HL Deb 30 June 1931 vol 81 cc432-49

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 8:

Amendment of provisions as to resumption, of holdings.

8.—(1) The occupation by a landlord, for the purpose of personally residing thereon, of a holding being his only landed estate, shall not be a reasonable purpose in respect of which the Land Court may authorise resumption by the landlord of a holding.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage the same Amendment was moved by myself, but after considerable discussion it was agreed that I should not proceed wits it, on the understanding that we might find some possible middle course of dealing with the situation created by this subsection. We have attempted to find that middle course with the Government and with the Department concerned, but have not been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. It appears that if the subsection is left as it is acts of confiscation will be possible under it. It is only fair and just to landholders, if they have only one piece of land left, that they should be able to regain possession of it. The only way in which we can ensure that is by omitting this subsection from the Bill and leaving it as it has been in the past, to the discretion of the Land Court to allow or disallow resumption. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1).—(Viscount Elibank.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My Lords, I never thought that there was any middle course possible under this clause for the reasons that I gave on the Second Reading of the Bill and also in Committee. I am very glad to fund that my noble friend has moved the omission of subsection (1). I need hardly remind your Lordships that it was not in the original Bill, and that the Minister representing the Scottish Office in Committee in another place gave the strongest reasons why it should not be in the Bill. I do not think I could improve upon those reasons myself. It is about the last right of the kind connect eel with small holdings that an owner is left with in Scotland. Therefore I warmly support the proposal of my noble friend.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, as the noble Viscount has told you, this Amendment was discused in Committee and it was hoped that it would be possible to come to some arrangement between the Committee stage and Report. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. This Amendment raises a question which was debated for some time in another place and was eventually rejected. Its object is to leave to the Land Court an absolute discretion to hold occupation by the landlord for personal residence to be a reasonable purpose in respect of which the Land Court may authorise resumption; whereas the clause as it now stands contains a specific declaration against the reasonableness of such a purpose. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, who has given this matter most careful consideration, without such specific declaration the clause would not really effect its purpose, which is to prevent resumption by, for example, a person who has purchased the holding with a view to living on it only occasionally, possibly as a week-end residence—a person who has no serious intention of cultivating it. Since, therefore, it has not been possible to come to any agreement—indeed there appears to be no satisfactory compromise between these two points of view, which I think have been put very clearly before you by the noble Viscounts, Lord Elibank and Lord Novar—I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, in view of the reply of the noble Earl, I think that the only thing is to go to a Division on the Amendment. We refrained from doing so upon the last occasion in the endeavour to find this via media, but it has not been possible. Therefore I propose, if noble Lords will support me, to go to a Division upon it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Amendment of s. 11 of Act of 1911.

16. Section eleven of the Act of 1911 (which relates to obligations of new holders under Public Health Act) shall be amended by inserting after the words "have been erected on a holding" the words ''by a landholder or".

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out all words after "1911" and to insert:— shall apply to buildings or other premises erected on a holding by or for a landholder whether a new holder or not, and the said section shall have effect as if the word 'landholder' were substituted for the words 'new holder.' Provided that, where any such buildings or premises were erected prior to the date when the rent payable at the commencement of this Act was fixed by the Land Court or agreed on by the parties, this section shall not operate to transfer from the landlord to the landholder any duty or liability until the arrival of the first term after the commencement of this Act as from which the rent payable can be altered by agreement or by the Land Court.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 16 was inserted in Committee on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, against the view of the Government. The clause amends Section 11 of the Act of 1911. That section enacts that, where holdings have been erected on a small holding by or for a new holder, liabilities under the Public Health Acts in respect of nuisances, etc., shall rest on the landholder so long as the landlord receives no rent for the buildings. Clause 16 extended the section to all landholders. Undoubtedly there is something to be said on both sides. While there is a great deal of justice in what has been done, if the clause is enacted without qualification, there are cases where it might operate unjustly. Where a landholder is paying a rent which has been fixed by the Land Court or has been settled by agreement, on the footing that the public health liability in question is on the landlord, it would be unfair to transfer that liability to the landholder, so long as he is required to pay the rent which has been fixed on a contrary basis. Therefore the Government propose this Amendment to the clause that was put down in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 8, leave out from ("1911") to end of clause and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

