Lords Sitting of 23 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock noon, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause—
3. A list of the goods prohibited under this Act shall from time to time be laid on the Table of each House of Parliament for thirty days during the sitting of the House. If within this period an Address to the Crown shall be passed by either House praying that any article shall be removed from the list, such article shall thereupon cease to be prohibited.
The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will recollect that in the course of the discussion in Committee yesterday a good deal of conversation took place as to the method under which this Bill should be enforced. I spoke from the point of view of a supporter of the Bill, but it was very difficult to gather from the statements then made how it was proposed to work the Bill. It transpired in the course of the discussion that there was no list in existence of the articles which would be prohibited under the operation of the Bill, and that His Majesty's subjects had no means of knowing what were and what were not included amongst the prohibited articles.
It appeared that all that was known was that goods included in the categories of synthetic organic dyestuffs, colours, and colouring matters, and of organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of any dyestuffs, colours, or colouring matters would be prohibited. From the moment that this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, obtains the Royal Assent all those things would be ipso facto prohibited—that is to say, it would be a breach of the law to introduce any of them. When some of your Lordships put the question to the Government, "What are these matters that are prohibited?" the Government
888
said they had not the slightest conception beyond the definition which stood in the clause; so that none of His Majesty's subjects will know in the least what is and what is not prohibited until their goods are confiscated or at any rate temporarily taken possession of. Then it is open to them to proceed in the Courts to show that the Government have acted ultra vires. That is the only remedy which the subject has, and the only power of ascertaining what is prohibited.
Efforts were made by certain of your Lordships to arrive at a definition, or rather to arrrive at a limitation, of the list. We thought—and rightly thought, I think—that this was a very difficult thing to do. The Government view was that it might produce very great difficulty in working the Bill, and for my own part I did not support those efforts; in fact, I voted against them. Still the difficulty remains. I therefore ventured to suggest to the Government—and I have now put it upon the Paper—that a clause should be introduced into the Bill providing that a list of the prohibited articles should be laid before Parliament and should be open to question there. It seemed to me to be a procedure that was consecrated by innumerable precedents, and that it would not interfere in the least with the operation of the Bill if the clause were properly drafted.
As I have drafted the clause, the Act comes into operation to the full extent the moment the Royal Assent is given and no kind of limitation or interference with the full discretion of the Government in the matter is involved; but when they have decided what is prohibited and what is not they should then lay the list, upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament so that the public should know. Then, of course, if either House disagreed with an article that was included the will of Parliament should prevail and that particular article should cease to be prohibited. That is a perfectly clear course of procedure. If the Government desire to alter the drafting of my poor effort I shall at once fall in with their views, but that is a small matter.
This Bill is a new departure on a very difficult subject. It deals with the policy of the Government to protect "key" industries. I do not pretend that the circumstances attaching to this particular Bill are altogether satisfactory, but we and the majority of your Lordships thought that the Government deserved to be supported

889
in their efforts to carry out the policy which they themselves had announced with the general assent of the country and of your Lordships' House. Therefore in this first example of the fulfilment of that policy your Lordships have supported the Government. But let the Government reflect that they are setting a precedent of a very grave character. Dyestuffs are not going to be the only key industry. I hope that the list of these key industries will be a relatively small one—all of us do; and I presume that in every case the Bill will be drawn in the same form. So that what will be enacted is that a perfectly unknown number of things will be prohibited which go to the manufacture in any form, either directly or indirectly, of the articles which it is sought to protect. That will embrace, when you come to deal with all key industries, an enormous variety of subjects—in fact, no one will know what is prohibited and what is not. The whole of industry will be conducted under the menace of a possible interference by a Government official with the ordinary practices of trade, without any knowledge beforehand as to what is going to be prohibited and what is not.
That is a most tremendous departure, which I am sure your Lordships would not desire to sanction. Therefore I think it is a very moderate course that we should ask that at any rate the House of Commons and the House of Lords should be made acquainted with the special articles which under the powers that the Government are seeking, it is proposed to prohibit, and that the House of Commons and the House of Lords should in their discretion have some control over those articles by being invested with the power of striking out of the list any particular article. That appears to be an extremely moderate proposal, and I earnestly urge upon the Government not to spoil their policy of protecting key industries by introducing a procedure which will undoubtedly be represented out of doors as highly tyrannical, and will prejudice to a very great extent the ultimate success of the policy. When they come to consider the precedent they are setting they will do well, I am quite sure, to approach the matter with caution. I understand from this morning's papers that the Government intend to deal with the bigger subjects of key industries next session, so that the opportunity is still open to them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I am going to leave the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to reply to the special point which has been raised by the noble Marquess, and I hope we may be able to satisfy him with regard to it. But the noble Marquess has made a speech which I think needs a word of reply on more general grounds. It was a speech calculated to cause alarm, which I think is perfectly needless, and possibly to prejudice a policy which I believe finds favour with him and with most of your Lordships in principle.
This is, as he says, a new departure in so far as it is an attempt to help the building up of a key industry in this country. All interferences with trade are open to great objection; they are also open to being, by misrepresentation, made to appear very much more serious and more difficult than they are. It is always assumed if there is any restriction on trade it is some ignorant, unsympathetic Government official who is going to exercise it. I want to call your Lordships' attention to this—not for the credit of the Government, but for the sake of a policy and in the interests of the country—that in this Bill every possible precaution has been taken that any interference with trade should be made, not only with the knowledge of, but by the very people interested in the trade. That is the very key of our whole policy. We do not believe that this measure is looked upon with any alarm by the people who are principally interested in the matter, whether they are the dye users or the dye producers. They know perfectly well that the Government would be very helpless in a matter of this kind unless it had the aid and the support of the people actually interested. And the very key note of our policy, and the very basis of the whole thing is the provision which is made that all important acts under this Bill should be carried out by a Committee which is representative of the interested parties, and in which the Government is represented merely to hold the balance fairly, and also in order to be able to put the most expert chemists we can find on to that Committee.
I do not believe that the terrible things with which we are always threatened are going to happen. I do not know myself,

891
but from the best opinion that I can obtain it seems very likely that this Bill will, with the good will of the interested parties, work very smoothly. And surely there is nothing that Parliament can do to protect people in this case unless the people themselves appeal to Parliament for their support. I can assure the noble Marquess that when he gets his list it will not be of the slightest use to anybody who is not in the trade. Nor is this prohibition going to affect any ordinary mortal at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will understand that there are a great number of these things included in the definition which are not only used for dyestuffs but for all sorts of other purposes.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I quite understand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not thinking merely of the difficulty of the dyestuffs people, but of other people.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I quite understand that. The noble Viscount (Lord Peel) will explain more particularly. My point is that we cannot do anything: our having before us the list of a hundred things, not one of which is intelligible to any of us, will not enable us to protect anybody. The object of laying them before this House is that the House may strike out some of them. If you saw the list you would see how ridiculous that proposal was. This is a highly specialised trade; it is conducted through a limited number of channels. The people who are bringing these things into the country know perfectly well when a thing comes within the category of the Bill and when it does not, and if there is any doubt about a particular article there will be no difficulty for them to find out. The idea that anybody is going to be suddenly pounced upon for importing something into this country contrary to the law when he did not know it is, as far as this matter is concerned, not a practical difficulty at all. However, I do not want to go into that detail. It is the business of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and not mine. But I want most particularly to protest against the kind of prejudice which is always excited against legislation of this character on the ground that it is going to lead to bureaucratic interference, tyranny, and all the rest of
892
it. There is written in every line of this Bill the desire and the determination of the Government to be guided in this matter by experts, and to leave the working of the Bill as far as possible in the hands of representatives of the trades which are directly interested.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I did not come down to the House with any intention of taking part in this debate, but I must say that the request made in this Amendment is extremely moderate and extremely wise. We heard what the noble Lord had to say on the technical question as to whether it would be an undue interference with discretion if it is carried, but I wish to say a word or two on the issues dealt with by the noble Viscount who spoke last. I think that the policy of safeguarding the industries has absolutely general assent. On the other hand, if you are going to keep that general assent you must give the fullest information to show that you are not unduly interfering with what I shall call the traditional trade policy of the country.
There is no doubt that, in principle, the safeguarding of these industries tends to raise abstract questions of fiscal policy. I suppose no one present has suffered more than I have from adherence to a Free Trade policy, but I am a strong supporter of anything—I do not care whether it interferes with abstract principle or not—which is for the national interest and national safety. My view is that an abstract principle is an extremely good servant, but a very bad master. I quite agree that Free Trade is and ought to continue to be the ruling policy of this country, but if it is proved that a complete adherence to it in all respects tends to make it possible for other countries to take undue advantage of us, then I think we must revise our policy. But let it be carefully done, so as to make sure that under the guise of this action we are not establishing a principle which would have a had effect.
I think it is the interest of the Government to enable the working of these provisions to be carried out with as little friction as possible. If that is agreed to it is perfectly obvious that the right way to allay apprehension is to give the fullest information. Most undoubtedly some of the extremer advocates of what used to be called the Tariff Reform policy have taken advantage of the necessity for

893
safeguarding key industries to throw a certain amount of discredit upon the Free Trade policy of the country. In the Report of our Committee on Commercial Industrial Policy after the War I think we have given full grounds for saying that there are things which require to be done. Here is the first instance in a practical way coming before Parliament. Do not let us do anything which will prejudice the policy which I believe to be for the national interest or which will cause the fear that under the guise of proposing to protect key industries we are going too far in the direction of some theoretical protection. Speaking from such knowledge as I have I very strongly advise the Government, if it is at all possible, to accept this Amendment.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I certainly do not propose to quarrel—I am not so presumptuous—with the drafting of any Amendment presented to your Lordships by the noble Marquess opposite, but I hope I may be able to satisfy him, though perhaps not in precisely the form that he desires. There are some difficulties, that I think he will feel rather forcibly, which would occur if this Amendment were accepted in the proposed form.
There are two very strong objections to this particular Amendment. First of all, it is proposed that if an Address is passed by either House praying that certain articles should be removed from the list such articles shall thereupon cease to be prohibited. Therefore, after a Bill has been passed by both Houses, it would be possible for either House to make it very largely nugatory by asserting that certain articles which had been prohibited should be brought in. That is to say, the House of Commons might render your efforts nugatory, and you might pay the same compliment to the House of Commons I submit further that if these enormous lists should be laid on the Table your Lordships would really depart from your legislative and critical functions and would become an administrative body.
These matters of intricate administration involve some hundreds, nay thousands, of different dyes and a great many more names, because the same dye is often imported under different trade names, and I suggest respectfully that you would be dealing with a matter which is much better left to the Executive. Indeed, if your Lordships are going to deal with these
894
specific dyes I think it would be necessary that a number of competent chemists should be elevated to the Peerage and added to your Lordships' House. Though I know the many-sided ability which resides in so many of your Lordships, I doubt if the great body of this House—I say it with all respect—is competent to deal with these tremendously difficult and numerous and complicated organic compounds. I have a list here. Some of the names I am certainly unable to pronounce, and therefore I am not sure that I could make it clear to your Lordships if I read them out. Some of them are about twenty-five syllables in length. I will give you one. Dimethylamidohydroxybenzoylbenzoic acid. There are hundreds and thousands of them. Here is another very nice one, Tetramethyldiamidobenzophenonechloride. I
hope your Lordships will consider that to deal with these prodigious compounds is hardly suitable for a legislative House.
A real difficulty has been raised by the noble Marquess. He says, "You say that by licence certain things shall be imported and everything else is excluded under this Bill. Certain people may want to know what is excluded, although they may know what is included." We reply that it is very well known in the trade. The noble Marquess then says, "But there are certain people not in the trade who require some of these particular chemical articles and use them for other purposes, and also for dyes; therefore it is necessary that something should be done." I reply on the general difficulty of providing this list. It is pointed out that there must be some sort of list because, after all, the Customs have to deal with it and if the Customs could be entrusted with it, why should not the general public know it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or at any rate your Lordships.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Your Lordships and those who deal with it should know it. I thought there was a good deal of force in that contention, and I am authorised by the Board of Trade to make a statement on that subject, which I hope will satisfy your Lordships that as much as can be done is done to make it quite clear to the public and those engaged in the trade. I may say first of all that the general licences containing all the lists of those things which can be imported freely will be published. It is impossible to give a definite

