard Dynevor.)

LORD SHEFFIELD moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection (8).— In the application of Clause 10 of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance, the expression "rent" means the rent payable to the landlord for his use, and does not include the tithe which is made payable by the landlord and is included in his gross rent payable by the tenant nor any other public charge or assessment which may be included with the rent but is not received on behalf of the landlord.

The noble Lord said: I do not think the latter words are very material, but I thought possibly there might be some obscure rates such as are made under the Sewer Acts, where the charge was partly on the landlord and partly on the tenant. The really important thing is tithe. Your Lordships are aware that there was an Amendment on the Paper on the part of the Scottish landlords that the compensation should involve consideration of the rent. They pay the tithe and they pay half the rates, and in fact Scottish rents are very much higher than in England, but a large portion of the burden which in England falls on the tenant in Scotland falls on the landlord. The clause which was proposed by Lord Stanmore on behalf of the Government dropped out for a time, but earlier this evening we had the assurance of Lord Stanmore that the landlord would be assessed in a way more favourable to him. Nobody will doubt that the rents in Scotland are higher because many charges fall upon the landlord which in England do not fall upon him. I think it is fair if a clause is to be put in which prevents the Scottish landlord being taxed on a nominal income which he does not receive because deductions are made from it, that the landlord in England should not be taxed upon that part of the rent which he has collected for the incumbent or someone else. Down to the Tithes (Commutation) Act the tithe was paid by the occupier. There was then an agitation in Wales which involved tithes and as a result Lord Salisbury's Government passed a Bill to put the full payment absolutely on the landlord. I do not think you should compensate the tenant out of the pocket of the landlord in regard to something which the landlord does not receive at all. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that it did not matter to the tenant where the money went.

I would point out that in the Amendment which your Lordships have just passed you fixed a minimum compensation of one year's rent instead of basing the compensation on the actual cost of removal. It was admitted that one year's rent would in most cases be in excess of the actual cost, but your Lordships have decided that if the cost of removal is more than one year's rent, it can be made up to two years' rent. The tenant is thus protected and can get anything up to two years' of the landlord's real rent.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 20, at end of clause insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I would like to correct one thing regarding what my noble friend who has just sat down said respecting Lord Stanmore's Amendment. In England all the rates are paid by the tenant while in Scotland they are paid half by the landlord and half by the tenant. In that respect the rents in Scotland are higher than in England. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanmore which we have not come to yet is only to except the rents. So far as I am concerned I should be delighted and so would every landlord in Scotland if tithe rent were taken off also because it is more burdensome than tithe in England. I think my noble friend is wrong is assuming his Amendment would be similar to that proposed by my noble friend Lord Stanmore.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I think it is quite evident that Scotland is differentiated from England and that it is necessary to take note of the fact that rents are higher in Scotland because the landlord there pays half the rate, and that in order to put England and Scotland on the same footing in respect to this Bill allowances must be made for that fact, as the Government propose to do. That will put the English and Scottish landlord on the same footing as regards this Bill. It leaves untouched, of course, the question which is raised by the noble lord, Lord Sheffield, whether the tithe rent charge should be deducted from the maximum amount which the tenant may receive as compensation. That appears to me to raise a question of very great difficulty and I am afraid if the Government were to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord it would fatally affect what I can only regard as the very carefully considered compromise which has already been reached with regard to compensation in the Amendment passed to subsection (6). I think it is of old Clause 8, now Clause 10. I may say if we are once going into the question of what the value of a rent, so to speak, is to the landlord—I mean what the net rent is, what he actually gets out of his property annually— we are engaging in a very difficult and complicated investigation and we shall be upsetting what seems to me to be the principal value of the limit of one year's rent which has been fixed; that is one year's gross rent; a figure which is perfectly familiar to landlord and tenant. Therefore, if we are to take any sort of round figure to represent the value or rather the loss to the tenant for his disturbance, we must take the gross rent, we cannot take the net rent, because the net rent is a figure which is affected by a great many other circumstances besides the tithe. Therefore, I must say that though there is in logic a great deal to be said for the Amendment of the noble Lord, I think in its effect it will really be fatal. It is certainly fatal to the compromise that has been arrived at and may very seriously affect the whole prospects of the Bill.