My Lords, I think it might serve to shorten discussion if I could extract from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill some explanation as to why the words at the end of the first paragraph of his Amendment "and the said section shall have effect as if the word 'landholder' were substituted for the words 'new holder'" have been inserted. I at any rate have a little difficulty in construing those words in this context. I should like in particular to know from the noble Earl whether these words will have the effect of relieving the new holders of any existing obligations by putting upon the landlord obligations at present resting on such new holders, which obligations could not be transferred or, as it were, re-transferred to the new holders until such time as the rent of the new holder again becomes open to revision.

EARL DE LA WARR.

My Lords, the noble Marquess kindly gave me warning of this question and I have looked into the matter. I can assure him it makes no alteration at all with regard to the situation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:—

Amendment of s. 32 of Act of 1911.

". Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):— '(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy and after giving written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment refers to Clause 14, which was struck out by your Lordships' House in Committee. That clause conferred upon the statutory small tenant the right to become a landholder, or in other words had the effect that any statutory small tenant would have all the advantages of a landholder. From the discussion that took place in another place it appeared that it was thought that in many cases where the statutory small tenant had not met the cost of more than half of the permanent improvement he would thereby be debarred from applying to become a landholder. This Amendment is of a conciliatory nature. We recognise that there are hardships in the case of the statutory small tenant who had not provided 50 per cent. of the cost of the improvements because he would be debarred from getting compensation, and therefore the object of this Amendment is that the small tenant shall have the same rights in all respect to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from a holding, as if the tenant had been a landholder. The tenant and his statutory successors are to be entitled to compensation for permanent improvements in the same way as the landholder. The effect of this new clause would be to remove those grievances which were mentioned in another place in regard to the statutory small tenants. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will recognise the spirit in which the Amendment is moved and will accept it.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Lamington.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, we certainly recognise that this clause as suggested now is an attempt to meet our point of view. The trouble is that while being a compromise it is a compromise put on top of another compromise. Already this matter has been discussed at some length in another place from two completely opposing points of view, and the clause dealing with this question in the Bill as introduced into your Lordships' House which was deleted in Committee represented a compromise between those points of view. The first part of this new clause deals, as the noble Lord has said, with the conversion of statutory small tenancies into landholders' holdings. On Report in another place a clause giving every statutory small tenant in existence when the Bill comes into operation the option to become a landholder was introduced by the Government on an undertaking that was given to the Liberal Party. The Government's clause was a compromise between compulsory conversion of statutory small tenants into landholders and no conversion at all, and it represented then the maximum of agreement that could be obtained on this admittedly difficult and controversial matter. For that reason, and not because we do not recognise the attempt of the noble Lord to meet us in this matter, I would ask him not to press his Amendment any further.

LORD LAMINGTON

Will the noble Earl suggest the reason again?

EARL DE LA WARR

I dealt with a number of reasons. The last reason I gave was that this matter was discussed at very great length in another place, that the Government's clause represented the maximum agreement that we were able to get, and that if we adopt the suggested new clause it is likely to upset what little agreement it has been possible to arrive at. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will not press the matter.

LORD LAMINGTON

I am afraid I must press it. I do not think the noble. Earl has given any reply to my argument.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, the noble Earl described Clause 14 as a compromise. I am not aware what the compromise can have been, because in the clause you have the whole principle of transferring the statutory small holder into a landholder, and, consequently, making a very large change in the land tenure system of Scotland. Is it possible there are any grounds for that change? The main cause for making landholders or making crofters was that they had put up the larger part of their buildings. This applies to every statutory small holder whether he has put up any buildings or not, and the buildings which have been put up by the owner are by that clause transferred to him. I find it very difficult to reconcile the noble Earl's statement when he speaks of a compromise, because we have the whole principle of a transfer.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the principle to which I referred was the compromise between compulsory conversion of statutory small tenants and no facilities for conversion at all. We consider that the clause that was inserted in the Commons represents a compromise on those two points.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I should like to point out that Clause 14 which was taken out was not in the original Bill; therefore, His Majesty's Government cannot have placed any very great importance upon it. It was only under great pressure from some of their Liberal supporters—one or two in the House of Commons, I think—that this clause was ever put in, so it is not a compromise between the Government and this side of the House. It is a compromise, if it is a compromise at all—and I do not think compromise is a very good description—between certain other people who have nothing to do with the Government. The only case of unfairness shown is met by this Amendment, and I cannot quite understand why the Government are unable to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:

Amendment of s. 32 of Act of 1911.