895
list, and there are objections to issuing a list purporting to be comprehensive; nevertheless, after consultation with the President of the Board of Trade I am prepared to give an undertaking (a) that the Board of Trade will issue at the earliest possible date, after consultation with the Committee, as detailed a statement as practicable of the kinds of products which are covered by the prohibition, and will issue from time to time such amendment, thereto as may be found necessary—I may say in this connection that there are a good many of these articles issued under different trade names, and of course as soon as a list is published the gentlemen in Germany who are interested will invent new names and the lists will have to be altered a good deal—and (b) that the Board of Trade will similarly issue lists of products covered by the prohibition which may be imported under general licence. So that I think under either list, both prohibited list and licensed list, the public and importers and those connected with the industry will know really very well what they may import and what they may not. I trust that this will meet the very strong objections which were raised by the noble Marquess, and I hope therefore that he may see his way to withdraw his Amendment, perhaps for reasons that I have suggested, and for other reasons which may commend themselves to him.
May I be allowed to add one word on the point raised yesterday by Lord Crewe, although it is not relevant to this Amendment. Lord Crewe raised a point that "organic intermediates" was not sufficiently descriptive, and might apply to other matters besides the derivatives of coal tar. Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate Lord Crewe upon discovering a point which all the chemists in another place, throughout the long debates, both in Committee and on report, never alluded to. I had said, and I am told that I was correct in stating, that the term "organic intermediates" was limited to coal tar derivatives, and I should like to give the noble Marquess this definite statement. I am advised that I was correct in stating that the term "organic intermediates" used in the manufacture of dyestuffs is clearly understood throughout the chemical manufacturing industry and is confined to derivatives of coal tar. I am therefore of opinion that the correct form of words has been used. That statement will, perhaps, satisfy the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships will permit me to thank the two noble Viscounts for their very courteous reception of my Amendment. I wish to say, with reference to the last point, that I am quite sure the noble Viscount's observations will be read by Lord Crewe, although of course I do not act in any way for him, but he did ask me to mention the matter and I am afraid that I forgot. As regards the actual proposal, although it does not go so far as I suggested to your Lordships I feel that it would be only proper for me to accept the suggestion made by the Government. It does do the most part of what I wanted, because it indicates to the public exactly how the situation stands so far as the Government can do so; and the intervention of Parliament, although I value that, is not the most important part of the proposal. I may say that I agree to this all the more readily because, if this subject is going to be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner in the course of next year or perhaps the year after, all these questions will have to be reconsidered, and possibly we shall then arrive at a more complete safeguard than it has been possible for the noble Viscount to arrange in these last days of the session.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD CAWLEY: Before the Question is put, I should like to ask Lord Milner whether he has ascertained the legal opinion upon the Amendment which I moved yesterday. It was to add the words "and not being members of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited." When I moved it the noble Viscount said it was otiose, because the three other persons are not to be directly concerned. I should like also to remark that the noble Viscount is in error in what he said just now, in supposing that this measure is not looked upon with very great apprehension by those who are possibly most concerned. I can assure him, from very good knowledge of Lancashire, that he is quite mistaken.
This Bill is looked upon with the utmost apprehension, and to prove that I may say that the only users of dyestuffs who are manufacturers and merchants of calico as well as dyers and printers oppose this measure as far as their powers will enable

897
them to do so. I allude to the Calico Printers' Association. All the other users are merely men who dye or print for hire. They do not have anything to do with calico beyond manipulating the cloth as they are told to, for which they get paid just as any other servant gets paid for what he does. Therefore I think the fact that the Calico Printers' Association have the utmost apprehension of this measure shows that Lord Milner is misinformed in making the assertion which he did. Before this Bill passes I should like to express another protest against the relentless way in which a measure which affects the greatest export trade in the country has been pushed through Parliament at the fag end of the session. I do not think it is a right thing to do when the greatest export industry of the country may be very seriously prejudiced by a measure of this sort.
I should like to give notice that next session I will move that a Committee be set up to inquire into the circumstances under which—

(1) The Board of Trade allowed a company which they had been instrumental in forming, which was limited as to dividend, and which had admittedly made great progress towards the formation of a national dye industry, to be amalgamated with Messrs. Levinstein and Company, an ordinary joint stock company trading for profit.

(2) Under which the Board of Trade sold the factory and plant for producing synthetic indigo formerly belonging to Messrs. Meister Lucius and Company at Elsmere Port to Messrs. Levinstein for £75,000.

(3) Whether Messrs. Levinstein immediately sold the recipe and process for the manufacture of synthetic indigo to an American firm for £250,000.

(4) The circumstances under which the Government, without the consent of Parliament, have invested £1,700,000 in a public joint stock company unlimited in regard to profit.

I have nothing more to say, but I hope that when I move for this Committee next session it will be granted.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this Bill is a short measure to modify the Unemployment Act which your Lordships passed in the month of August this year. Under Section 44 of that Act no persons can obtain insurance benefit unless they have been employed during four weeks and have paid four weeks' contributions. That Act came into force on November 8 last, and those who were brought into insurance by that Act and who could not qualify since that date, November 8, are not eligible for benefit. It was found that owing to the depression in trade there were a great number of people out of employment who could not get unemployment benefit because they had not been employed since November 8. It is therefore proposed to put back the date of this Bill to July 4 last. None of those who are brought into insurance by the new Act could have paid their contributions between July 4 and November 8. Therefore all that is required by the Act is evidence of engagement. The selection of the date, July 4, has been made because that is the date of the issue of the half-yearly health insurance card. The stamps on the cards will be accepted as evidence of engagement.
In addition to the July 4 provision there is another provision. It has been found that there are some deserving of unemployment benefit who yet have been unable, through no fault of their own, to qualify for it between July 4 and the present date. Therefore a provision has been inserted in the Bill which gives an opportunity to those who have been employed in one of the trades now covered during ten separate weeks of the current year to become eligible for unemployment benefit. The measure, as your Lordships will see, is a purely temporary one, and comes to an end on March 31, 1921. The limitation to March 31 was put in on account of the fact that the donations now granted to ex-Service men are limited to that date. It will also be observed that the proviso is qualified by the fact that it is not to apply to any person entitled to receive out-of-work donation—that is to say, it does not apply to ex-Service men in receipt of that donation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: Can the noble Earl say whether any estimate has been made of the amount that this Bill will cost?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that matter was dealt with in the House of Commons by the Minister of Labour, but I will let my noble friend know later if possible.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and, Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move that this Report be now received, and in a doing so I am able to tell my noble friend Lord Askwith that it is very difficult to estimate the cost of this Bill. It may possibly be £1,000,000, but there will be no charge upon the Treasury, as the money will come out of the Unemployment Fund.
Moved, That the Report be now received. —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3ª, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Your Lordships are no doubt aware that the Agriculture Bill has not yet passed through the House of Commons, as had been hoped. The House is still sitting, and though many of the Amendments made by your Lordships have been accepted, it is contemplated that the sitting will continue for some time to come. At the end of the sitting the Amendments have to be printed, and it is expected that a couple of hours must elapse between the Bill leaving the House of Commons and its reaching your Lordships for effective consideration. The question that I desire now to put to your Lordships' House as a whole is as to the most convenient hour for us to reassemble in order to deal with that Bill. It is, of course, possible that the Bill might be concluded more quickly than those in charge of it in the House of Commons anti-
900
cipate. I must, however, pay attention to their view, and in the opinion of the Government in the House of Commons the Bill will probably not pass before four or five or possibly six o'clock this afternoon. Supposing it were to pass at four o'clock, your Lordships might take the Bill here at six o'clock. On the other hand, if it does go on as late as five or six o'clock, it seems to me inadvisable to invite your Lordships to take it before dinner. Under those conditions I would suggest that your Lordships should meet after dinner, at nine o'clock to-night, and take the Amendments. I am extremely sorry, my Lords, that I cannot give any more definite guidance, and I therefore invite the opinion of your Lordships on the subject. My own view is that nine o'clock would probably be the most convenient hour; at any rate, that is an hour at which we can reasonably be certain of having the Bill and the Amendments before us. But should your Lordships desire to meet at an earlier and a speculative hour, say six o'clock, we should of course be entirely at the disposal of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not say that this announcement by His Majesty's Government has taken most of us by surprise. We did not realise that the Bill was going to take so long in another place. But undoubtedly the Bill is a very difficult one, and it is not for us to criticise the method of procedure which prevails in the House of Commons. The noble Earl has suggested to us that we should meet at nine o'clock to-night, but he held out a sort of faint hope that it might possibly happen that the Bill could be dealt with a little earlier than that—namely, at six o'clock. He rightly excluded eight o'clock, which I should think most of your Lordships consider an inconvenient hour for discussion. He said that therefore it lay between six o'clock and nine o'clock. I do not know what your Lordships think, but I should like to take the chance of getting it through at six o'clock.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not suppose that your Lordships have very much to do in London at this time of the year, and you would not mind coming down to the House at six o'clock.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree entirely with my noble friend as to the immense difficulty in which your Lordships would be placed. I was merely speaking as to the difference between six o'clock and nine o'clock.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Let it be six o'clock.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend agrees. It might possibly facilitate his own private arrangements if we sat at six o'clock, and of course he is not singular in that respect. I therefore hope that the Government will agree that your Lordships should reassemble at six o'clock in the hope that we may be able to deal with the Bill then. Of course, we do not know the condition in which the Bill will reach us. We are well aware that in many respects the House of Commons have seen fit to agree with your Lordships' opinions on this Bill, but not with all, as far as we know, and it may easily be that very difficult questions may arise when the Bill comes back for consideration which might take a little time to deal with and might very easily involve sending the Bill back to the House of Commons. I hope that your Lordships will not think, when we separate now, that the reassembling will be merely a form.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That I am sure would only end in the views of your Lordships being entirely misconceived, and the legitimate influence of your Lordships on legislation not having its due effect. I would therefore very respectfully impress upon your Lordships that it is absolutely necessary, if we are effectually to deal with this Bill, that there should be a full attendance of your Lordships—I say it with all the diffidence necessary—at six o'clock, and also at nine o'clock if we are compelled to put off our deliberations until then. Subject to that, speaking for myself, I think it would be wise that we should reassemble at six o'clock and do our best to deal with the Bill, and then at nine o'clock if that be necessary.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think from the indications of the House that the proposal made by Lord Salisbury is acceptable—namely, that we should now suspend the sitting and reassemble at six o'clock,
902
and if necessary resume at nine o'clock. I may say that my noble colleagues will take precautions to inform all the political clubs when we come here at six o'clock what the prospects are, in order that those of your Lordships who may be in the clubs or accessible to them will be able to get information. The disagreements, we hope, will be very few. So far as the House of Commons have progressed up till now, I gather that your Lordships' views have been accepted almost entirely, and if we may be allowed a certain latitude in dealing with manuscript Amendments of a drafting and non-important character I hope we shall be able to get through our business without undue delay.
[The sitting was suspended shortly before one o'clock and resumed at six o'clock.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Bill read 3ª, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Agriculture Bill, as your Lordships are aware, has not yet reached this House from another place. It is contemplated that the Bill may be passed within twenty minutes or half an hour. As Amendments are reaching this House they are being transmitted to the printer, but I think it would be very optimistic to assume that we could have the Amendments in print before 7.30 or perhaps later. In those conditions it is for your Lordships to settle whether it would not be convenient to suspend the sitting until 9 o'clock.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There appears to be a strong wish, and one which is very comprehensible, on the part of many of your Lordships not to put off the discussion of these Amendments to a later moment than is absolutely essential. I understand from the noble Earl that the Commons Amendments are being printed as they come in; therefore I suppose a good many are already in print.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In process of being printed, but not yet available for your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether we could get the great body of them at comparatively brief notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I might reply to the noble Marquess. I made inquiries about this because I thought that your Lordships might wish to know. The earliest batch of printed Amendments is promised for about 7.15, but I think your Lordships would be unwise to count upon precise punctuality; experience teaches me to utter that warning. I think we shall receive the earliest Amendments between 7.30 and 8 o'clock; I do not think I can be more sanguine than that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That leaves us the alternative of taking the Amendments at 9 o'clock, according to the noble Earl's suggestion, or taking them in manuscript. How many Amendments are there?
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): I am in the unfortunate position that I have been engaged in the Cabinet all the afternoon and up to this moment, and I have not seen those Amendments myself. They may be in manuscript but I have not seen them, and I am no more informed than your Lordships as to the later stages. I knew what the situation was up to the time I went to the Cabinet at four o'clock, but I have no idea what has happened since. I think it would be unfortunate if the Minister had to discuss the Amendments the moment he got them. It is possible that they may be in print by 7.30, but I presume that your Lordships would not wish to begin the discussion at that time. It would be more convenient, it seems to me, to have dinner first and begin the discussion at 9 o'clock, but I am most anxious, of course, to meet the convenience of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Were it quite certain that we should have the Commons Amendments at 7.30, your Lordships would probably prefer it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with the caution which is very appropriate to his high office, thinks it is very unlikely
904
that we shall get them much before eight o'clock, and I gather from certain indications that those who are in an even better position to judge than the Lord Chancellor agree with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think those who are in a better position to judge than I—and there certainly are such—would prefer that your Lordships should attempt to deal with the Commons Amendments as early as possible. Were it possible to have an interval between now and 7.30 and to begin then to deal with a few Amendments in manuscript, I think that would be a convenient course for your Lordships to take. We might be able to deal with a few manuscript Amendments, and then as the printed Amendments began to come in, as they might do shortly after that time, they could be dealt with in their turn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have a suggestion to make in regard to this matter. It is that we should dine at seven, and take the Amendments at eight o'clock.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I gather that that is the general view of the House.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past six o'clock, and resumed at eight o'clock.]