I should like to point out that when that Amendment to subsection (6) of Clause 10 was moved by the noble Earl Lord Selborne he particularly emphasised the fact that the one year's rent which he put in there as the minimum compensation for the tenant and the two years' rent which was put in as the maximum compensation were figures adopted not because they represented the annual value, either net or gross; he particularly objected to that. He said it was merely a rough and ready way of arriving at some round figure which was perfectly well known to both parties, and he tried in every way to dissociate it as much as possible from what I might call the rent question. One year's rent is adopted not because it represents the net value, not because it represents the gross value, but because it is a round figure perfectly well known to both parties, and it is adopted for the sake of avoiding the infinite litigation which will arise unless there is a simple figure of that kind, which in the great majority of cases will represent the compensation actually paid. I must say, though, that I sympathise with the noble Lord in the matter of tithe. No one could sympathise with him more, because on the only little landed property that I possess there is an extraordinary tithe, which is perfectly monstrous in amount, which, I think, is attributable to the fact that part of it was once cultivated in hops, though it is many years since a single hop grew on it. But, though I have the greatest sympathy with the unfortunate landlord who has to pay tithe, I feel that this is an Amendment which will have a very fatal effect on the Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sure we shall all accept the sympathy of the noble Viscount in the spirit in which it is offered. But, as he has evidently studied this class of question with great care, I should like to remind him that, even with a year's rent in compensation to the tenant, the unfortunate landlord will still have to pay Income Tax. I hope when the matter is reconsidered that not only the question of tiends or tithe rent charge will be taken into account, but that if the landlord does not get the rent he shall not be charged for it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I quite appreciate the idea of the noble Viscount that it is impossible to look very accurately into this payment, or to speak of the difference between the gross rent and the net rent as being one that can be taken into consideration. In one sense it must be regarded, no doubt, as a rough and ready method. But I should have thought it was possible to make an exception in this case of tithe, and I cannot help thinking that a way will be found to do so by taking the tithe altogether out of the farmrents and paying it separately. There is nothing, so far as I know, to prevent the landlord treating the tithe as no part of, his rent, but paying it separately and as an individual. In that case the tenant would I presume, get so much less in the event of his leaving his farm. But I do not think that the noble Viscount would say that thereby he would have any cause of complaint. He is a conduit pipe through whom the landlord pays certain dues to the Church, and it is a pure matter of convenience, so that I suppose it may be taken as pretty certain that some method will be found of avoiding this extra tax.

LORD STRACHIE

This seems to be one of those compromises where it is all give and no take. It seems grossly unfair that the landlord should have to pay the tithe which has nothing whatever to do with him. Tithe is practically dual ownership. If you are putting it on the ground of fairness the farmer ought to get compensation from the other dual owner, because we are told by ecclesiastics that the other dual owner has just as much right to the land as the landowner. Take the case of a farm rented at £500 a year. Probably all that can be claimed for disturbance will be £200. The landlord would in that case have to pay £300 more to the tenant. I know of a case where the tithe is £70 a year. In a few years it will be over £100 and the landlord will have to pay as a fine over £100 if the tenant quits his farm. At the present moment the rent of a farm is settled without any reference to the tithe and I consider that the clause is most unjust and unfair. I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division.

LORD BLEDISLOE

This is the first splendid illustration of the inevitable consequence of committing ourselves to a gross illogicality. The incidence of this burden is going to be different in different parts of the country. When we buy an estate we purchase it on the basis of the net rent after deducting Land Tax, tithe, &c. What is going to be the result? The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, said just now that the tithe on his land was exceptionally high, so that if a tenant wants the largest degree of security he will go to the noble Viscount and take his land in preference to mine, because in his part of the country tithe is higher than in my part of the country. The result is that if a landlord is unfortunate enough to pay tithe at 12s. 6d. or 15s. an acre the tenant will in effect have greater security of tenure on his land than in the case where the tithe is 2s. or 2s. 6d.