". The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph (4) of Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911, 'unless he himself shall have given written notice to the landlord that he is to terminate his tenancy.'"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I raised this point on a previous occasion.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Novar.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27:

Compensation in respect of temporary pasture.

27. Where the tenant of a holding claims compensation in respect of temporary pasture laid down in accordance with paragraph (27) of Part III of the First Schedule to this Act, and the laying down or the leaving at the termination of the tenancy of such pasture is in contravention of the provisions of the lease or of any agreement made by the tenant respecting the method of cropping the arable lands, the tenant shall be entitled to compensation notwithstanding any such contravention but in ascertaining the amount thereof the arbiter shall take into consideration any injury to or deterioration of the holding due to such contravention except in so far as the landlord shall have recovered damages in respect of such injury or deterioration.

LORD CLINTON moved, after the last "contravention," to insert "or any loss due to the holding being left in other than the rotation of cropping prescribed in the lease or customary in the district." The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was considerable debate on this clause in Committee and I think it was realised by the noble Earl that there was some ground for fearing that, under this clause, the incoming tenant might suffer considerable loss because he did not receive the land in any rotation suitable for working. I think the noble Earl recognised that but he believed that the words of his clause covered that point. I do not know whether he is still advised of that, but I am informed by legal advisers that the point is not covered. The only question, I suppose, is as to the form of words. There is nothing in this clause, of course, which prevents a tenant laying down his land to grass and getting compensation, but an incoming tenant who is accustomed to feed stock in the winter and who may have stock of his own which he wishes to transfer to the new farm, will find he has no winter keep for that season. There really is a case where exceptional expenditure is incurred to bring the land back to the form of cultivation which the incoming tenant requires. For that reason I think your Lordships should be careful to see that he gets some reasonable payment to cover his expenditure.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 1, after ("contravention") insert ("or any loss due to the holding, being left in other than the rotation of cropping prescribed in the lease or customary in the district").—(Lord Clinton.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I can only repeat my assurance to the noble Lord that the clause as drafted does cover all loss that may result from any alteration from the regular cropping. Is that the actual question which the noble Lord puts?

LORD CLINTON

Do the words of the clause cover the loss to an incoming tenant who has to bring that land back into a system of rotation?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am informed that it does, and that it also covers any loss that the landlord might have to face in being unable to let his holding for as much rent as he was previously receiving. Suppose the character of the holding has altered to such an extent that the landlord is not able to get the same rent for the holding on re-letting, then this clause amply covers him in regard to being able to obtain compensation for that loss of rent. The trouble is that in certain cases that have gone to the Courts tenants have not only failed to get compensation for temporary pasture that they have left behind In breach of their agreement, but have actually had to pay to the landlord a sum representing the estimated cost of restoring the holding to the original state, even though their action really has not deteriorated the value of the farm. Our clause is an attempt to meet that quite legitimate grievance without in any way lessening the right to compensation where the holding really has been deteriorated.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I should like to say that the noble Earl really has not appreciated my point. It is quite clear that under this clause the landlord himself can be compensated if there is a loss and it is clear that the outgoing tenant will get full compensation for all grass. That I admit. My point is that the incoming tenant who receives the land under grass and wants to get it under rotation will be put to additional cost in getting that done. It really is a hardship for the incoming tenant that that should be the case. I had hoped that the noble Earl would be able to say that the words of the clause covered that loss, but I do not know that he has done so. He said it covers some other loss.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am definitely informed that it does cover the point which the noble Lord raised. I give him that definite assurance, but if at a later stage he finds that I have been misinformed or mistaken he can put it down again on Third Reading. I am definitely informed that his point is covered.