ROADS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they agree to certain Amendments made by the Lords to this Bill without amendment, and to certain other Amendments with Amendments; that they disagree to certain other Amendments but propose Amendments in lieu thereof, and they disagree to certain other Amendments, for which disagreement they assign reasons.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (208) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 6, line 22, leave out "in respect of an improvement."
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because, the Amendment will not alter the effect of the Bill.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am informed that this is pure surplusage of words. There is no point in it. I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That, this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is rather an extraordinary reason to give. If it had made any alteration I could understand the disagreement, but if it made no change what is the object of disagreeing?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am informed that where there are surplus words there is always a danger, particularly with arbitrators, that something may be read into words that is not intended to be there.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 10, lines 21 to 36, leave out subsection (15).
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendments to the Bill:—
Page 10, line 24, after ("executed") insert ("and are capable of being executed without prohibitive or unreasonable expense")
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("farm roads").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: These words were omitted from the Bill by your Lordships under a misapprehension. If you look at Clause 4 (1) (c) you will see that the occupier is required to execute the necessary works of maintenance. Then there will be no explanation of what these works of maintenance are unless this paragraph is re-inserted. It was cut out, I think, under a misapprehension that is was in some way mixed up with the Definition Clause. But we will deal with that when we come to it. Meanwhile, the words are essential here to make the Bill read, and the Commons have re-
906
inserted the words as they stood in the original Bill. In view of the suggestion made by some of your Lordships in the course of the previous debates the Commons have inserted, after "executed" in line 24, "and are capable of being executed without prohibitive or unreasonable expense." Further, in view of the representations which have been made to me by your Lordships, they have agreed to leave out "farm roads" to which exception was taken on the ground that in many cases they might extend such a long distance that the expense would be altogether unreasonable. I therefore move that this House does not insist on the Amendment and agrees to the Amendment proposed by the House of Commons to your Lordships' Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendments proposed by the House of Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Lord has stated what is exactly within my recollection. I moved the subsection out because I believe the words were redundant, and I am satisfied with the noble Lord's proposal to reinsert them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 8, page 12, line 24, at end insert:
(f) 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:
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Line 1, after ("notice") insert ("unreasonably")
Line 3, after ("execute") insert ("at the expense of the landlord").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Your Lordships will excuse me if I proceed leisurely because it is difficult to follow the Paper which has come into our hands, and there are numerous misprints in it. The next Amendment is in the wrong place. It is the Amendment shown on the Paper at the bottom of page 3—that is Clause 8, and not Clause 10, page 12, line 24, at the end insert the paragraph (f). That was the Amendment made by your Lordships, and the Commons propose to amend this by inserting, after "notice" in line 1, the word "unreasonably," and, after

907
"execute" in line 4, the words "at the expense of the landlord." With those alterations the Commons are prepared to agree to the Amendment. The insertion of the word "unreasonably" does not appear to affect the object which Lord Clinton had in view, and it was held by the Commons that if the landlord wishes for a written agreement he ought to pay for the cost of preparing it. It is hoped that your Lordships will see no objection to this, and I move that this House does agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if we do not follow very easily, because, as your Lordships have been informed by the Minister, this Amendment is printed in the wrong place in the Paper in our hands. I observe that the Commons propose to amend our Amendment. So far as the word "unreasonably" is concerned, I cannot say that I could call that in question, but I confess I rather shrink from the words "at the expense of the landlord," unless the noble Lord can explain to us a little more what the effect was. Your Lordships' Amendment said—
"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."
And the Commons propose that that operation should be carried out at the expense of the landlord. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain the effect of that.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is the case of a tenant who has been a tenant possibly for some long time on certain understood conditions and the landlord calls upon him to execute a formal agreement setting out the terms of the tenancy. It is initiated at the request of the landlord, and the Commons have suggested that in such circumstances the expense of drawing up the agreement shall be borne by the landlord who makes the proposal.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Is it not the fact that the tenant must have had an agreement if it had been executed? He must have signed it at some time or other
908
and must have it in his possession, or ought to have it.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think there are cases in some pActs of the country where agreements have never been made.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: It is the custom of the county of course; but I think it is a question for arbitration if there is no agreement.
LORD LAMINGTON: How would it apply to an ordinary lease? Would they not share the expenses of drawing up a lease?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It does not apply to leases. There is nothing on paper in this case.
LORD CLINTON: My Amendment was merely to provide for cases where, perhaps, owing to the passing of this Act leases would be necessary and where they have not hitherto been executed. There was a danger, perhaps, that some tenants would refuse to sign them in consequence of the provisions of this Act and it was thought well to put in these words. The only point under discussion is whether the landlord should pay the cost himself or whether he should do what is ordinarily the case—charge half the cost to the tenant. I really do not see why they should not pay half and half, but it is not a matter of any great importance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 14, line 20, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because compensation ought not to be withheld where a tenant has died more than three months before the notice to quit.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is the Amendment which is printed at the top of page 2 and is now in its proper place. This is the case where compensation is not payable and where the tenant with whom the contract was made has died within three months of the notice to quit. When this matter was before your Lordships it was proposed to strike out "three"

909
and insert "six," and it was held strongly in the Commons that six months was an excessive time to apply to this provision so they re-inserted the words "three months."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment proposed by the House of Commons to that Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is possible that six months may be too long, but I think my noble friend opposite entirely agreed when I pointed out to him that three months might be too short. Take the case of a man who might be on public service on the other side of the earth: how could he possibly send an answer in three months? I hope my noble friend will agree to some intermediate term.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not know whether your Lordships feel so strongly on this as to wish to send the Bill back on this account. I am very loth to make any alterations in this matter at all.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 15, line 11, at end insert:
("or
(g) where a written contract of tenancy has been entered into (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) for the letting by the landlord to the tenant of a holding which at the time of the creation of the tenancy was in the occupation of the landlord upon the express terms that if the landlord desires to resume that occupation before the expiration of a specified term not exceeding seven years the landlord should be entitled to give notice to quit without becoming liable to pay to the tenant any compensation for disturbance, and the landlord desires to resume occupation within the specified period, and such notice to quit has been given accordingly.")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out ("whether") and ("or after") in line 2.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is an Amendment in connection with which we had considerable discussion at a previous stage, and your Lordships will recall that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made a very strong case of the owner-occupier who bought a farm and died leaving a son who had still to be educated,
910
and the widow wanted to let the farm during the period of her son's education and then to resume occupation. It was my duty to resist that Amendment on the ground that if any exceptions were made it would be exceedingly difficult to prevent the provision being abused, because the whole principle underlying the Agricultural Holdings Act in this matter was to forbid contracting out. Of course the amount of land is limited and it is in a sense a monopoly, and the would-be tenant who is applying for a farm is not in a position in most cases to go elsewhere, but is obliged to accept the conditions which are put to him even though he dislikes them. The Commons took the same view, and were not prepared to accept the Amendment as it stood. They suggest an Amendment to the Amendment by leaving out "whether" and "or after" in line 2, and substituting the word "before." The effect of that would be that the cases for which Lord Selborne desired to provide would be exempted from the payment of compensation for disturbance where the arrangements were made before the Bill comes into force. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to accept this as a compromise. I venture to suggest it is a real compromise.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Does not that mean that the agreement could not be made at any time afterwards?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: On any new case.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: If it is right to make it before, it ought to be right to make it after.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Amendment as left by the Commons is wholly valueless. There are no such agreements in existence. I am afraid we have here come across a fundamental difference of opinion on which I feel very strongly indeed. The Government are quite unnecessarily and I think—if I might be allowed to say so—unjustly sacrificing the owner-occupier to the tenant farmer. Unless my prevision of the future is wholly wrong, neither the landowner of the old style who lived on rents and did not farm

911
his land, nor the tenant farmer who owned no land but rented land will a generation hence count for anything in the agriculture of this country. Owing to the processes in existence before this Bill they were both disappearing classes, but the effect of this Bill is going to hasten their disappearance. Twenty-five years hence the very bedrock and foundation stone of British agriculture will be the owner-occupier, large or small. In this transition period, as the Bill stands, the case may be extremely hard for the small owner-occupier. As I said before he may die while his son is still at school, and his widow wants to let her farm for a year or two till the son can take it up. This Amendment which the Commons have practically rejected was extremely carefully drawn. It applied only to the letting of land which at the moment it was let was in the occupation of the owner. It only applied to a tenancy created for a term
Resolved in the negative, and Commons Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 15, line 25, leave out ("twenty-eight days") and insert ("six weeks").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the period of twenty-eight days affords a sufficient time for the furnishing of the particulars by the landlord.
912
not greater than seven years, and in the terms of that tenancy the owner-occupier must have specifically stated his or her intention to resume possession, and the farmer taking the land knew perfectly well the conditions under which he was taking it, and would make his bargain accordingly. If this provision stands as the other House have left it, or as the clause would be if it were cut out altogether, you will in my opinion be inflicting a cruel injustice in many cases upon the most valuable class farming the land in this country. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Commons Amendment.
On Question, whether the Lords should agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Peel, V.