How the whole basis of this compensation breaks down when you examine it in the light of the sequelae we are considering at the present moment! Why in equity and in justice should a landlord be more severely penalised because he happens to have bought a farm, after making allowance for tithe and land tax, the tithe on which happens to be higher than on another farm. Honestly I cannot justify such an arrangement and I do not know how the noble Lord can resist the Amendment unless he wants the burden imposed on a landlord in the event of the innocent disturbance of his tenant to be of unequal incidence in different parts of the country.

EARL FORTESCUE

Logically I cannot defend the clause, but if it goes to a Division I shall vote against the noble Lord. The adoption of the Amendment would knock the bottom out of the Bill.

LORD HARRIS

I will not add to what I said before your Lordships adjourned, but I should like to point out with reference to what has been said that the tenant has no connection with tithe. The noble Lord read some words from his brief to that effect. My noble friend Lord Milner will, of course, remember what he said when the Corn Production Act was introduced in this House. He and the Duke of Marlborough both specifically stated that it would be legitimate to raise rent in order to cover the rise in the cost of tithe. I am sure he will remember that, because I had some correspondence with him afterwards on the subject. There is a direct connection between the rent the tenant pays and the tithe. I quite admit that the tenant has nothing to do with the payment of tithe, but I disagree with my noble friend's description of this compromise as an effort to get some formula which would be perfectly well understood to both parties. The tenant knows nothing whatever about tithe; it is not mentioned to him. The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, said that both parties knew all about it.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. This is really very important. Both parties know the rent, and therefore both parties know the figure which is the basis and the limit of compensation. It is just because a tenant does not know the tithes that the introduction of the tithes destroys that basis of certainty and of something perfectly well known to both parties.

LORD HARRIS

I see the logic of the noble Viscount in putting it in that way, but it does not alter the fact that it is doing a very great injustice to the landlord. First of all when Lord Salisbury introduced his Act which threw the liability upon the landlord and took it off the tenant, and secondly when the noble Viscount said it was perfectly legitimate to raise the rent again in order to meet the raising of the tithe, the rent was legitimately raised; and the consequence is that the tenant is going to get a rent twice increased and the landlord has to pay the tithe as well.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not want to prolong this discussion beyond saying two things. It seems to me that if this Amendment were inserted other injustices would at once arise. For instance, the landlord who had redeemed his tithe some years ago would be in a worse position for these purposes than the landlord who had not been so provident. Apart from that, I am sure it would lead us into a mass of difficulties of the kind we indicated when agreeing to this compromise on the basis of compensation. I understood that that was a compromise on the basis of the rent actually paid by the tenant. If it

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Claus 33:

LORD STANMORE

The Amendments in my name are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 30, line 9, after ("sections") insert ("eleven") Page 30, line 11, after ("sections") insert ("ten").—(Lord Stanmore.)

had not been so, I should not have understood it in that way, and certainly I could not have agreed to it. I think at this stage to alter what was an understanding come to between the Government and your Lordships some time ago on another clause would be unfair to the Government, and I hope it will not be sanctioned by your Lordships.

On Question, whether the proposed new subsection be here inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, M.	Harris, L. [Teller.]	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Berwick, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Denman, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) [Teller.]	Strachie, L.
Forester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Stanhope, E.	Crawshaw, L.
	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Deramore, L.
	Westmeath, E.	Desborough, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D.		Dynevor, L.
Bath, M.	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Camden, M.		Faringdon, L.
Exeter, M.	Hood, V.	Forbes, L.
Linlithgow, M.	Milner, V.	Hastings, L.
Salisbury, M.		Hylton, L.
	Abinger, L.	Lamington, L.
Abingdon, E.	Addington, L.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Bradford, E.	Ampthill, L.	Meston, L.
Caithness, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Methuen, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Balfour, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Blythswood, L.	Ranksborough, L.
	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Rathereedan, L.
Forteseue, E.		Redesdale, L.
Innes, E.(D. Roxburghe.)	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Riddell, L.
Jersey, E.	Clinton, L.	St. Levan, L.
Lucan, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Sandys, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Sempill, L.
Morton, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Selborne, E.	Cozens-Hardy, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new subsection (3):— (3) Notwithstanding anything in section eight of this Act, the compensation (if any) payable for disturbance on the termination of any tenancy under a lease entered into before the passing of this Act shall be such as would have been payable under section ten of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed. The noble Lord said: My sole object is to preserve existing bargains and not have them broken.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 20, at end, insert the said new subsection (3).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD STANMORE