LORD CLINTON

I feel bound to accept the noble Earl's assurance on that point, but although I accept it I should like to reserve the right to look into the matter again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31:

Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act.

31. Section sixteen of the principal Act, which deals with the procedure in arbitrations, shall be amended by the omission of the words "sheep stocks" in subsection (5) and by the addition of the following subsection:— (6) After the passing of this Act all valuations of sheep stocks tied to the ground and bound under a lease to be taken over from the outgoing tenant at the termination of a tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant shall, unless the outgoing tenant and the landlord or incoming tenant otherwise agree, be made by an arbiter selected by the Department out of a panel of arbiters appointed specially for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session after consultion with the Department.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 31. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point which has already been discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill and I realise to the full that it is not customary to bring up on Report matters that have already been decided in Committee. On the other hand, I think it has become apparent from the study of the debate which we had during Committee that there was one vital point concerning this Amendment which was not properly appreciated by any of us during that discussion. I think I can put the matter very briefly. In so far as a new lease is being made with regard to any land, it is purely optional on the landlord as to what conditions for valuation he has inserted in that lease, and therefore this clause cannot in any way affect new contracts, because the landlord is now at perfect liberty to make what arrangements he likes as to the conditions on which he lets his land. The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane, in Committee dealt with existing contracts, and I would suggest to your Lordships that it is really very difficult for this House to undertake to put a line through existing contracts.

Leases have already been agreed to and land has already been let on a certain basis and with certain understandings, and we should be coming along and saying that we are going to alter the law with regard to these contracts that have already been made. That is the suggestion of the noble Earl's Amendment, as I think he made perfectly clear in his speech. Replying to some remarks of mine, he said: The noble Earl says it is quite open to the landlord to alter his lease. That may be so in future leases, because I think every Highland proprietor takes very good care he does not repeat this opportunity for extortion in new leases. He admits that it does not refer to new leases— It is the old leases which have not come to an end that I am thinking of. I think he admits, therefore, that to accept the insertion of the Amendment which he had inserted in Committee is to commit us definitely to legislating for the breach of existing contracts. It is for that reason—I do not think the point quite came out in our last discussion—that I would ask your Lordships to accept my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 31.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My Lords, I think I might say a word on this Amendment. I had an Amendment on the Paper in Committee of a rather similar nature to that of the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane. His Amendment was moved first and I supported it. I am well aware of what the noble Earl has just told us—namely, that this question of taking over sheep stock on what they choose to call an acclimatisation value is certainly contracted for in the lease and usually, when land is let to a sheep farmer, probably for a fairly long period of years, it is contracted that at the end of that period the landowner, who is eventually liable, or the incoming tenant, in the case of the old tenant not continuing with the holding, takes over the sheep stock at a valuation. The Amendment was a very simple matter. I do not think it altered contracts to any extent whatsoever. All that it did was to say who is to be the person who is to say what is to be the value of this sheep stock.

The present custom, which has existed for many years, is that, when there is a change of tenancy and one of these tied sheep stocks is to be taken over, the outgoing tenant appoints his arbiter, and the landowner or the incoming tenant (if he is going to take over) appoints his arbiter. These two people put their heads together, and in nine eases out of ten do not agree as to what the value of the sheep stock is. Then an "oversman," who is to decide the value of the sheep stock failing agreement between the two parties, is appointed by the sheriff. This "oversman" having been appointed, the usual proceeding takes place. The person appearing for the incoming tenant puts the price of the sheep as low as he can, and the abiter for the outgoing tenant puts it as high as he can. The "oversman" appointed by the sheriff probably settles some intermediate price.

Accordingly the noble Earl, whom I supported on the last occasion, and I are still of opinion that on many occasions the price put upon the sheep by the "oversman" is not a fair price, even taking into consideration what they choose to call the acclimatisation value. We do not propose to alter contracts or to say in any way that the landowner or incoming tenant is not to take over the sheep stock at a valuation, or even at an acclimatisation value. Instead of the "oversman," who is practically a judge, being appointed by the sheriff, we suggest practically that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which of late has been named in many of these Bills relating to agriculture to decide when there is a difference of opinion with regard to matters of arbitration between landlord and tenant—that the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction practically with the Lord President of the Court of Session, should have a panel of judges and should choose one of them to decide as to the value of the sheep stock.