Lovat, L.

Lucan, E.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Onslow, E.

Atkinson, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dynevor, L.

Northumberland, D.

Powis, E.

Donington, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Selborne, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, L.

Ailsa, M.

Elphinstone, L.

Bath, M.

Chaplin, V.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Falmouth, V.

Faringdon, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hampden, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Exeter, M.

Hood, V.

Lamington, L.

Linlithgow, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Salisbury, M.

Avebury, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Balfour, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Albemarle, E.

Blythswood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Ancaster, E.

Clinton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

Cottesloe, L.

Sandys, L.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Southwark, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

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

Ilchester, E.

Decies, L.

Jersey, E.

Deramore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Sumner, L.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I move that the House do not insist on this Amendment. We had some discussion about it on a previous stage.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 15, line 39, after subsection (10), insert as a new subsection:
("() 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 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.")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it unnecessarily interferes with the right to claim arbitration as to rent.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I move that this House do not insist on this Amendment. Your Lordships will recall that at a previous stage the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, expressed the opinion that the Amendment was not necessary, but if pressed that he would not resist it. He added, however, some very good advice to the effect that when any unnecessary clause is inserted in a Bill it gives considerable employment to the legal profession, and possibly no benefit to anyone else: On this ground I hope your Lordships will not disagree with the decision of the Commons that it would be wise to omit the subsection, as it complicates, and to some extent abrogates, the right of the tenant.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 16, leave out lines 15 to 19.
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment would involve an additional charge on public funds. And the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: If your Lordships will look at the Commons Reason you will see that they say this Amendment would involve an additional charge on public funds, and they consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be sufficient. It places a charge on the naval, military or Air Force authorities, and in addition might apply also to certain landlords—private landlords who resume possession of allotment land for building or industrial purposes. But it has appa-
914
rently been taken as a breach of privilege in another place, and the Commons have refused to waive their privilege. I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a very remarkable decision of the House of Commons and the Government.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Of Mr. Speaker.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is quite possible for the House of Commons to waive their privilege if they please. What your Lordships tried to do was to protect these allotment holders when they were turned out primarily by certain of the Government Departments. It seems that if an allotment holder is turned out by an ordinary landowner he is to have compensation, but if he is turned out by one of the Government Departments he is to have no compensation. That is actually the decision which is offered to us. If you go on to the latter part of the proviso it says—
"or for building, mining, or other industria purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes."
There is no breach of privilege in that case. But possibly these allotment holders, who are very humble people—one would have thought that the House of Commons would have been specially carefully of their interests—are to be turned out without any compensation if the land is required for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads in connection with any of those purposes. I shall not ask your Lordships on the present occasion to enter into a controversy with the House of Commons on a question of privilege, but I desire to place it on record that if these people are ill-used it has not been done by the House of Lords.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would it not meet the noble Lord's objection about privilege if we re-inserted the Amendment without the last two lines "or for building, mining, or other purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with those purposes." Let it go

915
"if the land is required for naval, military or Air Force purposes," but not for the other purposes.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: It would appear that if you were to leave out the last part of the clause "for building, mining, or other industrial purposes" it would be very difficult for any landowners to let any land at all for allotment holding, because I think the omission of the clause would give compensation for what might be obtained from the allotment, and I imagine that the compensation would amount to at least £150 an acre.
LORD DYNEVOR: Quite apart from the question of the "naval, military or Air Force purposes" I am thoroughly in agreement with the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, because I think it is most important that for industrial purposes, for the making of roads, mining, and building, the allotments should be capable of being got hold of easily and quickly. Otherwise it means that in future no landlord can let for allotments any land near a town. We want land near a town to be let for allotments, but we want to be able to get hold of those allotments for building, mining and road-making at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, for the moment, putting aside the question of a Government Department, I hope that this proviso will be re-inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would make a brief observation on that point. I cannot think that your Lordships would deem it prudent to adopt this course, because you must face the circumstances under which we deal with matters in which Mr. Speaker has taken a decision which he is empowered by law to take. I have always refused when I have been asked to offer advice as to whether or not a particular Amendment was in violation of a rule which prevents this House interfering with proposals which involve additional charges on public funds, and I have refused for the simple reason that I did not think it consistent with the position which, for the moment, I occupy in this House, that I should give advice upon a technical or legal point which by Statute can be over-ruled by somebody else sitting elsewhere. It was as disagreeable to me as to any one sitting here and listening to me that this power, under circumstances with which we are all familiar, should have
916
been placed without appeal where it has been placed, but we must realise plainly the conditions under which, as the law stands, we must deal with the matter. I do not think your Lordships would be well advised to attempt to deal with a matter which the law has removed beyond our power.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 10, page 17, line 24, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("three months").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the period of six weeks is sufficient for the purpose of the paragraph in which these words occur.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This Amendment was moved by the noble Marquess opposite on the Third Reading and accepted by me.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Agreed.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I beg to move that we do not insist upon it.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 10, page 17, line 35, after ("or") insert
("() the workman does not cease to occupy the dwelling-house on the expiration of the notice to terminate his occupation thereof or on the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the date when the notice was given whichever is the later; or
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Line 4, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("two months").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The Commons are prepared to agree to this Amendment subject to the substitution of "two months" for "fourteen days." Your Lordships will recollect that the Amendment was moved in Committee by me, but at the time one of your Lordships, Lord Bledisloe I think, expressed the opinion that a longer period ought to have been inserted and that at least a month ought to elapse before a notice to quit a cottage took effect. It is true that several of your Lordships, including perhaps myself, expressed the opinion that whatever the period was it was not always possible to

917
give effect to it. Apparently, those representing the interests of Labour in the House of Commons took an exceedingly strong view on this point, and it received the approval of the entire House, including those who represent landlords more particularly. Indeed, I understand that it was a very prominent landlord member of the other place who moved to insert "two months" as being more generous treatment to the workman. In these circumstances I hope that we shall not insist.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and agree to the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was an Amendment put in by the Government in the House of Lords, and we leave it entirely to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 10, page 17, line 41, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 1 on page 18, and insert ("the compensation payable shall be such sum not exceeding ten pounds is").
The Commons propose to leave out the words inserted by the Lords and insert ("for the purpose of compensation a year's rent of the dwelling-house shall be deemed to be").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is an Amendment about which I feel in a somewhat difficult position, because it was I who proposed it to your Lordships in the course of the Third Reading, in an endeavour to meet certain objections which had been put forward. I must perhaps apologise for having made that offer, very hastily, in response to a suggestion. I was not prepared for the sort of reception that it received at the hands of those most affected, the representatives of the Labour Party in another place. They felt that an attempt was being made to differentiate between them and any one else and to say in effect, "Ten pounds is good enough for you," and great indignation was expressed, I understand, on the Labour benches by the fixing of this arbitrary figure. In view of that very strong feeling, whilst I did make myself responsible for the original proposal I hope your Lordships will not think it necessary to insist on your Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships are familiar with this point because although it was only inserted on Third Reading it was mentioned in the earlier stages. The point is that the compensation a labourer is to have when he is turned out of his cottage is the minimum value of fifty-two times the arbitrary rent which has been fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture where cottages are let rent free—namely, 3s. That is what it is fixed at and that is the effect of the Bill as it arrived in your Lordships' House originally.
I ventured to point out that was a very disadvantageous basis on which to place the compensation of the cottager, because the imaginary rent of 3s. which the Ministry of Agriculture has fixed as applying to cottages let rent free is liable to be changed, and indeed must be changed if any solution is ultimately to be found for the housing question in agricultural districts; because for so long as a cottage let rent free is counted as equivalent to 3s. in the emolument of the labourer, for so long the rent of cottages throughout that district will be depressed and will make it extremely difficult to work the housing policy. Therefore we urged upon the Government and upon the noble Lord himself—for he was already Minister of Agriculture at an earlier stage—that the 3s. was quite wrong and in face of the housing difficulty must be altered. He quite agreed with us. I do not say that he entered into an absolute pledge because I do not remember, though I do not think he did, but he said that he viewed our suggestion with great favour and I think he expressed the opinion that the 3s. limit must be altered, as, of course, it must.
The moment it is altered under the effect of this Bill the compensation which the farmer will have to pay to the labourer will not be fifty-two times 3s. but fifty-two times whatever may be the value at which the cottage may be fixed in lieu of wages. I may be 6s., or it may be 10 s. Supposing it is 10 s. that would raise the cottager's compensation to £26 when he was turned out. Your Lordships thought when the Bill was before us earlier this week that that was excessive, so in order to prevent that arising the Government, upon the suggestion of some of us, agreed to fix a maximum, so that the amount should in no case exceed £10, which we thought liberal allowance. That is considerably above fifty-two times 3s., but still it does

919
prevent an unlimited raising of the compensation and all the difficulties which must arise when the housing element in the question is dealt with. I do not know whether that point was brought before the House of Commons, not being present, but I cannot believe that if that had been brought before the House of Commons they would not have seen that some limit was necessary. You may say that £10 is an arbitrary limit. Any limit, of course, is arbitrary. We thought it erred on the right side, because it was considerably above fifty-two times 3s. at which the figure stands in the Bill at this moment.
Probably if the House of Commons had an opportunity of reconsidering it in that light they would see that we were only doing what was reasonable and that there was no desire whatever to oppress the labourer. Nothing is more absurd than to think that any of your Lordships desire to oppress the agricultural labourer. We are always, as everybody knows who has any acquaintance with English country life, on the very best terms with our labourers. There are sometimes differences between farmers and landlords, but they are not very frequent; and there are sometimes differences between farmers and labourers, which are rather more frequent; but hardly ever are there any differences between landlords and labourers. We are, on the whole, first rate friends. I do not believe for a moment that anybody will suspect us of desiring to oppress the agricultural labourer. What we did desire was to make a workmanlike Bill if we could. I should rather encourage the Government to let us insist upon this Amendment, as I believe the House of Commons would say it was just.
As to the other points, we have abandoned them entirely. I quite agree that in the last Amendment the drafting was so difficult that I am not surprised the House of Commons threw it out. I could not understand it myself. But this Amendment appears to be quite simple and straightforward, and I believe the House of Commons would agree to it.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am in a little doubt with regard to the reception it might receive at the hands of the House of Commons in view of the very strong line that was taken by those on the Labour benches in regard to it, which seemed to
920
excite the sympathy of all pActs of the House. But as I said just now, I feel I am peculiarly involved in this Amendment because I proposed it, though it is true without time for consideration. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that as it was obviously the intention of the clause at the time that it should be based upon a multiple of the stereotyped 3s. rent now universally adopted by the wages board, possibly your objections might be overcome if, in Clause 10, page 18, line 3, after "value" the words were inserted "not exceeding in any case 3s." That would have the effect of limiting the compensation, and I hope might possibly meet the noble Marquess's objections.
THE EARL OF SEEBORNE: Surely my noble friend is in error there, because if the House of Commons for the reasons that he states were so indignant at the insertion of £10 they would be still more indignant at fifty-two times 3s., which is less than £10.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is the equivalent of a year's rent, but there is the cost of removal, which if it exceeds a year's rent would be in addition to the £7 16 s.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you are satisfied, we are.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I should rather like to support the Minister in charge of this Bill on this matter. As I understand, the debate in another place really centred upon a question of principle. I think those who are in these cottages thought they were being put off with a lump sum which had no reference to principle at all, although it was bigger in fact than the sum they would have got. Therefore. I hope that it will be possible for the House to agree with the Minister.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put the question in this form: "That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment, and propose in lieu thereof that there be inserted after the word 'value' on page 18, at the beginning of line 3, the words 'not exceeding in any case three shillings.'"
On Question, Motion (as amended) agreed to.

