§ 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 FAREHAMThis 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.)
918§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI 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 10s. Supposing it is 10s. 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 FAREHAMI 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 SEEBORNESurely 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 FAREHAMThat 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 16s.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf you are satisfied, we are.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI 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 CHANCELLORI 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.