I really do not know whether this is going to be better for the landlord and the incoming tenant than it was before. I rather supported the Amendment because I did not think that it was likely that we could be worse off than we were. I have no doubt that members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who very likely go about valuing, are afraid of any alteration in the appointment of this judge who is to decide in the matter, because they think that they will have less to do in these matters than in the past. It is a difficult point to put, because I do not want to make insinuations of gross unfairness against these men who have acted as judges in the past; but there are, of course, notorious cases where the cost of this sheep stock has been almost ridiculous, and the only argument has been that it is fair and just that these prices should be paid owing to the extreme loss that would he incurred if the tied sheep stock were sold off and a new lot of sheep brought from other districts on to the hill, where they would die like flies. All that was taken into consideration.

The noble Earl has said nothing to make me alter my opinion on this matter. What I feel about the question is that, with regard to the arbitration value of the sheep stock, we are assigning the same class of people, and not a very large number—the large sheep farmers in Scotland, one after the other—an anomalous position, with the result that at one time a man is a plaintiff, trying to see how much he can get for the sheep stock, the next week he is appointed to be an arbiter and, so to speak, counsel engaged to argue that the sheep stock is very valuable or the re- verse, and on the third occasion he is called upon to act as a judge. I do not think it is very satisfactory for all parties concerned that you should ask the same person to be one day in the position of plaintiff, and another day in the position of counsel, or jury if you like, and on the third occasion to act as judge. Without breaking any contract whatsoever and indeed being rather ignorant of how the thing would actually work—because it may work against the interest of the landlord and the incoming tenant—we are only asking that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, among its other activities, should also find some men well acquainted with sheep stock and with the counties, to be placed on a panel and give their opinion on these matters. We think that we should get more regular judgments and possibly fairer judgments in that way.

I know that this question is always mixed up with a certain amount of prejudice. It is always urged, whenever there is any alteration of the system of valuation proposed, that the object is simply to make it easier for the landlords to turn their land into deer forests. I think the noble Lord who carried the Amendment in Committee said it had been hinted that on his estates at one period there were large clearances of sheep in order to turn the land into deer forests. I think he quoted in the course of his speech a statement to show that prices had been exceedingly high, so that in 1907 or 1908 his predecessor, who sold the sheep stock, lost £37,000. Roughly speaking you may say this, that if the sheep stock was worth £60,000, it was valued to his predecessor at £100,000, who, therefore, had to pay £100,000 for sheep stock worth £60,000. That seems a little unfair. I have also here this further information, which I think appeared in the Reports of the Deer Forests Commission. So far from the owner of that estate selling sheep stock in order to make deer forests, it was the very reverse. I believe what happened on that estate was that a large number of sheep farmers gave up their land, the farms could not be re-let, and the landlord could not find the £100,000 with which to pay the valuation. He was, therefore, forced to sell, and got £60,000 towards paying that off. I believe that since then the sheep have been replaced, and from all that I hear there have been no very great losses upon the stock replaced.

I do not know whether, as I have said before, under the new proposal that the Minister of Agriculture is practically to appoint the judge, we shall be any better off than before, but I do think that there is a, very strong feeling in many parts of Scotland that some of these acclimatisation valuations of sheep stocks have been enormously inflated. The object of myself and of the noble Lord in supporting the Amendment in Committee was that some person should be taken as judge who was not in the clique of people actually engaged in the industry—someone who had not the same personal interest in keping values up to a very high level. Therefore, I very much hope that the Amendment will be opposed and the clause kept in the Bill.