LORD AMENDMENT.
Clause10, page 18, line 24, leave out from ("tenant") to the end of line 25, and insert ("such sum as the Board, committee, or subcommittee may direct in respect of any expenses incurred by him in appearing before them").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out ("Board").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is a drafting Amendment entirely.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 18, line 26, leave out Clause 11.
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendments to the Bill:
Clause 11, page 18, line 26, after ("tenancy") insert ("of a holding".)
Clause 11, page 18, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) This section shall not apply to any tenancy granted or agreed to be granted before the commencement of this Act").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This relates to the omission of Clause 11. We had considerable discussion with regard to this question of the leasing clause, and in the course of it there was considerable difference of opinion amongst your Lordships, and on eventually going to a Division the difference of opinion was found to be very pronounced. There was a suggestion put forward by Lord Hastings of a compromise, but at the very last moment there was not time for the Government to give it sufficient consideration. They have done so since, and as a result in the Commons the clause has been reinserted, with an Amendment which makes it not retrospective. That was the great objection which had been taken to it here, and in the Commons a proviso was inserted in the clause to the effect that this section shall not apply to any tenancy granted or agreed to be granted before the commencement of this Act. That was in fact what I was asked at the last moment to insert here, but I did not have sufficient time to consider it. It has now been inserted in the Commons, and under the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment; otherwise lessees in England will be in a worse position than those in Scotland.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask whether Clause 11 applies to Scotland, because in the first draft of the Bill Clause 11 did not apply to Scotland, and I should be very sorry if this clause, now renumbered in these Amendments, were not to apply to tenancies in Scotland.
LORD STANMORE: Clause 11 does not apply to Scotland, but the noble Lord will find that there is an Amendment to the Scottish clause to bring it into conformity.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that the Government have met us very fairly, and that this is a wholly just settlement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 13, page 19, line 42, after ("given") insert ("provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the breaking-up of meadow land or pasture").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill:
Clause 13, page 19, line 42, at end insert ("A direction under this subsection may authorise the breaking up of meadow land or pasture subject to such conditions as will in the opinion of the Committee secure that the landlord shall not be injuriously affected").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Your Lordships moved an Amendment providing that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the breaking up of meadow land or pasture. There was some discussion of that Amendment in another place, and finally, as a compromise with those who represent the landlord interest in the other House, the following was suggested and agreed to—
"A direction under this subsection may authorise the breaking up of meadow land or pasture subject to such conditions as will in the opinion of the Committee secure that the landlord shall not be injuriously affected."
As regards some market garden improvements, it is necessary, if the land available is grass land, that it should be broken up, and there will be no hardship if suitable provisions are inserted for the protection of the landlord against loss. I beg to move that we do not insist on our Amendment, and agree to the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I cannot let this Amendment pass without some observation for two reasons, first, because when it was proposed in your Lordships' House the noble Lord in charge of the Bill accepted it very readily; in fact he accepted it without asking for any comments whatever on the Amendment.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: You were moving so rapidly that I am afraid I was too hasty.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: However that may be, perhaps I may give as another reason why I think it deserves further consideration that it is an absolute negation of the principle which your Lordships accepted at an earlier stage of the Bill, because your Lordships decided that it should not be at the discretion of agricultural committees to break up grass land, even if they thought it to be in the national interest. I fail to see why the committee should be empowered to do, in the interests of one industry, or possibly of one individual, what they are prohibited from doing, by your Lordships' decision, in the interests of the whole nation. It seems a most illogical conclusion to arrive
at, and, although we have been told at various stages of the Bill, that we must not expect too much logic in the Bill, at any rate here is an opportunity of insisting upon at any rate one logical provision.
As regards the proviso, I do not think that it adds anything to what is already suggested in the Clause itself. Your Lordships inserted a proviso (I think the noble Lord himself introduced it) that any directions given should have due regard to safeguarding the interests of the landlord. This Amendment proposed in another place merely amplifies, or indeed repeats, what is already included in an earlier sentence of this subsection. Really I think that this is an Amendment which it would be only reasonable and fair to insist upon. A landlord apparently is to let land for a specific purpose, possibly even with a covenant that the land is not to be broken up; and yet the agricultural committee are to decide that that covenant is to be overridden, and that the grass and pasture land is to be broken up at their discretion. I do not know what view your Lordships will take, but I trust that you will insist upon the original clause.
On Question, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Donington, L.

Hampden, V.

Faringdon, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Hood, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bath, M.

Milner, V.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Peel, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Lucan, E.

Atkinson, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Lytton, E.

Balfour, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Kilmorey, E.

Decies, L.

Northumberland, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Deramore, L.

Sutherland, D.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Ebury, L.

Ailsa, M.

Stanhope, E.

Erskine, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Strafford, E.

Lamington, L.

Exeter, M.

Lawrence, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Chaplin, V.

Lovat, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Askwith, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Albemarle, E.

Avebury, L.

Saltoun, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

Blythswood, L.

Sandys, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Southwark, L.

Grey, E.

Clinton, L.

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

Ilchester, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Jersey, E. [Teller.]

de Mauley, L.

Sumner, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 21, line 32, leave out ("benefit accruing to the holding by") and insert ("value to an incoming tenant").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting ("of") after ("tenant").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is purely drafting, and I move that we agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 22, lines 17 to 20, leave out subsection (3).
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill:
Page 22, line 19, leave out ("this Part of this Act") and insert ("the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of the rent properly payable in respect of the holding").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This subsection was reinserted by the Commons as it is intended solely to remove any question as to whether "continuous good farming" is to be treated as an improvement for the purpose of those provisions of Clause 8 (4) of the original Bill which require an arbitrator to take into account the improvements executed on a holding by a tenant. Otherwise there would be an obscurity on the point. I move that this House does not insist upon its Amendment and agrees to the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
EARL STANHOPE: Can the noble Lord tell me what this sub-paragraph means? It was not clear in the original Bill and I submit it is no clearer now.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It is a legal point. The words are intended solely for the purpose of removing any question as to whether continuous good farming is to be treated as an improvement for the purposes of subsection (4) which requires the arbitrator to take it into
926
account. It would be obscure without the sub-paragraph.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Lord right? The Government do not propose to put subsection (3) back in its original form but in a different form. Of course, I am open to correction, but I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained correctly the effect of the new Commons words as they stand.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am sorry if I have not made myself sufficiently clear to the noble Marquess. I made it as clear as I could. It is a rather abstruse legal point, and I am sure there is nothing in it from a serious point of view. It is purely legal drafting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 28, page 27, line 31, at end 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.
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.
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Line 2, after ("committee") insert ("other than the power conferred by this section").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This clause was inserted to meet the difficulty expressed by several noble Lords in the course of yesterday's proceedings, where it appeared that possibly a committee might want to delegate all its powers to a subcommittee. That was felt to be an objection, and I promised to see that words were inserted in another place to avoid the difficulty. I have done so and this carries out the promise, I think, that I made to noble Lords on the point.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 30, page 28, line 22, leave out ("the expression")
Clause 30, page 28, line 22, leave out from ("husbandry") to the end of line 26, and insert ("shall for the purposes of this Act (due regard being had to the character of the holding) include—

(a) the maintenance of the land (whether arable meadow, or pasture) clean and in a high state of cultivation, condition, and fertility;

(b) The maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;

(c) The maintenance and proper repair of fences, stone walls, gates, and hedges;

(d) The execution of repairs to buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed; and in addition

(e) Such rules of good husbandry as are generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied;

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

(i) To maintain or properly repair fences, stone walls, gates, or hedges where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy; or

(ii) To execute repairs to buildings which are not required to be executed by him under his contract of tenancy").

The Commons disagree with these Amendments but propose the following Amendments to the Bill:
Clause 30, page 28, line 22, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 26, and insert:
("The expression 'rules of good husbandry' means (due regard being had to the character of the holding) maintenance of the land (whether arable, meadow, or pasture) so far as practicable, clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility, and in good condition and in other respects means compliance with such rules of good husbandry as are generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character, and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied.")
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I now come to what is probably the most important of all the Commons Amendments, and I find it necessary to make a few remarks to your Lordships on the subject. The House will recollect that in the course of my speech on the Third Reading I indicated that in my view and in the view of the Government the definition of the words "rules of good husbandry" which
928
were inserted by your Lordships in the course of the Committee stage in this House would have the effect, which I am quite certain your Lordships did not intend and would not desire it to have, practically of destroying in many cases the compensation for disturbance principle to which you had previously agreed. The insertion of a definition which set up an entirely new standard of rules of good husbandry, quite different from anything that had existed before and therefore something which could not have existed in the agreement of tenancy of any farmer up to this time except possibly in some very unusual cases, would in effect set up a higher standard than had ever been customary, and unless the dispossessed tenant was able to show that he had been farming up to a higher standard than had been required either by custom or the terms of his tenancy he would be unable to obtain any compensation.
It cannot be forgotten by any of those who heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, who in these matters speaks with greater authority and experience than almost anyone in your Lordships' House, how he detailed what would be the effect of these words as they stood upon a tenant who was dispossessed and who was claiming compensation for disturbance. I feel that the arguments which he put forward and the points with which they deal are of such vital importance to the very existence of this Bill that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I quote from his speech. He said—
"In the first place you use this definition as an instrument of production, but in this Part II you are using it 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 husbandry. 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."
He went on through the subsequent clauses of the Bill and showed that according to Clause 10 (1) (b) a tenant might again be cut out by an alleged breach of covenant which would not have been a breach of

929
covenant under the terms of his agreement. Then he went on—
"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."
He concluded his remarks by saying that this is "a very grave circumstance." It has certainly been brought to me since, after the dotting of the "i's" and the crossing of the "t's" of your Lordships' proposal by so high an authority as Lord Ernie, that the effect on the farming community has been, I venture to say, something that your Lordships would not in the least desire to be responsible for. I am not exaggerating when I say it has created a feeling of consternation. It does give them the impression that the compensation clause will be quite illusory, and while I do not in the least endorse the comments which have been made by those affected, who suggest that that was your Lordships' reason for putting in the words—I am certain it was not—undoubtedly the feeling is intense that this was practically giving the principle of compensation for disturbance with one hand and then taking it back with the other by means of a too strictly-worded definition.
No one, as your Lordships know, is more convinced of the importance of doing everything possible to raise the standard of farming in this country than I am, and it is for that reason that the Government has sought powers in this Bill, under Clause 4, not only to insist upon rules of good husbandry, but now, if your Lordships consent, they have power to order improvements in the method of cultivation, the execution of proper works of maintenance and other matters which are essential to a higher standard of farming. That is the ideal at which we wish to aim, and the committees have been given, I think subject to proper safeguards, sufficient powers to enable them to carry that into effect. But it seems to me I must confess—I felt it at the time and it has been impressed upon me more strongly since—that it would not be fair to take that ultimate ideal of a higher standard of farming, which will necessarily take years before we can hope to have it generally adopted—it would not be fair to take that ultimate ideal and impose it now at once in all cases upon dispossessed tenants who are seeking compensation for disturbance. I feel that would be hard and indeed would
930
be fatal to the whole object of Part II of the Bill, which is to give a sense of security sufficient to encourage enterprise and the putting of more capital into the land. It is not to give the farmer something to which he is entitled in law. We have agreed that the basis of compensation is not justified by logic or legal justice, or anything of that sort, but it is accepted because it is necessary to increase the feeling of confidence which is essential.
I think your Lordships will recall that at your request certain words were inserted in that standard of compensation, to the effect that you agreed to this in order to avoid disputes. That was your phrase. You did not want to accept the principle, but you agreed to it in order to avoid dispute. If that is so, I ask you what could possibly be more calculated to produce disputes of an almost bitter character, litigation, and contested arbitration on an almost universal scale than to apply to this scale of compensation a test such as that which is included in your definition of good husbandry? You are putting in something which is not in the tenant's agreement, and something higher than anything he has ever been accustomed to, and obviously in every case the claim would be contested on one side or the other, and the only result would be that there would be not an avoidance of disputes but a breeding of disputes on an almost universal scale. It was this consideration, I think, which influenced the House of Commons in amending your proposal. The proposal which they have put on the Paper at the bottom of page 8 is really practically a combination of subsection (a) and (e) in Lord Clinton's Amendment. They have been blended together, and there is a slight modification—and it is very slight—in the definition. When I say slight I mean that it is slight in volume, but its meaning may be of first-class importance, not only because it may dispel this cloud of litigation which I sec otherwise descending upon the unfortunate claimant, but also because I think it is fair in itself, and will not be open to the charge that is made against the present definition of making the compensation clause nugatory.
I do not know that I can say anything else in support of the Amendment, which has been sent up front another place, but I would point out to your Lordships that the alterations made in the Bill in your Lordships' House were vary extensive.

931
There was hardly a clause which was not amended—I am not complaining, I am only stating what is a fact—so much so that when the Bill went back to another place there was a debate of considerable length, which I attended, in which the claim was made that your Lordships had in fact sent down a different Bill, and that the Commons were called upon to discuss it late at night. I think perhaps that was a picturesque exaggeration; still I would put this to your Lordships. All through these discussions the Government have shown every desire to meet every point that you brought forward in so far as they possibly could do so with due regard to the principles of the Bill.
I doubt whether there has been any measure of first-class importance for some time in which your Lordships have been given such a free hand to mould the Bill in the direction that you considered to be wise and fair. I freely admit that in many respects you have made improvements, for which we are duly grateful. But the number of Amendments that you made were very great, and the Commons have received them, I venture to say, in a spirit of compromise and fairness and have accepted the great bulk of them. They have sent back certain Amendments which we are now discussing. This one I agree is perhaps the most important. I still think that the definition which has been adopted in another place is a great advance on any previous definition or understanding of the meaning of the Rules of good husbandry. It goes as far as is reasonable in view of the uses to which it is to be applied in connection with Part II of the Bill, and I earnestly appeal to your Lordships at this last stage to look upon this Amendment with a favourable eye. I believe that it is put forward with the earnest desire to go as far as the Government possibly can in the direction that your Lordships wish, and that if you go further and insist upon such a word as "high," for example, in your Amendment, you really will create an impression throughout the farming community that the interpretation of this definition which has been made by Lord Ernle—whose speech is already circulated far and wide—unless you are prepared to modify your view on that I think an impression would be created which would not only be disastrous to the farming industry and disastrous to the Bill, but I am sure would not be of a character that
932
your Lordships would wish to be attached to your proposals.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments, and agrees to the Amendments made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I wish most earnestly to support what has fallen from the Minister of Agriculture. The case has been so well put by Lord Ernie and by the noble Lord that I need not say one word upon that except that, dangerous as this clause appears to be, its only excuse would have been if farming had been going on under the old conditions. Under the old conditions perhaps there might not have been this great danger that there is, but now land is bought for commercial purposes, and it would be putting a great instrument of power into people's hands who have bought land for that purpose. I heard the discussion in the House of Commons this afternoon, and I was very much struck by the unanimity that there was on this subject, and the moderation with which these views were expressed in all pActs of the House. I was particularly struck by one remark made by Colonel John Ward, whom we all know as a Labour Member who covered himself with the greatest possible credit and glory during the great war. I think he put the case in a nutshell when he said that under present circumstances we ought to moderate our views to meet the situation. I most earnestly hope that the views so well expressed by the Minister of Agriculture will be adopted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I wish to put before your Lordships the view that I hold personally and many of my friends hold as to what was said by Lord Ernle. For his opinion I have the greatest possible respect and deference. I acknowledge the weight of his authority, with which mine cannot for one moment compare, but I absolutely dispute his interpretation of the meaning of the definition, as we sent it down to the other place. I wholly and totally differ from him, and I repudiate absolutely the suggestion that these words were chosen with any such meaning as has been imputed to them—not by my noble friend opposite (Lord Lee) but by others. Holding these views that Lord Ernle was wrong in his interpretation, of Course it follows that we never intended the consequences he suggests.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have listened with the greatest possible attention to what has fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Lee), and I can assure the Government that there is no member of your Lordships' House now present who desires to meet this difficult question in anything but a conciliatory spirit. There is not any spirit of hostility to any class of the community; it is the furthest thing from my mind, and, as Lord Selborne has said, we had no intention whatever of putting in an impossible definition of good husbandry. On the contrary, the words that we used were words which are very often found in leases which are granted to tenants, and are only meant to secure that, before a tenant has any right to ask for compensation on the one hand, and in order to achieve a proper standard under Clause 1, we required good farming in the ordinary full sense of the term. No one suggests that indifferent farming, or anything but first rate farming, should be entitled, as a right, to compensation. That is all we desired to say so far as the compensation part of the clause is concerned. I do not speak very much about Clause 4, because, as the noble Lord is well aware, owing to the words inserted on Report, the operation of Clause 4 does not entirely depend upon the definition of good husbandry.
How are we then to meet the Commons Amendment? The Commons Amendment may be divided into three pActs. There are the words "so far as practicable." There is the change of "high" into "good," and there is the omission of the other paragraphs dealing with ditches, hedges and so forth, which your Lordships inserted. In my belief your Lordships never intended to enact anything which was not practicable, and no arbitrator would dream of enforcing anything which was not practicable, but I cannot believe that any one would desire to exclude those words if it is thought to be an advantage to put them into the text of the Bill. In a proposal which I shall venture to make I shall not leave them out. Then comes the question of "good" or "high." I must say that I think it very unfortunate that the Government desire to strike out the word "high" and replace it by the word "good". I am afraid it may give the impression that Parliament is not really intent upon first-rate farming, and that when it came to face the question its courage quailed a little before the task of
934
screwing up farming in England to its proper standard. We do not want it higher than its proper standard. Your Lordships—and may I say it with due humility to the other House of Parliament—who know a good deal about the cultivation of land for reasons which everybody understands, are aware that the standard of good husbandry has fallen lamentably short in many pActs of our country, and that it is a matter of high public policy to raise it. We understood that that was the object of the Government and of all parties in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships used your intelligence and your efforts to promote that cause.
Knowing from experience the kind of words used in this matter, perhaps in our Own leases, we used exactly those ordinary terms, which were put into the definition, and we thought it was an entirely satisfactory arrangement. Now that they are altered undoubtedly the effect will be produced in the country—I hope it may not be; I hope I may be wrong—there is a danger that the effect produced in the country will be that Parliament after all is going to be satisfied with rather a moderate standard of good husbandry, and not a first-rate standard. I think that very unfortunate, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I think most of us are anxious to meet the House of Commons and the Government in a very conciliatory spirit. We recognise—and it is only just to say so—that your Lordships' House has been treated with great regard in the deliberations on this Bill, and we are very grateful to another place for having so treated us. For my part, I shall not resist changing the word "high' into "good."
Now I come to the third part of the Commons Amendment, relating to the other paragraphs, and I really think that upon that we ought to adhere to our opinion. I had the great advantage of hearing the debate on this point in another place, and it was quite evident, both from the attitude of the House and that of the Government, that these other paragraphs were considered in quite a different spirit from the question of "high" or "good" in paragraph (a). I cannot understand for a moment—and I do not suppose any of your Lordships would think otherwise—why a tenant should not be called upon to do his proper work in respect of maintenance of ditches, fences, and so on if he expects to get reasonable compensation

935
when he goes out. It is one of the straightforward objects of his covenants. But for reasons upon which I need not enter, the provisions in the earlier part of the Bill which prescribes that he must keep his covenants do not absolutely cover the ground, and therefore I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we should agree with the Commons in the substance of their Amendment so far as the words "so far as practicable" are concerned and so far as the change of the word "high" into the word "good" is concerned, but that we should replace paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) and the rest of the Lords Amendments.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Paragraph (e) is in the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is; but for the purpose of drafting I should put it in that way and I think it would he more easily done. If the Government would accept that compromise I should be prepared to move the necessary Amendment to the Commons Amendment to carry out that decision.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but this matter is of such vital importance to the very existence of this measure that perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. I fully recognise the conciliatory spirit in which the noble Marquess has approached this matter and I am quite convinced of his desire to bring about an amicable settlement. The speech he has just made has of course made an immense difference to the position from the Government point of view. I am inclined to agree with him that the words "so far as practicable" may not have any very great legal meaning, but they mean a great deal to the plain ordinary man who does not understand what all the results of legal proceedings might be, and might feel, particularly if such a word as "high" had stood, that the standard could be put as high as you please, and that he would have to qualify by it even though it was utterly out of his power to do it. To that extent I think the words "so far as practicable" are of great value as giving comfort and a sense of security to the tenant.
The word "high" I regard as an absolutely fatal obstacle because whilst I do not think the noble Marquess can accuse the Government or myself of being in-
936
different, as I think he suggested might be supposed, to a high standard of farming in this country, surely our anxiety in that direction has been somewhat curbed by your Lordships. At a previous stage we showed our anxiety in connection with the provisions of Clause 4, and I hope under that the standard of farming may be brought up sufficiently high that we shall not be reproached concerning it. But I think the word "high" would have been fatal in that connection, and I am exceedingly glad that the noble Marquess, speaking on behalf of those who act with him, has agreed with the substitution of the word "good." I think that would give all that your Lordships require in the way of a proper standard of farming in this country, and I should like to express my very warm acknowledgments to the noble Marquess.
The question remains as to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). There the objection which the Government might feel to the noble Marquess's proposal is of an entirely different character. I have made a careful inquiry into this matter from those who are in the best position to know, and they say that so far as the standard of farming is concerned these words if reinserted would not in any way be to the disadvantage of the tenant; that is to say, these are the things and the only things which he is required to do under his contract of tenancy. There is a proviso further on showing that these are the only things that he is specifically required to do under his contract of tenancy. The word "high" is in quite a different category because that was not specified; that was something above his contract of tenancy. That was why we took such strong objection, because it imposed upon him something which he did not agree to do.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Not neccessarily.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: In the majority of cases. There may, of course, be exceptions. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are the ordinary requirements of this contract of tenancy, and the objection we have taken to the insertion of those words has been simply that we are informed, again on legal authority, that they will cause a considerable amount of inconvenience and confusion in any arbitration proceedings that might have to take place. They cut across previous clauses in the

937
Bill. The objection to them is really one of inconvenience in connection with any proceedings that might have to take place. It is not that they impose anything more upon the tenant which would in any way make his position more difficult from the point of view of compensation. The point for which I am pleading is that the tenant should not be put in any worse position with regard to his rights of compensation. The suggestion which the noble Marquess has made on the two first points, I think,. meets our views in that matter. With regard to the three paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), I disagree with the noble Marquess. I think he is unwittingly introducing complications which will be no good to anybody except the lawyers, and being thoroughly persuaded as I am that the position of the tenant with regard to compensation will not be injured by the insertion of the paragraphs I should not be disposed to resist that if he feels he must press it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Before we come to a decision on this matter I should like to know where we are. One of the most important things in the Bill is this question of maintaining the fences and gates and the painting of the buildings and the other things required by the contract of tenancy. With the small experience I have had in connection with land management I must say that in almost all the agreements I have seen, whether they are agreements subject to a year's notice or whether long or short leases, there is generally a clause under which the tenant undertakes to do certain things, keeping the gates and fences in good repair and painting his buildings, and probably doing certain repairs to his buildings. All that is set out in the agreement. As I understand, the whole of that is now to be upset. I think we ought to know where we are. The noble Lord said this would not interfere with any contract of tenancy as it exists, but the question is whether he should get compensation. It says it is a breach if he fails to comply or to remedy any breach, being a breach which is capable of being remedied, of any term or condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry. When we turn to the definition of "good husbandry," we should find, if those words are left out, that the maintenance of the fences and gates and the painting of buildings is not "good husbandry." It is a legal question I quite admit, but I have always understood that in the previous
938
Act of 1906 and the Consolidation Act of 1908 it was laid down that a tenant, could not contract out. It seems to me that if you lay down that good husbandry does not consist in maintaining the gates and hedges in a proper state of repair and doing such repairs to buildings as the tenant has convenanted to do, it is all waste paper, and the man can let the whole thing go to wrack and ruin. At the present moment, if a tenant leaves who has contracted to keep his farm in proper order and the gates and hedges in proper repair, and has not done so, of course he has dilapidated, but as the Bill stands you would not be able to dilapidate the tenant at all. I think that is a thing which your Lordships should understand before we go to a Division.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The great stress which has been laid upon the question as to whether there should be high cultivation or not excites in me only one feeling, and that is one rather of amusement, because wherever there are high-class tenants you may be perfectly certain they will continue to practice high cultivation as long as they remain on their farms, whatever Parliament chooses to say on the subject. I agree in the main with everything that has just fallen from my noble friend, but I wish to say something further with regard to the proviso, which I see on the Paper on page 8 of the Amendments—
"Provided that the foregoing definition shall not imply an obligation on the part of any person to maintain or clear drains, embankments, or ditches, if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of subsidence of any land or the blocking of out-falls which are not under the control of that person, or in its application—"
Of course, nothing in the world could be harder upon any one than if he were considered to have committed a breach of contract in those circumstances, and I should support that proviso with all my heart. I hold that the less you try to hamper and interfere with the farmers of this country, who are generally speaking doing their work in a way which they thoroughly understand, the more you will do to increase the production which you desire.
LORD SUMNER: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to what I think is an ambiguity in the clause as sent up from another place. The words are "so far as practicable." As those

939
words stand they may mean so far as practicable for the farmer or so far as practicable on that farm. I presume what is intended is so far as practicable on that farm. If that is so, words like these ought to be inserted, after "practicable" and before "clean," "having regard to its character and position." I can put in a sentence what I mean. Is it intended that when the farmer is charged with not having kept his land clean and in a good state of cultivation he should be entitled to say, "Well, it is not very clean, but it is quite as clean as it was practicable for me to make it, because. I could not get labour and I was at the end of my money. Taxation is high and my bankers would not advance me any more, and I have done all that was practicable for me." Or does it mean, as I suppose, "Well, it is not in a very good state of cultivation for land generally in our pActs, but this land is a pretty bad piece of land. It is pretty well for my farm." In that case it would be reasonable enough that he should not be charged with having broken away from the rules of good husbandry, if he had done as much as was practicable, having regard to the character and position of the farm, to make it clean and in a good state of cultivation. I imagine that it is nothing but an ambiguity that has arisen out of haste, and the insertion of the words "so far as practicable having regard to its character and position" would clear up that point.
As to the other point about paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) I do not appreciate what the legal difficulties that are anticipated are going to be, but I think this will be the result, that when under the paragraph about obtaining compensation you come to consider what violation of the rules of good husbandry is to take the farmer out of the right of compensation, you would find, as this clause stands, that he might have violated the covenants of his lease in the very important though not strictly cultivating provisions relating to drains, fences, and so forth, and yet get compensation as if he had not done it. I know that you might bring an action against him on the covenant—a very good thing for the lawyers but not very profitable for any body else.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord has noted the fact that the words were used in the second line of the Amendment
940
as it came to us from the Commons "due regard being had to the character of the holding." In point of fact I think that it would have been better drafting in relation to clearness of expression if the words had come in the clause where we had put them, but I do not see for a moment how any competent person could construe this with the words in the position in which they now stand and misunderstand them. I greatly doubt whether the word "position" in such a case would add to the expression "the character of a farm." I cannot think that an arbitrator, in forming an opinion of the character of the holding, could possibly exclude the question of situation. Due regard is to be paid to the character of the holding. As to the other points raised I would only remind the House, which I think has also been forgotten by some speakers, that the words do appear "in other respects," and they, I think, are intended to summarise the paragraphs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the procedure is that we do not insist upon our Amendment, and then I shall move an Amendment in the Commons Amendment.
On Question, Motion "That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment," agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now beg to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment. I take the Commons Amendment which is printed in italics at the bottom of page 8 on our supplementary Paper, and I shall move words after "holding" in the third line of the Amendment. I am going to use the words which have been supplied to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner—"so far as is practicable having regard to its character and position." Then come the words, "maintenance of the land (whether arable, meadow, or pasture) clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility; and in good condition." I propose to keep in "so far as practicable," but as I am going to ask your Lordships to restore (b), (c), (d), and (e) "so far as practicable "must not only apply to (a) but to all the paragraphs. Otherwise, in the ordinary rules of interpretation, it would seem that a very rigid form of interpretation was necessary in the latter paragraph. I suggest to the Government that the words "so far as prac-

941
ticable "must come back, so as to cover all the paragraphs. It will read, after "holding," "so far as practicable having regard to its character and position (a) the maintenance of the land," and so on down to "condition"; and then will follow (b), (c), (d) and (e) and the proviso, as in the Lords Amendment. Therefore the first Amendment I should venture to move is, after "holding" to insert "so far as practicable, having regard to its character and position—(a) the."
Amendment moved—
After ("holding") insert ("so far as practieable having regard to its character and position —(a) the").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had addressed a considerable argument to the House with the object of showing that these words were not necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was only in the hurry of the moment that I had forgotten. I had recently been at the play which is very much in the fashion, and as I stand between two noble and learned Lords, one here and one there, I felt inclined to say, "How happy could I be with either." I have taken the words of my noble and learned friend on my left (Lord Sumner), but I am willing to be guided by the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think my noble and learned friend would differ from me.
LORD SUMNER: May "t'other dear charmer" explain the difficulty he feels at the words in the parenthesis "due regard being had to the character of the holding." That is an express statement that you are to regard the character of the holding. Then, when you come to some other words "so far as practicable." the natural inference is that you would now be looking to something which was not the character of the holding, and what could it be except the character of the farmer? I only want to avoid an ambiguity. I always have a feeling that I might have to decide it some time—a thing I am most anxious to avoid. But, although there is no doubt considerable inconvenience in keeping in too many words, it is better to be clear, and I think it will not be dear unless the clause runs that regard is to be had to the character of the holding, and, so far as practicable, having regard to that
942
character, there is to be maintenance, and so forth.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly would not quarrel with the insertion of those words if that was the end of the noble Marquess's proposal to amend. I do not attach very much importance to the point one way or the other. I think the words proposed by the noble Marquess convey what is intended by the Commons Amendment, but the noble Marquess desires to use this Amendment as the avenue to a further Amendment. It is for the Minister in charge to deal with that. I do not object to the first. The Question will be, in line 3 of the Commons Amendment, after "holding," to insert the words" so far as practicable, having regard to its character and position." And then the paragraphs (a), (b), (e), etc.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Lord will see that I was well advised, because it is only a matter of drafting, but a little complicated. The words "so far as practicable" will have to come out in the later line, and then, when I move the old Lords words in, they have got to go in with slight modifications, which will have to be indicated at the moment. If I go through all that now, it will only put your Lordships in confusion. I think my plan was the proper plan to move each Amendment in its turn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put it as the noble Marquess wishes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After "holding" to insert "so far as practicable having regard to its character and position. (a) the."
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now move to omit the words "so far as practicable" from line 4 of the Commons Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Commons Amendment, line 4, leave out ("so far as practicable").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the easiest way in order to avoid confusion will now be to strike out all words in the Commons Amendment after "condition" in line six, although I shall reinsert them in their place.
Amendment moved—
Commons Amendment, line 6, leave out all words after ("condition").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then, at the end, I move to add the words of the Lords Amendment beginning" the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches" to the proviso. Perhaps you Lordships will give me a little attention in the proviso.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Also (e).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. In the proviso there is a slight Amendment after the word "impossible" in line 5. Your Lordships will remember that on the Third Reading my noble friend Lord Clinton asked to be allowed to put in a manuscript Amendment Which your Lord ships were pleased to rule out of order at that stage. It is now in order to put it in, and it comes in here. Therefore I beg to move, after the word "impossible," to insert "except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense."
Amendment moved—
In the proviso of the original Lords Amendment, after ("impossible") insert ("except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I agree to that.
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Lords Amendment as it stands (b), (e), (d), (e) and the proviso will go in, with the addition of the words, "except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense" after the word "impossible." Then I am informed by the draftsman that in the two last paragraphs (i) and (ii) the words should be "maintain or clear drains, embankments, or ditches or"; and then as printed. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 31, page 29, line 30, 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—

(a) any public rates, taxes, or assessments which in England are by law a charge on the occupiers of lands; or

(b) any public rates or taxes or other public burdens the like whereof are not chargeable on lands in England.")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("the section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance") and insert ("that section").
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is only a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 31, page 29, line 35 to line 9 on page 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert as new subsections:—
(7) The section of this Act relating to notices to quit shall not apply.
(8) Subsection (2) of section eighteen of the Act of 1908, shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following words were added" and in the case of any lease so renewed the period of notice shall be not less than one year nor more than two years."
The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendments to the Bill:
Clause 31, page 29, line 39, leave out from ("lease") to the end of line 40, and insert ("entered into after the passing of this Act")
Page 30, line 3, at end insert ("and subsection (2) of the said section shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following words were added 'and in the case of any lease so renewed the period of notice required to terminate the tenancy shall, where the notice is given after the thirty-first day of May nineteen hundred and twenty-one, but not less than one year nor more than two years'").
LORD STANMORE: In moving that the Commons Amendment be agreed to I shall have to ask your Lordships also to agree to a small drafting Amendment in the second line of the Commons Amendment and to substitute for the word at

945
the end of line 40 the word "if" in line 1 of page 30. Though in form the Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendment the substance of that Amendment is preserved with two slight changes. The first of the changes increased from six months to one year the period of notice required to terminate a tenancy under a lease for two years if the lease is entered into after the passing of the Bill. This is to bring the law in Scotland into the same position as it has been brought in England by the reinsertion of Clause 11 which your Lordships have agreed to. The other change increases the period of notice required to terminate a tenancy held on tacit relocation from six months to one year only when notice is given after the 31st May, 1921. This change seems right, and is to avoid all doubt as to the validity of notices given last November. It also seems fair to preserve to any existing tenants who holds by tacit relocation or to his landlord the right to terminate the tenancy next November if notice is given in May.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 31, page 30, line 36 to line 20 on page 31, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert the following new subsection:
("(12) In subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to constitution of panel of arbitrators and provision as to arbitrators' remuneration, for the words 'the Lord Chief Justice of England' there shall be substituted the words the Lord President of the Court of Session,' and in subsection (2) of the same section for the words 'registrar of the county court' there shall be substituted the words auditor of the sheriff court.'")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting at the end of the Amendment:—
("All questions which under the Act of 1908 or the Act of 1917 may be determined by a single arbiter may, if the parties so agree, instead of being so determined, be determined by the Scottish Land Court which, for this purpose, shall hare the like powers and jurisdiction as it has for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919")
LORD STANMORE: The Commons have agreed to your Lordships' Amendment in which you substituted a panel of arbitrators in Scotland, corresponding to the
946
English panel, for the Land Court. The Commons have added a further Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment in which the Land Court appears, but in a very different position from that in which it was before. It is no longer a compulsory tribunal but merely one to which parties can go when both perfer that course. If the Land Court is as objectionable as some noble Lords believe it to be no two parties will ever consent to refer differences to such a body, and this provision will in that case remain inoperative. The panel of arbitrators will remain the only tribunal before which any person may be taken save at his own free choice. If it were possible that two parties could agree to the Land Court as the tribunal it would be very unfair that they should not be allowed to have their case adjudicated upon by that tribunal.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that your Lordships will not agree to my noble friend's suggestion. At this hour of the night noble Lords will not wish me to say anything upon the matter, as you are all familiar with this question and I understand in another place they are very anxious to have this Bill back as soon as possible. My noble friend talked about the Land Court being objectionable. I do not know whether he meant the Court itself, or the members composing it. I submit to your Lordships that it is not constituted for the purpose, and is not, suitable for the purpose. With regard to other questions connected with Scotland, my noble friend opposite appealed to some of your Lordships who proposed Amendments that there should be uniformity, and in some cases your Lordships agreed with his appeal. I only ask for uniformity in this case. I appeal that the Bill should leave your Lordships' House giving the same conditions to Scotland as to England, and in doing that I am only carrying out the advice which the noble Lord offered with regard to uniformity on other questions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this matter touches upon a legal and technical it question it encourages me to make a very brief observation upon the point. I do not agree with the advice which the noble Duke has addressed to the House, and I

947
observe that Scottish Members in another place who are very much in touch with Scottish opinion equally dissent from the course which the noble Duke recommends. At twenty minutes past ten at night the noble Duke adds another very considerable point of difference to those which have already emerged. We are to proceed to put down an Amendment to the House of Commons Amendment—why? Because any Scottish liege is forced to go to the Land Court? Because any injustice is being done by forcing a person to submit his quarrel to an unwelcome and unacceptable tribunal? No. But because the noble Duke says they should be deprived of that third alternative. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I differ from the noble and learned Lord with great reluctance, but I distrust any extension of the jurisdiction of the Laud Court. I do not think the dilemma which the noble and learned Lord put is accurate, because if we have in Scotland, as in England, the alternative method of having arbiters, and you agree that the members of the Land Court shall be the arbiters, they can be so selected, but here is a pro

CONTENTS.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sutherland, D.

Powis, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Selborne, E.

Ebury, L.

Ailsa, M.

Stanhope, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Bath, M.

Erskine, L.

Camden, M.

Chaplin, V.

Faringdon, L.

Exeter, M.

Falmouth, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Hampden, V.

Kenyon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Lamington, L.

Albemarle, E.

Lovat, L.

Ancaster, E.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)[Teller]

Avebury, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Balfour, L. [Teller]

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sandys, L.

Jersey, E.

Clinton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

Kilmorey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Decies, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Deramore, L.

Sumner, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Milner, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Lucan, E.

Peel, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller]

Onslow, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller]

Strafford, E

Donington, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Commons Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I suggest, now that the Amendment have been considered, that your Lordships
948
posal to extend the jurisdiction of the Land Court as a court, and to that I demur. Look at the drafting of this Amendment. They are to have jurisdiction on all questions which under the Act of 1908 or the Act of 1907 may be determined by a single arbiter. I do not know what all those questions are and I have not had time, in the half hour or hour which has elapsed since we received these Amendments, to discover what those questions are. They are also to have the like powers and jurisdiction as they have for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919. That is a varity of Acts extending over a period of thirty-three years. Now this Land Court was originally the Crofters Commission. It was established to deal with matters entirely confined to the Crofters Counties and Crofters, and I think it is a complete
mistake to give them any jurisdiction over the larger landed estates in Scotland, and I shall support the noble Duke.
On Question, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment?—

should suspend the sitting during pleasure pending a Message from the House of Commons.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 5l; Not-Contents, 17.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they agree to certain of the Amendments last made by the Lords to the Agriculture Bill without amendment; that they do not insist on other Amendments to which their Lordships have disagreed, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, if you will accept it from me, the Amendment proposed by the Commons was to Lord Selborne's Amendment with regard to leases, in which words were inserted to the effect that the provision applied only where the land had been in the hands of the owner for not less than twelve months. I understand that the noble Earl is glad to accept those words, and I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills—

Agriculture.

Roads.

Appropriation (No. 2).

Dyestuffs (Import Regulation).

Isle of Man (Customs).

Public Works Loans.

Unemployment Insurance (Temporary Provisions Amendment).

Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes).

Married Women (Maintenance).

Married Women's Property (Scotland).

Women, Young Persons, and Children (Employment).

Criminal Injuries (Ireland).

Juvenile Courts (Metropolis).

Registrar General (Scotland).

Expiring Laws Continuance.

British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee).

Official Secrets.

Gold and Silver (Export Control, etc.).

Defence, of the Realm (Acquisition of Land).

Juries (Emergency Provisions).

Administration of Justice.

950

Government of Ireland.

Air Navigation.

Housing (Scotland).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Hulme Trust Estates (Non-Educational) Charity.

Baptist Chapels Charities.

Little Longstone Congregational Chapel Charity.

Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation.

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Port of London Authority (Consolidation).

The Convocation of the Clergy Measure (passed according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919) also received the Royal Assent.

HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
And afterwards His Majesty's most gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth—
My Lords, and Members of the House of Commons,
My relations with foreign Powers continue to be of a friendly nature. Throughout the year external policy has been conducted in close co-operation with the Allies. The general appeasement of the passions engendered by the war has been assisted by a Conference with our late enemies at which certain matters in dispute were satisfactorily adjusted. The situation which has arisen with Greece will, however, require the earnest attention of My Government, who will, in conjunction with the Allies, endeavour to reach a solution compatible with our joint responsibilities.
In Russia the situation is still unsettled and obscure. I trust that trade will shortly recommence with Russia, and that this may lead to an era of peace greatly needed by the suffering peoples of Eastern Europe. It is of the highest importance, however, that Poland and her neighbours should compose their political differences, and devote their undivided energies to producing internal

951
stability and to the task of economic reconstruction.
I have accepted Mandates, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, in respect of Mesopotamia, Palestine, certain parts of Africa and other German possessions in the Pacific Ocean south of the Equator. The Mandates for German South-West Africa and the German possessions in the Pacific will be severally administered by the Governments of the Union of South Africa, of the Dominion of New Zealand, and of the Commonwealth of Australia. It will be the high task of all My Governments to superintend and assist the development of these countries, according to their varying degrees of advancement, for the benefit of the inhabitants and the general welfare of mankind.
During the past year the League of Nations has come into effective existence. A long series of important measures has been initiated by the Council of the League and the Labour Bureau. The First Assembly of the League has shown its sense of the importance of including all nations in its membership by admitting two of our late enemies. It is My earnest hope that the spirit of harmony and good-will between nations manifested at the Assembly is an augury of the value of the League as a force making for conciliation and peace throughout the world.
Since I last addressed you I have had the happiness of welcoming My son, the Prince of Wales, on his return from his visit to Australia, New Zealand, and the West Indies. The enthusiastic affection with which he has been everywhere received has afforded me the liveliest gratification, and I am confident that he has done much to strengthen the mutual sympathy and trust which cement the Empire.
The measures required to bring into operation the Government of India Act have been taken, and the new constitution will be in general effect within a few days. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Prince of Wales will not be able to inaugurate the new Councils. But the Duke of Connaught is now on his way to fulfil that duty, and I am confident that the people of India, to whom he is well known as having filled the high office of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, will accept His Royal Highness's visit
952
on My behalf as proof of My earnest and unwavering hope that their legislators will so fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to them as to bring increased prosperity and contentment to all My subjects in India.
Members of the House of Commons,
I thank you for the provision made for the public service and for the redemption of debt. Obligations arising out of the Great War and the disturbed conditions still prevailing in a large part of the world have made very heavy expenditure unavoidable. These difficulties are common to the whole world, and have been nowhere so successfully met as in this country. I am conscious of the great sacrifices entailed by this heavy draft upon the national resources and of the vital need of economy in all Departments of the public service, and My Ministers will continue to make every effort to reduce expenditure.
My Lords, and Members of the House of Commons,
The state of affairs in Ireland grieves me profoundly. I deplore the campaign of violence and outrage by which a small section of My subjects seek to sever Ireland from the Empire, and I sympathise with the loyal servants of the Crown who are endeavouring to restore peace and maintain order under conditions of unexampled difficulty and danger. It is My most earnest hope that all sections of the people in Ireland will insist upon a return to constitutional methods, which alone can put an end to the terrible events which now threaten ruin to that country, and make possible reconciliation and a lasting peace. I have given my assent to a Bill for the better government of Ireland. This Act, by setting up two Parliaments and a Council of Ireland, gives self-government in Irish affairs to the whole of Ireland, and provides the means whereby the people of Ireland. can of their own accord achieve unity. sincerely hope that this Act, the fruit of more than thirty years of ceaseless controversy, will finally bring about unity and friendship between all the peoples of My Kingdom.
My Government are giving careful and anxious consideration to the question of naval strength as affected by the latest developments of naval warfare.
During the past session I have been glad to give My assent to a number of measures for the promotion of the well-being of the people. Among other Acts, I may mention the Act providing old age pensions for blind persons at the age of 50; the National Health Insurance Act, Which increased the general rates of benefits to contributors; the Juvenile Courts Act, which secures an advance both in the treatment of children and in the co-operation of women in public affairs; the Mining Industry Act, which recognises the importance of mining in the industrial life of the country by the constitution of a Mines Department in which all the powers and duties relating to the industry are now concentrated; the Act regulating the importation of dye-stuffs in order securely to establish the dye-stuffs industry in this country; the Agriculture Act, which will increase the production of food, promote good husbandry and improve the legal position of agricultural tenants; and the Unemployment Insurance Act, which makes an important extension of the provision against unemployment and enlarges the number of insurable workers from 4 to 12 millions.
A measure has also been passed whereby Local Authorities will be assisted in the maintenance and improvement of roads and bridges, thus facilitating the further development of the new methods of transport which are becoming every year of greater importance to the life of the community.
In the domestic sphere the past session has seen a steady return to normal conditions. I am glad to believe that the weariness and exhaustion which beset the people after their sufferings and efforts during the war are passing away, and that the difficulties thus caused, especially in industrial affairs, are giving place to a better general understanding of the problems of industry and to better relations between employers and employed. The darkest cloud on the horizon, the growing amount of unemployment, now springs, not so much from internal causes, but from the contraction of the export trade due to the poverty of other nations and to their inability to secure credits for the purpose of placing orders in this country. All nations equally with ourselves are
954
affected by these conditions. The problem of restoring trade and of providing for those left without employment has for some time been engaging the close and earnest attention of Ministers, and various schemes, of which some are already in operation, have been prepared to alleviate the distress arising therefrom. It will be the duty of My Ministers to continue to give unremitting attention to this problem with a view to mitigating, as far as is humanly possible, the hardships of unemployment.
As a direct consequence of the industrial depression, My hope that men who served in My forces during the war, and particularly those Who are disabled, would by this time be absorbed in civil employment has been disappointed. No efforts have been spared by the Government to secure the resettlement to these men in civil life, but it has become more than ever necessary that these efforts should be supplemented by the active aid and co-operation of My people.
In bidding you farewell, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the fifteenth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the fifteenth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one.
End of the Second Session of the Thirty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the eleventh year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.