The existing provisions relating to compensation for disturbance were made to apply to tenancies under leases current at the passing of the Act of 1908, although such compensation was then introduced for the first time. It seems difficult to justify a different policy in a Bill which extends the 1908 provisions and particularly difficult to justify such a policy for Scotland only.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STANMORE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert— and in the application of subsection (6) of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance the expression 'rent' means the rent after deduction of such an amount as the arbiter, failing agreement, may find to be equivalent to the amount (if any) annually payable by the landlord in respect of the holding by way of—

1. (a) any public rates, taxes, or assessments which in England are by law a charge on the occupiers of lands; or
2. (b) any public rates or taxes or other public burdens the like whereof are not chargeable on lands in England.

The noble Lord said: The reason for introducing this Amendment is that in Scotland the owner of land pays certain rates which, in England, are paid by the occupier, with the result that, other things being equal, the gross rent of a farm in Scotland is larger than that of a similar farm in England, and this has already been recognised in legislation. If compensation under this Bill is to be measured by the gross rent, it is only equitable that there should be some deduction in respect of rates, etc. There were several Amendments to a similar effect on the Paper in Committee stage of this Bill, but these were dropped consequential on an Amendment which removed the word "rents" from the compensation clause. However, under the Amendment which has been carried—Lord Lee's Amendment—and which restores rent to the compensation provision, it has become necessary to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 23, at end insert: ("and in the application of subsection (6) of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance the expression 'rent' means the rent after deduction of such an amount as the arbiter, failing agreement, may find to be equivalent to the amount (if any) annually payable by the landlord in respect of the holding by way of—

1. (a) any public rates, taxes, or assessments which in England are by law a charge on the occupiers of lands; or
2. (b) any public rates or taxes or other public burdens the like whereof are not chargeable on lands in England.—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 23, at end insert the following new subsection: ("(4) In the application of subsection (11) of section ten of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance there shall be inserted after word 'amenity' the following words 'or 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'.").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD STANMORE

I am prepared to agree to this Amendment if my noble friend will accept slightly different wording. The words I suggest are these: "(4) In subsection (11) of the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance there shall be inserted after the word 'amenity' the words 'or 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'"; and after the words "any such land" there shall be inserted the words "or grass park."

LORD SALTOUN

I beg to move the Amendment in that form.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Amendment (as amended) agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, after "any such land" insert "or grass park."—(Lord Saltoun.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsection— (7) For paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section eighteen of the Act of 1908 there shall be substituted the following paragraph: (a) in the case of leases for three years and upwards, and tenancies held on tacit relocation, not less than one year nor more than two years before the termination of the lease or tenancy.

The noble Duke said: When this Bill was in Committee in another place the notice for tenancies was for one year or six months. I think the idea was that in certain cases one year was far too long. But there is a view that six months is far too short for the lettings of large places. It is the general practice in Scotland that farms are advertised to be let for about the month of August. I am afraid that if the six months remain for the large farms it will cause a great deal of inconvenience to landlords and tenants and will be injurious to production. If a farmer was looking for a farm and got notice that the six months would be at Martinmas or November, it would be almost impossible for him to obtain another suitable farm. Similarly, if a landlord had at that time to obtain another tenant there might not be a sufficient number of good tenants available. It is a practical question. No principle is involved. I feel very strongly that there is to be this six months' notice for large farms it will be very injurious to the interest of the good landlord and the good tenant and also for production generally. It may be said: "Why not go on the past?" I think your Lordships will realise that although in the past it has been the general custom for all farms and large holdings in Scotland to have leases, I hope your Lordships will realise that is not likely to be the case in the future. It will probably be yearly tenancies. I see very grave dangers if there is only six months' notice and I think my Amendment meets the difficulty because it provides for twelve months' notice for larger holdings, whereas the smaller ones still remain at six months. It is an Amendment of considerable importance and I hope my noble friend will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD STANMORE

At an early stage of the Bill in another place tacit relocation was dealt with and made subject to one year's notice. It was proposed at the same time to extend the present Scottish period from six months to twelve months. But even before Clause 11 was omitted this point had been reconsidered and the Scottish clause amended so as to leave the six months standing. This was because so far as could be ascertained the existing law was generally considered to be the most convenient. There has not been hitherto any representations to the contrary, and if in the future only six months' notice is more frequently given than in the past that will necessarily mean that more farms will be vacant and more farmers in search of new farms for the nearer date. For these reasons I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think it is a great blot on the Bill if this provision stands. I am perfectly certain it will be very much against the interests of agriculture. I do not want at this late hour to insist, but I do not think the Government are wise in taking this course.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I entirely agree with the noble Duke. The Scottish part of this Bill has been discussed night after night between eleven and twelve, and we cannot get justice because there are not enough members here to make it worth while dividing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANMORE

I have two drafting Amendments in this clause.

Amendments moved— Page 30, line 40, leave out from ("the") to end of line 1 on page 31 and insert ("sections of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance and amendment of law as to improvements for the words a county borough'"). Page 31, line 26, leave out ("section nineteen of this Act") and insert ("the section of this Act relating to constitution of panel of arbitrators and provision as to arbitrators remuneration").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out Clause 34. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the decision in Committee that the Bill should not apply to Ireland. The Third Schedule of the Act of 1917 only applies to Ireland.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 33, leave out Clause 34.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 35, insert as a new clause:

"Application of Act to Ireland.

35. This Act shall not apply to Ireland.") (Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35:

Commencement, repeal, and short title.

(3) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule:

Provided that (without prejudice to the general application of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, with regard to the effect of repeals) this repeal shall not prejudice or affect—

1. (a) the operation of any notice served, or order made, before the commencement of this Act under the powers conferred by Part IV. of the Act of 1917, or the powers continued in operation by subsection (3) of section eleven of the Act of 1917 as amended by the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918; or

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "as amended by the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918." The noble Duke said: I see in the Second Schedule the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918, is repealed. It looks as if this were a mistake.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 19, leave out ("as amended by the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am advised that these words should stand.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had a manuscript Amendment, in the first paragraph of the Schedule, after "inserted," to insert "in the case of tenancies entered upon after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty." The noble Duke said: The object is to prevent these provisions in the Schedule being retrospective.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If the noble Duke would make a slight alteration, and move it in the form "and the tenancy was entered upon after the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty," I would accept it.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I agree.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, after ("tenancy") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after the Amendment last made, to insert: "and in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word 'improvement' there shall be inserted 'whether expressly stated in the contract of tenancy to be so given or allowed or not'".

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, after the Amendment last inserted, to insert the said words.—(The Duck of Buccleuch.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out—

Section sixteen …

After the words "Act shall" there shall be inserted the words "where the charge is obtained by the landlord."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments made in another place.

Amendment moved— Page 33, lines 20 and 21, insert the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 40, at end insert:

MINOR AMENDMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) ACT, 1919.
Enactment to be Amended.	Nature of Amendment.
Section one ….	After ("shall") insert ("if the contract for sale is made by "the person by whom the notice to quit was given").

—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to insert—

MINOR AMENDMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) ACT, 1919.
Enactment to be Amended.	Notice of Amendment.
Section 1 ….	After the word ("shall") where it first occurs insert ("if the contract for sale is made by or on behalf of the person by whom the notice to quit was given")

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 9, leave out ("section four").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANMORE

My Amendments are drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 22, in the third column leave out ("section four") Page 34, line 29, in the third column, leave out from ("holding") to the end of line 33.—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, towards the end of the third column [Extent of Repeal], to leave out the words "save as respects Ireland." The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the decision of your Lordships' House.

Amendment moved— Page 34, lines 41 and 42 leave out ("save as respects Ireland").—?(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which is purely consequential on your Lordships having excluded Ireland from the operation of the Bill. We do not want Irish farmers deprived of the benefits which the Act of 1917 gives them. But perhaps the words which I shall propose may not meet the case. If the Lord Chancellor can give us any advice we shall be grateful.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Earl will let us have his Amendment I will consider it with my noble friend Lord Lee before to-morrow.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As the Bill does not apply to Ireland in any shape or form the Amendment that the noble Earl has foreshadowed is unnecessary.