THE EARL OF BREADALBANE

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Earl has just so ably put forward. Lord De La Warr raised the point that it was not a question of the alteration of future leases but of the alteration of current leases. That is quite true. It is current leases which are referred to, but I do not suggest that the spirit in which they were made should be departed from one scrap. It is the abuse of current leases that we want to put right. It is this custom of inflated valuations which wants dealing with, because it has become a means of squeezing the landlord. I hesitate to characterise in colloquial language the opinion entertained of these sheep stock valuations. What is wanted is a fair valuation, one which is just both for landlord and tenant alike. One case which was quoted in the Scotsman as an argument in favour of the present system was that of a farmer in Skye who, on handing over his sheep stocks, lost £19,000. So it was said the present system sometimes acted against the tenant as well as against the landlord.

I would like to deal with that. It so happened that the farmer went in when sheep stocks were falling, and therefore bought at a very low price, and for his own protection and by his own free choice undertook to be refunded at a fixed price. This fixed price was paid him in full. There was no question of acclimatisa- tion value at all. The best proof that a valuation is not a fair one is that the incoming tenant will not accept it, and if there is one man who should be willing to pay the highest theoretical price it is the incoming tenant. You have in him a man who has elected to go in for sheep farming, who finds his stock on the ground, acclimatised, and if the sheep stock is not worth the acclimatised value to him, to whom are they worth it? The answer is, nobody. I appeal to the Government to smooth away these anomalies and injustices between landlord and tenant. Surely, they have a duty to deal with what is well known to be a flagrant injustice in Scotland.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, with the point of the merits or de-merits of the question being brought up I particularly did not deal in my first speech. I think many of us were convinced by the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane, that there was a great deal in what he was saying; but what I did bring up was this point—and with all deference to Lord Ancaster and the last speaker they have not dealt with it—that leases have been agreed upon and it is now proposed to come down with an Act of Parliament and alter the contracts in those leases. The noble Lord says it is not any alteration at all, it is merely having a different valuer. If it is not any real alteration at all, why is it that the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, feels so strongly about and why is it that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland feel so strongly about it?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not feel strongly about it. I only say we

should not be any worse off than we are now.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Would the Government accept the principle for all future leases?

EARL DE LA WARR

Certainly, we do not have to put it in the Bill, because it is the case at the present moment that the landlord can let the land on whatever terms he likes. We are only discussing the position that is in existence now, and apparently it does make a very great difference. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, says it is not a very important point. Then I want to know why he minds so much about it. It is apparently a very important and a very relevant point, and a point on which very strong feelings are entertained on both sides; and yet the noble Lord proposes that we should alter the existing position. I suggest that it would be most unconstitutional, apart from anything else, for us to encourage breach of contract, and for that reason I earnestly hope that your Lordships will consent to this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I understand the noble Earl is against the breaking of contracts. I was not aware that his Party held that view, and I would suggest that he impresses his Leader and that Leader's followers in another place with that idea.

On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D. Morton, E. Clinton, L.
Rutland, D. Poulett, E. Ellenborough, L.
Radnor, E. Elphinstone, L.
Lansdowne, M. Spencer, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Linlithgow, M. Faringdon, L.
Burnham, V. Jessel, L.
Airlie, E. Churchill, V. Kylsant, L.
Ancaster, E. [Teller.] Elibank, V. Lamington, L.
Bathurst, E. Falkland, V. Lugard, L.
Brendalbane and Holland, E. [Teller.] Hood, V. Phillimore, L.
Novar, V. Playfair, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Ullswater, V. Rayleigh, L.
Saltoun, L.
Lauderdale, E. Annaly, L. Sinclair, L.
Lindsay, E. Auckland, L. Somerleyton, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Banbury of Southam, L. Wharton, L.
Midleton, E. Chesham, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Minto, E.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Amulree, L. Marley, L. [Teller.]
Arnold, L. Noel-Buxton, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.) Ashton of Hyde, L. Passfield, L.
Dickinson, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Kirkley, L. Sanderson, L.
Marks, L. Snell, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 37:

Amendment of s. 49 of principal Act.

37. Subsection (1) of Section forty-nine of the principal Act (which deals with arbitration) shall be amended by the substitution in the definition of the expression "Manuring" of the words "twenty-three, twenty-five and twenty-six" for the words "twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven."

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is taken in conjunction with certain Amendments following it, and is purely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 37.—(Earl De La Warr.)

First Schedule: