Sitting of 16 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS BILL. [H.L.]:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord who represents the Home Office notice of a Question. The House is aware that I introduced a Bill early in the session for the regulation of advertisements, and I understand that he has some communication from the Home Office as to what they are likely to do. Obviously it is too late in the session to proceed with the Bill now, but in asking leave of the House to withdraw the Bill I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he can give any indication of the views of the Home Office.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I regret that the Government cannot at present give any promise to introduce legislation to strengthen the existing law relating to the regulation of advertisements or to support a private Bill on the subject, although we sympathise with the idea of preventing unsightly advertisements from disfiguring the landscape and recognise that the existing law is defective. The question of amending the law in such a way as to secure the proper regulation of advertisements without undue interference with the advertising industry is one of difficulty, and that difficulty is increased by the fact that disfigurement is a question on which tastes and opinions vary. All that I can say at present, in answer to the noble Lord, is that in framing any legislation on the subject attention should be given to the importance of securing that as far as practicable the regulations are simple and clear and certain in their effect. I think that my noble friend is aware that suggestions have been made by those who were interested in the Bill as to the lines on which a Bill might be framed which would not be open to the objections which I ventured to suggest in the debate on the Second Reading. If the noble Lord will introduce a Bill on those lines next session it will, I have no doubt, receive the sympathetic consideration of the Govern-
280
ment, but I cannot give any definite promise at the present moment in regard to any action which may he adopted next Session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  A SATURDAY SITTING.
  THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can tell your Lordships what the course of business will be tomorrow, and whether, seeing that the Lords Amendments to the Home Rule Bill are being considered in another place to-day, the Commons Reasons or Amendments upon that Bill will be the first Order to-morrow. I think that will be most. convenient to your Lordships who took part in the proceedings on that Bill in this House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am unaware that any assurance was given in private that the Commons Amendments to the Home Rule Bill would be placed before your Lordships to-morrow. As your Lordships know, the House of Commons are dealing with the Lords Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill this evening. The noble Earl asks that this House should take the Commons Amendments to-morrow. If the House of Commons spends long on the Amendments from this House, which I may remind your Lordships were not inconsiderable in volume of printed matter, it might easily be extremely difficult to print and circulate the Commons Reasons in order that they might be before your Lordships to-morrow. Moreover, it may easily be that there may be Reasons which it might be inconvenient to discuss immediately in this way, before they had been printed.
  I am bound to bear in mind, as also are all my colleagues, that we have very often been the subject of severe censure for bringing up matters here, which have proceeded from the House of Commons under these circumstances, unless the material is in order and very readily available. If I am to understand that an objection which is based upon very considerable reasons is desired to be waived by the general sense of the House, then as far as the Government are concerned we have no objection to the Commons Reasons

  281
  (and, possibly, the Commons Amendments) being discussed to-morrow. But, as I have to put the various questions that arise, I must point out that it might not be very convenient as far as the Government itself is concerned to adopt the suggestion. It is impossible, of course, to say whether or not the Committee stage of the Agricultural Bill will be finished to-night. We, who are most sanguine, hope so; others, who are more pessimistic, may doubt it. In the event of the Committee stage of that Bill not being completed to-night I should suggest, in preference to the proposal of noble Earl, that the Commons Reasons on the Government of Ireland Bill might be taken immediately after the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Agricultural Bill to-morrow.
  NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be inconvenient that the Commons Amendments or observations on the Irish Bill should be taken first. I must point out to the noble Earl that, very important as the Irish debate is, a large number of your Lordships are very interested in the Agriculture Bill, and are here at this moment for the purpose of dealing with it. The suggestion I therefore make is that the Commons Reasons on the Government of Ireland Bill should be taken immediately after the Agriculture Bill to-morrow. That course has the additional advantage that it gives more time for the documents to be printed.
  I think that it may be convenient to your Lordships, as I am dealing with these matters, if I point out that we shall, with great respect, ask the House to sit on Saturday. The House of Commons is also sitting on Saturday, and it is a day which will, I think, be the most convenient to the majority of your Lordships. We can then have the Royal Commission for the Government of Ireland and other Bills, and make further progress with a number of measures. If the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill were taken on Monday next, and the Third Reading on Tuesday, December 21, and if the Dyestuffs Bill Second Reading was taken on Tuesday and the Committee stage On Wednesday, there would appear to be no reason at all why Parliament should not be prorogued on Friday, on which day the Appropriation Bill, it is hoped, might be taken through all its stages. I am well aware that this
  282
  may seem to be a not very particularly attractive programme, and the only consolation I can offer is that it is more attractive than it would have been if the Health Bill had not been defeated.
  THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether the difficulty he apprehends in regard to the circulation of the Commons Amendments and Reasons might not after all occur. I have no reason to suppose that there will be prolonged debate in another place, and it has constantly happened that when debates have been prolonged to an advanced hour the Reasons have been drawn up and circulated the following morning. I think that I might venture to ask the noble and learned Lord if he will he so good as to suspend his decision until the adjournment for dinner this evening, by which time he will probably be in a position to know how affairs have gone in the other House, and whether we may be sure of having all the documents circulated early to-morrow.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is a reasonable course, and I will adopt it. But I would point out to the noble Earl that noble Lords interested in agriculture do not wish to approach their discussions in a mood of exhaustion. I hope that your Lordships will agree to sit at 3 o'clock to-morrow. The judicial arrangement will make that possible. I imagine that the most convenient hour for your Lordships to meet on Saturday will be twelve o'clock noon.
  THE MARQUESS or CREWE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has held out the prospect of closing our business before Christmas in the course of next week, and the prospect is in itself an alluring one. But I cannot help feeling that the interests of business may seem to suffer through this attractive proposal, and that the noble arid learned Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, is filling a rather Mephistophelean part, in holding out the attractions of a holiday to your Lordships when, I am afraid, it is almost bound to mean that the measures which have to be considered cannot receive the proper degree of discussion in the short time that still remains. I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Lord and His Majesty's Government would have been wiser had they frankly admitted the necessity of meeting at some period after Christmas,

  283
  inconvenient though it may be to a great many of us as individuals.
  It is, of course, impossible to say what progress may be made with the Agricultural Bill to-day. A large and important part of the Bill has been dealt with, but, on the other hand, it has been dealt with by leaving over some matters of no little importance for the Report stage, and in the remaining clauses that have to be considered in Committee there is at any rate one which is likely to lead to a long discussion. And there are several others which will probably mean a good deal of discussion from different quarters in your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord suggested, I think, that even if the Bill cannot be finished until Saturday, it would be hoped to take the Report stage on Monday. That, of course, does not give very much time for the consideration of further Amendments, and I have no doubt the House would have preferred it if the Report stage could have been deferred a little longer. One does not know to what degree of discussion the Dyestuffs Bill is likely to give rise, but it is likely, I think, to occupy the greater part of a sitting. How far attempts will be made to amend it I do not know; but there are also some other measures to be considered, and I cannot help feeling that the noble and learned Lord has been somewhat over-sanguine in suggesting to the House that we can conclude all our business with proper discussion in the course of next week.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would remind the noble Marquess that Mephistopheles, while his character was undoubtedly disfigured by many bad qualities, had it recorded of him that he was open to persuasion, and there is no doubt that the same can be said of His Majesty's Government. I only indicated what we hoped would be possible. If it transpires that the discussion on the Dyestuffs Bill, for instance, raises violent controversy in this House the programme will be shown to be inaccurate and your Lordships will amend it. The noble Marquess will, no doubt, set us the example of moving that the House should meet after Christmas, and it will then be seen what. support there is for the opinions he has expressed. We are encouraged to believe that the Dyestuffs Bill will not be very controversial because it is not only supported by a considerable majority in another place but Mr. Asquith
  284
  is actually supporting it as being the fulfillment of pledges given during the war. In those circumstances we regard the Bill as practically non-controversial. It is very difficult at this moment to be sure of the exact course of events, but if your Lordships are of opinion that we have not given sufficient time your Lordships will, of course, say so.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
Establishment of Wages Committees in Wales.
5. Subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1917 shall not apply to Wales, and in lieu thereof the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Act of 1917 shall apply with respect to Wales as they apply with respect to Scotland, with the substitution of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Board of Agriculture.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): The first three Amendments on the Paper are in substance drafting Amendments to carry out the effect of Clause 5, and are rendered necessary by the fact that the clause refers to the Scottish scheme which is not entirely applicable to Wales, and also by the fact that there is already in existence a tribunal for wages operating in Wales.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 15, after ("shall") insert. ("subject as hereinafter provided")
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("Ministry") and insert ("Minister")
Page 11, line 18, after ("Agriculture") insert ("for Scotland") and at end insert ("Provided that—
"(1) The provisions of the said Schedule with respect to combinations of districts, and paragraph (4) of the said Schedule shall not apply, and there shall be constituted in accordance with a scheme to be framed by the Minister a central agricultural wages committee for Wales (in this section referred to as 'the central committee') consisting of a chairman appointed by the Minister, and of two representatives of each district wages committee (one of whom shall represent employers, and the other of whom shall represent workmen) to be elected by the district committee, and of two women to be appointed by the Minister; and
"(2) The Minister shall appoint a person to act as secretary to a central committee; and
"(3) The powers of the Agricultural Wages Board established under the Act of 1917 shall continue to be exerciseable until such time as the central committee is duly constituted under this section; and
"(4) Any rate of wages fixed, or order made by the Agricultural Wages. Board shall continue in force in Wales unless and until it is varied or revoked by the central committee and any permit granted by the said. Board to a workman under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1917 shall, in relation to the employment of that workman in Wales, have effect as if it were granted by the central committee").—(Lord Lee of Fare-hem.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL or KIMBERLEYmoved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Earl said: I am moving the deletion of this clause because I am deputed to tell your Lordships that it is entirely against the wish of the agricultural labourers as expressed through those who represent them in the House of Commons and also on the wages board, that Wales should have a separate wages board. I happen to know and I am very friendly with a great many people on the Central Wages Board and it is not only the labour side but also on the other side who think it would be a great pity to give Wales a separate board and destroy what has been a very harmonious body as regards dealing with the rate of wages. There are many difficulties to face if it is done. If Wales had the separate management of agriculture like Scotland there would be no question that she should have a separate board. 1 do not want to offend any Welshman at, all but I believe this part of the British Isles is called England, that England and Scotland are called Great Britain and that Wales is part of Great. Britain. When you give, as you may hereafter, separate Local Government to Wales I have no doubt in course of time that Yorkshire, East Anglia, the North of England, and the South will ask for separate local government. If you give Wales a separate wages board, why on earth should you not give Yorkshire and the other places I have mentioned separate wages boards?
On the question of economy the members of the wages boards have asked me to point out that if you set up a separate wages board for Wales there must be money expended on it. The wages board has worked very well and I think it is an extremely useful thing. If in future it becomes necessary that Wales should have a separate wages board then the
286
question can be dealt with, but one does not want to spend more money on officialism now and as every penny saved is of advantage to the country at large I think matters should be left as they are. If that is done, I say without fear of contradiction that you will be doing what the labouring people want who are concerned in agriculture in Wales, and, after all, even if you hate the Wages Board, at all events the people who are under it are contented with it, so why not leave well alone?
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: As this Amendment also stands in my name, perhaps I tatty be allowed to say something on it. I cannot pretend to speak with the same authority on the views of organised labour as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, but surely this clause is home rule run mad. If you are going to set up a separate wages board for Wales it is bound to involve a large additional expenditure and particularly in respect of additional officials.
But my main objection to the clause is that it undermines the whole scheme of this Bill arising out of the guarantees. These guarantees are founded, quite properly, upon the cost of production as assessed on the basis of the year 1919. Those costs of production were arrived at by the Royal Commission on Agriculture who explored the whole of the ground after considering wages as fixed by the Central Wages Board, a body which operates over the whole of England and Wales. If you are to have two entirely separate wages boards in the future assessing wages from an entirely different standpoint and running on entirely different lines the result will be that the guarantees upon which you are now deciding will prove to have been founded upon a wrong basis and you ought, indeed, to have another Royal Agricultural Commission set up in order to decide whether the new wages board for Wales will affect the actual prices which you intend to fix as minimum prices for wheat and oats in the future. I venture to suggest that this was never. contemplated when the Bill was drafted, and certainly the guarantees will have to be entirely revised if you are going to set up a separate wages board.
There is another reason wily I press this view, because, although it is sought by the noble Lord's Amendment to assimilate the

287
case of Wales to that of Scotland, we must bear in mind that in Scotland, rightly or wrongly, there is a separate Department of Agriculture, and in this country our Ministry of Agriculture administers agricultural matters both in Wales and in England. And, although the noble Lord opposite, I believe, does not regard the Central Wages Board as a branch of his Department he has already admitted in this House that it is closely affiliated or associated with it. For these reasons I hope that noble Lords will rule out this clause as wholly unnecessary.
LORD CLWYD: There are, of course, administrative difficulties in connection with setting up a separate wages board for Wales, but this is a matter which has been very carefully considered by those who represent Wales, and, if we are to measure the situation by public opinion, I may mention that all the Welsh Members in the House of Commons, Liberal, Unionist, Coalition, and Labour, made representations to my right hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill in another place and to the Minister in charge of the Bill here in favour of the inclusion of this clause. Anyone who has knowledge of Wales must know that in many respects there are in that country special agricultural conditions, and upon the general ground of national sentiment and of different agricultural conditions I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand the motives which have caused the public opinion in Wales, of which the noble Lord has just spoken, to be in favour of a separate wages board, and, speaking generally, I sympathise with manifestations of that feeling. But it seems to me, from the point of view of one who lives in one of what Mrs. Malaprop called "the contagious counties," that the matter has a distinct bearing on us in Cheshire, Shropshire, and Hereford. The boundaries between England and Wales are very arbitrary, and the agriculture is to a large extent identical along those borders, and it occurs to me that considerable difficulty might arise if a totally different scale of remuneration of labour was instituted owing to the difference in the conclusions of the district wages boards and the Central Wages Boards in two adjacent countries, and that a great deal of ill-feeling might be caused as between one county and
288
another. I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has had that consideration in his mind, but I confess it seems to me to be a substantial one.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It is quite true that this clause was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but it is also true that there was a very strong expression of feeling, amounting almost to a national demonstration, on the part of the Welsh Members in another place, and it was in consequence of that, and in view of the fact that Scotland has a separate wages board that it was felt it was exceedingly difficult to deny to one nationality what was allowed to the other. Under these circumstances the Government accepted the separate wages board. On the other hand, I am well aware that there has been an objection taken to it in many quarters, but on balance we came to the conclusion that it was better that the separate wages board should be maintained, and I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: What I think people forget in connection with wages boards is this. Everybody knows that in every county, in every district, in every parish, and very often on every farm, the value of the land is entirely different, and how is it possible therefore to appoint a wages board at all in which you can do the full and proper justice over any very considerable area of land? There is no getting away from that. And yet that has been the policy of His Majesty's Government in this Bill. I think what I have said is applicable also to the Commissioners. I object altogether to the three Commissioners for Ireland, Scotland, and England being persons appointed to decide upon the methods of cultivation in those three different countries. Agriculture in Scotland varies very much from agriculture in England, whilst agriculture in England and in Ireland are absolutely and totally distinct, and I personally should object altogether to a Commissioner for Technical Education in Ireland having a word to say in connection with cultivation in England. I hope therefore that this Amendment will be pressed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount at the conclusion of his speech opposing this clause; I thought he was defending it.

289
He began by telling us how very difficult at was to lay down arbitrary rides over whole districts. According to him the only possible way to adjust wages fairly would be to do it over small districts—parishes even. But surely it is a very strong argument for having a separate wages board in Wales that you have entirely different conditions, a different people, speaking very largely a different language; and the case for Wales is a great deal stronger for the speech that the noble Viscount has made. I believe that every single Member of Parliament for

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Glenarthur, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Greville, L.

Argyll, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Marlborough, D.

Westmeath, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Harris, L.

Wellington, D.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Holm Patrick, L.

Bangor, V.

Hylton L.

Ailsa, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

Bath, M.

Cave, V.

Kanres borough, L.

Cameden, M.

Chilston, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Licolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Devonport, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Finlay, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Hood, V.

Oriel, L. (M. Massercene.)

Ancaster, E.

Peel, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Bradford, E.

St. Davids, V.

Phillimore, L.

Caithness, E.

Phillimore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Abinger, L.

Queenborough, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Ranksborough, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Balfour, L.

Rathereedan, L.

Harewood, E.

Barrymore, L.

Redesdale, L.

Howe, E.

Bellow, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Blythswood, L.

Romilly, L.

Iveagh, E.

Boston, L.

Rotherham, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sackville, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clinton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lovelace, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Sempill, L.

Lucan, E.

de Mauley, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Deecies, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Donigton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E Galloway.)

Onslow, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Sandwich, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Fairelie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wavertree, L.

Stanhope, E.

Farnham, L.

Wharton, L.

Forbes, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Allendale, V.

Forester, L.

Somerset, D.

Chaplin, V.

Hastings, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Hindlip, L.

Hampden, V.

Incheape, L.

Crewe, M.

Harcourt, V.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Linlithgow, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenyon, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lamington, L.

Abingdon, E.

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Albemarle, E.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Chichester, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Parmoor, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

Chalmers, L.

Pentland, L.

Cranworth, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Jersey, E.

Denham, L.

Strachie, L.

Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Sumner, L.

Midleton, E.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Morton, E.

Ernle, L.

Wynford, L.

Wicklow, E.

Erskine, L.

Wales is in favour of having a separate wages board, and it is rather an arbitrary thing to override the wishes of a whole people when there is no practical advantage in doing so. I sincerely hope that this House will not take up the attitude that, for no particular reason, it will refuse the wish of the whole Welsh people, and a wish that can be gratified without doing any harm to ally Englishman or Scotsman.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 16.
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause—
"7. It shall be the duty of each agricultural committee referred to in this Act to furnish annually to the Minister full accounts showing the expenditure winch has been made by such committee in the carrying out of the provisions of this Act, and where such committee has entered into occupation of any holding under the powers conferred upon it by this Act, it shall furnish to the Minister the detailed costs incurred by such committee in respect of such holding, and the Minister shall submit to Parliament the returns made by the said committee under this section."
The noble Lord said: I move this new clause in the interests of economy and for the protection of the taxpayer. Under Clause 28 of the Bill Parliament is to provide the money for carrying out the objects of this measure, and the new clause which I move says that it shall be the duty of each agricultural committee referred to in this Bill to furnish annually to the Minister full accounts showing the expenditure which has been made by such committee in the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill. These full accounts are meant to include those moneys, which are considerable, spent on railway travelling. Under the Defence of the Realm Act it would be very difficult to get from every agricultural committee an account of the money spent under the Act, but now that the taxpayer has to pay the whole expense I think it would be considered reasonable by the Minister in charge of the Bill that these committees should show a full account of their expenditure. It is hoped that this may tend to reduce the number of officials employed by the various committees. Some counties are more extravagant than others. The more officials you have the more money they spend, and the more work they are obliged to find to do. I hope my noble friend will be able to meet me on this point.
The second part of the proposed new clause provides that where such committee has entered into occupation of any holding under the powers conferred upon it by this Bill it shall furnish to the Minister the detailed costs incurred by such committee in respect of such holding, and the committee shall submit to Parliament the
292
returns made by the said committee under this section. The various committees are now in the occupation of a good deal of land, and it would be interesting if they are to set an example—
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Agreed.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Them I will not trouble the House any longer. I will simply move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I thought I had already intimated that I was willing to accept the Amendment.
Clause 7:
Commencement of part IV of Corn Production, Act, 1917.
7. Part IV of the Act of 1917 shall, if not in operation at the date of the commencement of this Act, come into operation on that date, and the powers continued in operation by subsection (3) of section eleven of the Act of 1917 as amended' by the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall, if they have not previously ceased, cease on that date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "except in relation to any land of which the Minister is on that date in possession by himself or any person deriving title from him, or any land to which on that date subsection (2) of section thirty of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, applies."
The noble and learned Lord said: The Minister, or certain bodies acting on his behalf, is in occupation of a large area of land under certain Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the bulk of it is in occupation as allotment gardens. The powers conferred by these Regulations are powers which have been continued in force by the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918, until the determination of the war. Clause 7 proposes that they shall be brought to an end on January 1, 1921. Now, under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1917, a Government Department in possession of land at the termination of the war under the Defence of the Realm Regulation powers is entitled to remain in occupation for a period of two years from the termination of the war, and the Government have given a definite

293
pledge that as regards allotment land they will exercise those powers, except where the owner makes out a good case for the restoration of the land to him.
It is necessary, therefore, to exempt land of which the Ministry is in occupation from the operation of Clause 7 so as to enable possession to be retained until the termination of the war, or two years thereafter. This exemption is, I think, required having regard to the commitments of the Ministry. I know that these matters are not very popular, and therefore I would make it plain that that part of it which relates to farms of which the Minister is in possession under Regulations and under the pledges that have been given is very small, and the Ministry is taking steps to withdraw from this class of land at the earliest possible moment. The matter is a small one and a technical one.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that this clause embodies that obnoxious system of legislation by reference that has already been drastically dealt with in Clause 4. I suggest that it is at least as obnoxious in the place where we now find it as it was there, and I venture to move the omission of the clause, so that the remains of Part IV of the Act of 1917—there is not much left of it—could be set out in the Bill itself, in order that those who administer it may clearly see what they are administering.
I might remind your Lordships that this part of the Act of 1917 consists of three sections only. One is Section 9 which has been already embodied in Clause 4; the second is Section 10, which refers to the protection of crops from damage by rabbits and vermin, and I think your Lordships will be interested to see on the face of the Bill what that particular provision is, and to know particularly whether it applies to present-day conditions; and lastly, most important of all, comes Section 11, which deals with the whole machinery of arbitration. Your Lordships will notice that we have already passed clauses in the Bill which refer to this arbitration machine, the actual machine not being described at all. This particular clause is peculiarly
294
obnoxious in that respect, because when your Lordships turn to Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, you find that you are referred to still another Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, the Second Schedule of which sets out the actual machinery of arbitration. All I ask you to do is to insert in place of this clause by reference the actual sections of the 1907 Act to which reference is made.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Claus. 7.—(Lord Bledisloe).
LORD FORESTER: As my name is on the Paper in connection with this Amendment I desire to support the noble Lord who has moved it. I think it would be far more convenient to your Lordships—I know it would be to myself—to have everything embodied in the one measure. In order to understand this Bill one has to carry about a small portmanteau of Acts, and I even had to lend my noble friend in front of me a copy of the Corn Production Act. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time, but l hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will give consideration to this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 7 deals with the date on which Part IV of the Act of 1917 is to come into operation, and your Lordships will remember (though I do not know that the two speeches that have been made contained a reference to this) that Part IV of the 1917 Act was not to come into operation until the close of the war. It is proposed that Part IV should come into operation on January 1, 1921. If this House does nothing at this stage Part IV of the Act of 1917 would not come into operation until the date of the signature to the Treaty with Turkey. I am not prepared to say when that important and desirable Treaty will be consummated.
But we are dealing strictly with two alternatives. I should have thought that noble Lords would have greatly welcomed the proposals contained in Clause 7 because they are really an attempt to meet their wishes. I cannot think that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord is consonant with the general desire of the House. We are acting now under Defence of the Realm powers. I know that noble Lords are most anxious at the earliest possible moment to get rid of the powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts. If this

295
Amendment is carried we must go on dealing with this under the Defence of the Realm powers, and I cannot imagine why when the Government—very late in the day some of our critics think—exhibit some symptoms of grace and are prepared to substitute a very intelligible and well understood principle and one much more in favour in this House than the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, it should be opposed.
Noble Lords say that they object to legislation by reference, and that this is legislation by reference. It certainly is, but the general abuse of legislation by reference goes much too far, though there are particular abuses of it that no one will deny. No draftsman can ever get rid of legislation by reference. There may be too much of it, but when dealing with complicated subjects in Bills which have been preceded very likely by eight or nine Acts of Parliament well-known to the expert persons who alone can deal with those matters, to say that in each succeeding Bill you must set out every clause referred to in every preceding Act is simply ludicrous to those who are accustomed to deal with these matters.
It is a question of degree in every case, whether the draftsman has done his work clumsily or skilfully. I do not take the view in this case that there is anything which would task the ingenuity of noble Lords, and if the noble Lord who spoke last says—I forget his exact phrase—he has to carry about a portmanteau or library in order to follow the intricacies of this legislation, he is not any worse off than any lawyer who has to construe it. If a layman finds himself in at least as good a position as any lawyer I cannot see that he has any grievance.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Is not the noble and learned Lord rather straining at a gnat in refusing this Amendment? It is a little difficult as one reads Clause 7, as it stands, to see exactly what it is meant to do. It seems to me that it is meant to do two things which are quite distinct. The one is to bring certain powers into operation, and the other to cause certain powers to cease. The powers that are to cease are those under the Defence of the Realm Act, as I gather from the noble and learned Lord, and there seems no reason why they should not cease. But that does not affect the principle of this Amendment in the least.
296
What this Amendment is intended to do is to put into the Bill in two perfectly plain sections what are the provisions of Part IV that are to come into operation, and it is not intended to hinder—God forbid that it should for a single moment!—the day when the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act should conic to an end. It may be that under this Amendment to leave out the whole of the clause the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the clause is a composite clause, and I think that could very easily and readily and properly be remedied. But when you come to see what is intended to be introduced, all your Lordships need do is to turn to the Amendment Paper and try to find the clauses set out. They are not very long. I do not think it is fair, where it is possible to introduce in perfectly plain and intelligible language what an Act of Parliament is intended to do, that you should cause a person who wants to follow it to look to another Statute. Though. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we spend most of our time in doing it, still I am sure he will concur with me that it does not improve our temper, and we resent it very much. But after all we have some advantage over other people in that respect, because we know a little about the Acts that are introduced by reference.
I think that a man who wants to know what this Act means has some claim to have it made plain upon the face of it, and that is all that this Amendment does. I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord has not really given any reason at all. He has given some reasons why you cannot get rid of legislation by reference, but no reason in the world why this particular Amendment should not be introduced, and I submit it should be introduced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No one, of course, can give any particular reason in a particular case why legislation by reference should be permitted, except that everybody must concede there are cases in which that is a proper method of legislation, the implication being involved in the very use of the argument that this is such a case. My estimate of the opinion of my noble and learned friend on any technical or legal matter is precisely in inverse ratio to my estimate of the value of his opinion on any agricultural matter,

297
and I am greatly impressed by the view he has expressed that this method might be adopted in this particular case. I always pay the deepest respect to his opinion in any such matter as that. Therefore if he will allow me, and the mover of the Amendment will allow me, between now and the Report stage I will consider this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Compensation for disturbance.
8.—(1) Where the tenancy of a holding terminates after the commencement of this Act by reason of a notice to quit given, after the twentieth lay of May, nineteen hundred and twenty by the landlord, and in consequence of such notice the tenant quits the holding, then, unless the tenant—

(a) was not at the date of the notice cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry; or

(b) had at the date of the notice failed to comply within a reasonable time with any notice in writing by the landlord served on him requiring him to remedy any breach being a breach which was capable of being remedied of any term or condition of the tenancy consistent with good husbandry; Or

(c) was at the date of the notice a person who had become bankrupt or compounded with his creditors; or

(d) had at the date of the notice refused, or within a reasonable time failed, to agree to a demand made to him in writing by the landlord foe arbitration as to the rent to be paid for the holding as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord at the date of the said demand;

and, in the case of a notice to quit given after the commencement of this Act, unless the notice to quit states that it is given for one or more of the reasons aforesaid, compensation for the disturbance shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section:
Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this section in any case where the landlord has made to the tenant an offer in writing to withdraw the notice to quit and the tenant has unreasonably refused or failed to accept the offer.
(2) The agricultural committee for the area in which a holding is situate shall, on the application of the landlord of the holding and after giving the tenant or his representative an opportunity of being heard, hear the application and may grant to the landlord a certificate that the tenant
298
is not cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry, or may refuse the same, any such certificate shall for the purposes of this section be conclusive evidence of that fact unless the tenant, within such time as the Minister may prescribe, requires the question as to whether he is cultivating the holding according to the rules of good husbandry to he referred to arbitration and the arbitrator determines that the holding is bring so cultivated.
(3) Where, after the commencement of this Act, the landlord of a holding refuses, or within a reasonable time fails to agree to a demand made to him in writing by the tenant for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for the holding as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given by the tenant at the date of the said demand, and by reason of the refusal or failure the tenant exercises his power of terminating the tenancy by a notice stating that it is given for that reason the tenant shall be entitled to compensation in the same manner as if the tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord.
(4) The provisions of this section relating to demands for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for a holding shall not apply where the demand, if made later than six months after the commencement of this Act, is so made that the increase or reduction of the rent would take effect at some time before the expiration of two years from the commencement of the tenancy of the holding or from the date on which a previous increase or reduction of the rent took effect:
Provided that an arbitrator in determining for the purposes of this section what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding shall not take into account any improvements executed thereon so far as they were executed wholly or partly by and at the expense of the tenant without ally equivalent allowance or benefit made or given by the landlord, in consideration of their execution, or fix the rent at a higher amount than would have been properly payable if those improvements had not been so executed.
(5) The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum representing such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation), and also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding, or, where the notice to quit is given with out good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, such sum, not being less than one year's rent nor more than four years' rent of the holding, as the arbitrator may think proper.
(6) Compensation shall not be payable under this section—

(a) in respect of the sale of any goods, implements, fixtures, produce or stock unless the tenant has before the sale given the landlard a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation thereof: or

299

(b) Unless the tenant has not less than two months before the termination of the tenancy given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this section; or

(c) where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit; or

(d) if in a case in which the tenant under section twenty-three of the Act of 1908 accepts a notice to quit part of his holding as a notice to quit the entire holding, the part of the holding affected by the notice given by the landlord, together with any other part of the holding affected by any previous notice given under that section by the landlord to the tenant, is less than one-fourth part of the original holding, or the holding as proposed to be diminished is reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding except compensation in respect of the part of the holding to which the notice to quit related; or

(e) where the holding was let to the tenant by a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, or by a government department or a local authority, and possession of the holding is required by the corporation, department, or authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation, department, or authority; or

(f) in the case of a permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing, and which has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen and before the commencement of this Act been let to a tenant for a definite and limited period for cultivation as arable land, on the condition that the tenant shall along with the last or waygoing crop sow permanent grass seeds.

(7) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords. and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.
(8) The landlord shall, on an application made in writing after the commencement of this Act by the tenant of a holding to whom a notice to quit has been given which does not state the reasons for which it is given, furnish to the tenant within twenty-eight days after the receipt of the application a statement in writing of the reasons for the giving of the notice, and if he fails unreasonably so to do the notice shall be deemed to have been given without. good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management.
(9) If any question arises as to whether compensation is payable under this section or as to the amount payable by way of compensation under this section the question shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1908.
(10) Compensation payable under this section shall be in addition to any compensation to which the tenant may be entitled in respect of improvements, and shall be recoverable in the same manner as such compensation and be payable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.
VISCOUNT HAMPDENhad on the Paper an Amendment in, paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "cultivating" and insert "managing." The noble Lord said: I think it was agreed yesterday that the Amendment which stands in my name should be postponed until the Report stage, but I would like to take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether he can give us a definition of what "cultivation" means. I have tried to find out. In the Corn Production Act there is a definition which covers grass land. In Ireland in the same Act there is a different definition which covers only tilled land, As regards Part II and in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, there is no definition. so that an arbitrator who goes to work on this clause has no guide whatever as to what cultivation means.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I should be obliged if the noble Lord would allow me to consider the question of definition. I should not like on the spur of the moment to give the particular definition which is referred to in the Corn Production Act, but I will consider the matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I think this was a point that the noble Lord opposite said he would consider after yesterday's discussion, and I rather wondered whether, in the light of the decision which was come to in this House on Clause 4, he does not think the word "manage" would be a more suitable word than the word "cultivate," bearing in mind that we are all agreed now that it is to apply to pasture and meadow land as well as to arable land. "Cultivate" does rather suggest the idea of ploughing up.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Viscount does not move his Amendment?
VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: No.
LORD LAMINGTON(on behalf of Lord SALTOUN) moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph—
"(b) had prior to the date of the notice contravened or failed to observe the rules of good husbandry, and had in consequence deteriorated the holding, as at the date of notice."
The noble Lord said: The paragraph is very clear in its intention. It is that a tenant, who prior to receiving notice had not been cultivating his land properly, might show great zeal only when he has received notice; and the landlord should be safeguarded in that respect.
Amendment moved—
Pave 12, line 9, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It is quite possible that a tenant might at some earlier date have deteriorated his holding by failure to observe the rules of good husbandry, and the notice to quit may have remedied that deterioration; in such a case he cannot be considered to be. in default. But if at the date of the notice the holding is still bring inadequately cultivated, he is still in default under paragraph (a).
LORD LAMINGTON: I do not think it covers the case at all. I have, however, an Amendment, in a different, form, which might suit the noble Lord better.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I should be very glad if the noble Lord would put the words of his new Amendment down for Report, when I will undertake to consider them. At present he himself seems to be of two minds with regard to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after the second "him," to insert "to pay any rent due in. respect of the holding or." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment, which I hope that the Minister may be inclined to accept. The object of it, as no doubt he is aware, is to provide that the tenant shall not get the benefit of the section in a case where he has not paid any rent due on the holding. It only seems reasonable that the tenant, to put himself in a position to claim compensation under the Act should have paid up his rent to date.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, after the second ("him") insert. ("to pay any rent due in respect of the bidding or").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I should have thought that these words were not necessary, but I have no objection to their being put in if the noble Lord wishes.
THE MARQUESS or LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS or LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after "creditors," to insert "or had been during the tenancy convicted of serious crime or had acquired habits or been guilty of conduct prejudicial to good estate management."
The noble Marquess said: I have been asked to recommend this Amendment to the Government on behalf of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I am aware that if the House accepts this Amendment it introduces into the Bill a somewhat unusual matter because the words amount to a, disqualification or penalty on the ground of personal fault or character. But, my Lords, when the State comes between the parties to a contract it may perhaps be argued that some unusual or extraordinary provision of this sort is not to be avoided. I think upon those grounds there are two precedents which may not be without effect upon the House. There is the case of the Small Land Holders Act, 1911, which provides in Section 32, subsection (4), that the statutory small tenant is not to get security of tenure where the landlord satisfies the Land Court that there is reasonable ground of objection, and so on, to the tenant; in other words, the statutory small tenant can be objected to on personal grounds, and not merely on what I may call agricultural grounds. Then there is another case under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage interest Restrictions Act, 1920, which I think was quoted in another place, and which I will not detain this House by quoting, unless it is desired that I should do so. I hope the noble Lord opposite will believe that my conviction with regard to this matter is not to be measured by the brevity of the speech with which I have recommended it to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after ("creditors") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment moved by my noble friend appears to me to be very important in so far as it bears direct relation to the amount of compensation which it is proposed to give for capricious eviction. Capricious eviction, I take it, would be the eviction of a man who had committed no agricultural fault. Lord Linlithgow endeavours to disqualify a tenant from the four years' compensation on account of personal fault, and of course every one of your Lordships is aware of cases of tenants against whom it would be extremely hard to charge or prove any agricultural fault, but who are extremely undesirable persons in the part of the world in which they reside, and whom it is extremely desirable to get rid of by some means or other. By that I mean not for the advantage of the landowner but for the advantage of the neighbourhood. It is hardly necessary to bring to your Lordships' notice cases which arise of grave immorality. Those are cases which certainly do render it desirable to get rid of the tenant farmer, and yet it seems that under this Bill a man guilty of such conduct would go away with four years' compensation in his pocket, whereas a good tenant whose farm the landlord wanted to take over would only receive one year's compensation. The bad man would be compensated at the expense of the good man. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With reference to the concluding words of the noble Marquess, I will give him and indeed all noble Lords a general assurance that in the opinion of the Government the highest degree of sincerity is compatible with the utmost degree of brevity, and therefore I treat the Amendment, as indeed it is, as a serious one. It is at the same time one which provokes a difficult discussion. We must, of course, above all be very careful not to arm the critics of those who are responsible for the administration of land with the charge that we are enabling, in another form, landlords to get rid of tenants whose manners or whose morals they do not like. The question will be left, I am inclined to think, if we adopt the language of the Amendment, in a somewhat nebulous form. The words of the Amendment are "or had been during the tenancy convicted of serious crime or had acquired habits or been guilty of conduct prejudicial to good estate management."
304
Serious crime is specifically clear. There is no ambiguity about that. But when I come to consider the other words I find myself face to face with the greatest difficulty if I have to construe those words as a judge. Supposing, for instance, an act of sexual misconduct was committed by a tenant. It is, of course, extremely culpable, but would that be an act which was "prejudicial to good estate management"? I think there would be very great difficulty in deciding what kinds of conduct were prejudicial to good estate management. Supposing these words came up to me as a judge and I had to construe them without hearing arguments—I give now a prima facie impression—I should construe those words as meaning conduct in relation to affairs which deal with the estate prejudicial to the estate management, and I think that is a reasonable meaning to give; but I do not think that exhausts the meaning which the noble-Marquess intended to give. These matters have to be decided by the arbitrator, and I cannot conceive a more unsuitable tribunal for the question raised by the Amendment than the arbitrator.
There is a precedent to which the noble Marquess did not refer, and that is a precedent which may enable your Lordships to reach a conclusion. It is contained in the Rent Restriction Act. Under that Act possession can be obtained if the, tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or if he has been convicted of using the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose. I agree with the noble Marquess that where a landlord sincerely feels a moral obligation in the interests of his other tenants or the neighbourhood to, get rid of a tenant whose conduct, if I may use popular language, might be-described as a public scandal, then I think that might be considered as coming within, the category by reason of the tenants misconduct. Therefore, to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that ought not to carry the right to compensation for disturbance. I have said enough to show your Lordships that this is one of those cases in which there is something which makes it desirable (if it were possible) to deal with; but, indeed, it is not very easy to conceive what exact form of words might be most suitable to carry out our purpose. I do not like the noble Marquess's language, because I think it is excessively

305
vague, but it might be left open, and it shall be very carefully considered in the light of what noble Lords have said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next Amendment is drafting, to make the paragraph correspond with Clause 3 which deals with the matter.
Amendment moved.—
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("had at the date of the notice"), and insert ("has after the commencement of this Act")—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, at the end of paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph—
"(e) had at the date of the notice refused or within a reasonable time failed to comply with a demand made to him in writing by the landlord requiring him to execute a tenancy agreement the terms of which in the opinion of the arbitrator are reasonable and proper."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to cover a quite small point, but there art a number of cases still, unfortunately, in this country in which there are no leases or covenants of tenancy in writing, and it is tolerably certain that if this Act comes into operation it will be essential for all owners as soon as possible to convert their unwritten words of agreement into written leases. It is proposed here to put in words which will prevent a tenant from unreasonably objecting to a lease being put into operation, I hope that the noble Lord will understand the meaning of the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 24, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is not quite so small a point as the noble Lord suggests. The proposal is that a tenant shall lose his rights of compensation if he refuses to accept the new form of contract of tenancy which an arbitrator considers reasonable and proper. There is no indication as to the extent to which it might differ from his existing tenancy. Apparently under this a lease for a term of years might be forced upon a yearly tenant, or the area of his farm might be materially altered, and it seems to me that it opens far too wide a question to be acceptable. I think that I understand
306
what the noble Lord has in view. His object, I imagine., is to prevent an unreasonable or cantankerous tenant from blocking a desirable readjustment of an estate which might really be doing him no injury at all. Obviously it is desirable to deal with that if possible. On the other hand, it seems to me that the provisions, if passed, would be capable of very serious abuse on the part of an oppressive landlord by giving him the power to coerce a tenant practically into accepting a form of lease which was very disadvantageous to him, and which involved serious changes in his tenancy. I hope under these circumstances that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I do not think that I can have made myself clear to the noble Lord. This was only to meet cases where, owing to the passing of this Act, it became essential to have a lease prepared, and the decision upon that is left to the arbitrator. If the noble Lord thinks it is too wide I will withdraw it now, and try to express it in more definite language for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEE or FAREHAM LORD LEE or FAREHAM moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection—
"(2) The landlord of a holding may at any time apply to the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate for a certificate that the tenant is not cultivating the tinkling according to the rules of good husbandry, and on any such application being made the committee, after giving to the landlord and the tenant or their respective representatives an opportunity of being heard, shall as they think proper either grant or refuse the certificate.
The landlord or tenant may within such time after the refusal or grant by the committee of a certificate as the Minister may prescribe require the question as to whether the holding is being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry to be referred to an arbitrator who may grant a certificate for the purpose of this subsection or revoke the certificate granted by the committee, Subject to any such appeal certificate granted under this subsection shall be conclusive evidence that the holding is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry."
The noble Lord said: This is really re-drafting. It has been generally held that the wording in the Bill of subsection. (2) is very badly expressed owing to the patching which was done in Committee. Moreover, it has one serious omission. It. did not provide for an appeal by the land-

307
lord against the refusal of a certificate, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We feel that it is desirable that an appeal should be allowed in both cases. Therefore an attempt has been made, which I think has been successful, to re-draft this subsection in a better form. It contains nothing new except the insertion of the right of appeal on the part of the landlord as well as the tenant. Under those circumstances I hope your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34 to page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There are two Amendments following in the names of Lord Forester and the Earl of Jersey. I do not know if those two noble Lords are satisfied with this Amendment, or whether they desire that their rights should be saved.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think they are covered by the Amendment.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Amendment is entirely covered by it.
LORD FORESTER: Mine is not.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the noble Lord's Amendment will fail if Lord Lee's is carried, and with the permission of the House perhaps the noble Lord will raise his point now.
LORD FORESTER: My point was this. The object of the Bill is to increase the production of this country, to encourage the good farmer and to get rid of the bad farmer. As the noble Lord has just pointed out, by his Amendment either the landlord or the tenant has a right of appeal against any certificate that is granted. If the farmer is a bad farmer we want him turned out as soon as possible, and the object of the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name is that a county committee should grant this certificate within one month after hearing the application of the landlord.
I have a concrete instance which happened in my own county. It was a case where a landowner made an application to have a bad tenant turned out. The county committee waited for a long time before they took any notice of the land-
308
lord's application. They then sent an inspector to the holding, and the only thing that they told the farmer, although this farm has been absolutely ruined, was "Do better next time." I think that if we want to increase production in this country and really to get rid of these bad farmers a definite time should be inserted in the Bill when a county council should either grant or refuse the certificate for which the landowner is applying.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: One word in support of the Amendment which I understand the noble Lord has just moved. I cannot help thinking that the clause will make the procedure exceedingly slow and that it may often be the case that the tenant will be able to do something to improve matters in what may be the very considerable time between when he receives the notice and the arbitrator is called in to inspect the land; because at least two months may have elapsed. The reason is that first of all the landlord has to give notice to the committee. Then the committee will have to send their agent to inspect the farm. Then probably seine members of the committee will have to go round and look at the farm. Then no doubt arrangements will have to be made for the tenant and the landlord to attend a hearing before the committee and a special meeting of the committee must be called for the purpose. All that will probably take some two or three weeks, perhaps longer. Then the committee has to come to a conclusion either that the land is badly farmed or is not badly farmed. Then the arbitrator has to be called in and another fortnight will elapse.
In my part of the country notices to quit are generally sent in on April 5 and it is very difficult at that time to tell exactly how the crops will come out, because nobody can see what is in the land and how many weeds will grow up. I think it will be quite easy for the tenant during this period of a month or six weeks to give the place what is colloquially called "a bit of a lick up." He will put on a few extra men to pull up some of the weeds, to dig out a ditch or two, or to cut some of the hedges and make a bit of an effort, so that by the time the arbitrator arrives it will look a little bit better and the arbitrator will say: "This man is not farming very badly and I think he ought to remain."
I see the difficulty that will arise if you leave the agricultural committee and the

309
arbitrator in the Bill. If you want to get rid of a bad tenant the only thing to do is to cut out the agricultural committee who will take a very long time to get to work. If you wish to appeal and go to arbitration call in some well-known man to say whether in his opinion the farm is well cultivated or not, and the question will be settled in a week.
I view with the greatest apprehension the long delay which I am sure will occur especially owing to the fact that your Lordships last night cut out the clause which enabled an agricultural committee to get rid of a tenant. We were told by the noble Lord, the Minister of Agriculture, when introducing the Bill, that it would make it easier for the landlord to get rid of a bad tenant. I have searched through the Bill from beginning to end and I cannot find a single provision which will simplify the task of a landlord in getting lid of a bad tenant, and I am certain that this clause will make it a great deal more difficult, that unnecessary delay will take place, and that that delay will very often mean that, the bad tenant will be able to improve his ways a little bit during the time that elapses in the way I have explained and that things will be just as bad in the following autumn as they were in the spring.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There might be agricultural committees who on occasion will procrastinate where speed is desirable. Can my noble friend, Lord Lee meet what seems to be the real point raised by my noble friend by undertaking to fix a time in the Rule? We all want to see the Amendment moved by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill put into the Bill. But if that is done the clause will be struck out and, therefore, we cannot amend it. If that undertaking could be given I think the case could be net.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I must confess that I find it a little difficult to see how the noble Lord's Amendment can be grafted on to mine.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You say in the second part "within such time as the Minister may prescribe."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is probably the place for it, but it will require a little consideration. On the general question and particularly on the speech
310
of the noble Earl behind me, who is all for great expedition in these matters, I am against any kind of unreasonable delay, but he says that if great expedition is not; used the man may repent and arbitration be defeated. It was only last night when the case of a landlord who was a defaulter was under consideration that there was a great deal said about we rejoice more over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety-nine just men. I do not think it is fair that you should apply a different rule to the case of the tenant than you do to the landlord. I agree that there is a point of substance, but on the spur of the moment it would he impossible to make the drafting satisfactory, and I should like to have an opportunity of considering that on Report.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think that Lord Selborne's Amendment in line 7 of page 13 is covered by Lord Lee's Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "in the ease of a holding situate in a county borough for which an agricultural committee has not been appointed this subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the Minister for an agricultural committee."
The noble Lord said: There is a kind of hiatus in this organisation where there is no agricultural committee in a borough which has a large area of agricultural land around it. There are many such cases. In some instances they have agricultural committees but in only very few, and it is obvious that the case of a county borough which has not an agricultural committee must be provided for. It is merely necessary in those cases that the Minister should exercise the power himself.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, at end insert the said words.— (Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I am endeavouring by my Amendment

311
to delete subsection (3), which I regard as a most objectionable subsection in a rather reprehensible clause. The proposal contained in the subsection undoubtedly is a finger post to land purchase. It gives to the tenant a far greater degree of fixity of tenure than any other part of this Bill. It has been represented to me that if the landlord under Clause 8, (1), (d) is given the right to have his rent raised by arbitration you must give the tenant the right to have the rent reduced by arbitration. This is the reduction subsection and it provides that the tenant shall have his rent reduced. Paragraph (d) is not a concession to the landlord; it is a restriction of his existing rights. The fact that the landlord can apply for his tenant's rent to be raised by arbitration is not giving him anything; it is merely limiting his existing rights. The idea is that the tenant should be given a quid pro quo, but you are not giving him a quid at all; you are really giving him two quids and there is no quo about it. The tenant is the man who in the past has been considered by his landlord in various ways. We have had an instance in this war of a succession of good years occurring, but the tenant has not necessarily had his rent immediately raised; it has not been raised at all during the war. Farmers have been haying an exceptionally good time, but until quite recently their rent has not been raised.
Under subsection (3) this might happen. The tenant might find himself unable to pay his rent after having suffered from an extremely bad harvest, and would immediately apply for arbitration to have his rent reduced because he had not the money to pay it. He would apply to the arbitrator rather than have a loan, and thereby inflict a very great hardship on the landlord. But although that is in itself, I think, a rather strong point, a stronger one is the degree of security and fixity which you give to the tenant. He can have his rent put up or down, practically at his own behest. When it has been moved up by the landlord after he has had ample time in which to pile up something to pay that increase of rent, here the landlord may be faced with a demand by the tenant for reduction. It seems to me that the landlord is placed in a most invidious and impossible position by this subsection. He no longer continues to own his land while this remains. He is restricted at every turn. He is forbidden
312
to raise his rent except in certain exceptional circumstances, and yet he may have the rent lowered at any moment. I attach enormous importance to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 8 to 18, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Hastings.)
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: During the Second Reading debate I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture a very great difficulty in connection with rents—namely, that if a tenant had the right of getting his rent reduced, or if the landlord wished to raise it, there was a threefold disability in connection with it. Not only was there the question of the value of the farm and the rent, but there was also the incidence of taxation, Imperial and local. It might happen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to increase the incidence of taxation on all farms. I think that most fanners to-day are rated at double the rent, and I think they pay about one-third on double the rent. There is nothing to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from deciding to increase that one-third to one-half on double the rent, and we might easily find, with that considerable increase in the incidence of Imperial and local taxation, that the tenant had the right under this Bill of going to the arbitrator and asking that the rent itself might be reduced in consequence. I think we are entitled to get some explanation from the Minister of Agriculture, so that we may know whether the arbitrator is to take into consideration, in either raising or reducing the rent, whether Imperial and local taxation is to be an element in the arbitration or not.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I have had experience on this question for over half a century, and its my agreement a with the tenants we have this clause—
"At the end of the first, or any subsequent, year of tenancy either the landlord or the tenant, if they deem the rent reserved herein unjust or injurious, may, by giving one calendar mouth's notice to the other party, appeal to arbitration to fix a fair rent between the parties,"
That has been the custom for nearly 50 years, and during those 50 years on 23,000 acres of land I have only had, except in cases of death, 18 changes of tenancy.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This Amendment, I admit, raises a very serious

313
question, and I am sorry that the noble Lord should take such very strong view with regard to it. These two provisions, Clause 8 (1) (d) and Clause 8 (3) were certainly intended to be complementary. They were introduced as a result of pressure from a considerable body of opinion which made representations to me that, as is undoubtedly the fact, a very considerable proportion of the agricultural land of this country is under-rented, and has been under-rented. It is well known to both landlord and tenant that it is under-rented, and at the same time, particularly in the case of the old-established landlord and the old-established tenant, there has been, and still is, a very natural reluctance on the part of the landlord, who is perfectly entitled to an increase of rent, to have to enforce it by the very drastic method—the only one which now exists—of giving notice to quit. In consequence, think in a great many cases landlords have suffered a real injustice, because they are unwilling to incur the odium which undoubtedly attaches to these notices, in order to get a reasonable increase of rent. For that reason, the provision in Clause 8 (1) (d) was inserted in the Bill, and I notice that your Lordships have passed that without any comment whatsoever.
That having been done, and it being admitted, as I do admit, that the cases in which land is over-rented are exceedingly few—certainly as far as regards the good and old-established landlords in this country the cases must be exceedingly few—I believe it will not operate to the disadvantage of landlords in general if this complementary power is given to the tenant, in order to have the question of his rent considered, because I think it will arise in very few cases. On the other hand, there may be cases where the land has changed hands recently, and has been bought by syndicates or land speculators, where ail attempt may be made to drive out a good and old-established tenant by this method of putting up his rent to, perhaps, an unreasonable figure. I know of cases in which that has occurred, and it seems right on principle that the tenant should have the opportunity, without having to quit his holding, to have that matter referred to arbitration. Do your Lordships really think that it would be possible to maintain a position where you say that this right to refer the matter to arbitration, when you wish to raise rents, should be maintained, and that no corre-
314
sponding right should be given to the tenant in the very much rarer cases where an application for reduction of rent is made? I do not believe it could be justified, and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. There was one phrase of his which, I confess, I did not understand, when he said that under the Bill landlords are forbidden to raise their rents. There is really nothing of that kind in the Bill. They can raise the rent exactly as they have always done.
LORD HASTINGS: I meant to say they were restricted in the raising of the rent.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I will not quarrel about the words, but there is no restriction upon their insisting on ark increase of rent, but they would have in that case to give notice to quit, and run the risk of compensation for disturbance.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: This is a clause of a most exceptional character. Many of the clauses in the Bill are not very easy to understand, and I own that I find it difficult to understand this one. So far as I am able to understand it, it appears that a tenant begins by giving notice to quit in order to get his rent reduced. If he is refused by the landlord he takes upon himself what used to be all the powers of the Landlord, and gives himself notice to quit, and in return for giving himself that notice to quit he is to be entitled to receive compensation from the landlord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regret that the Minister in charge of the Bill has not seen fit to give a more favourable reply to the Amendment. I do not propose to discuss paragraph (d) of the first subsection except to say that I do not particularly value a provision under which I could shelter myself behind some external authority when I thought it right to raise my rent—a thing I rarely do—upon my tenants. I take subsection (3) as it stands, and I would remind your Lordships how rapidly we are moving down a slope which is going to end, I am afraid, in a precipice which the Government equally with ourselves would much regret.
At first it was said that you must not allow a tenant to be wantonly turned out without compensation. Your Lordships

315
agreed to that. It was a reasonable proposition although a great departure from previous law. The next step was that you must not allow a landlord to raise the rent without a cheek because that might result in the same thing. By raising his rent sufficiently high the landlord could get rid of his tenant. The power of the landlord, therefore, to raise his rent has been limited. So far your Lordships have agreed. Now we are asked to go a step further and say that not merely must the landlord not raise his rent without the intervention of an external authority but that the tenant may himself, out of the blue, provoke the interference of an external authority even when there is no question of turning him out. Even if the landlord does not propose to disturb the tenant in any way the tenant may suddenly say. "I demand a reduction of rent, and if you do not grant it I go to an arbitrator."
That is a still further and much more serious step in the descent into the abyss of dual ownership which lies in front of us. I view it with the greatest concern. It is all very well to say that after all the landlord has nothing to fear from a fair arbitrator. There are two answers to that. In the first place, if the tenant has the power of holding this threat over the landlord whenever he pleases it might have a very menacing effect upon him. I am not speaking of landlords in the position of most of your Lordships. I am speaking of a small landlord, and in these cases, the tenant having this power, he might agree to a reduction of rent rather than run any risk, although he may be fully justified in maintaining his position. That is one answer.
The other answer is this. I do not want to say one word derogatory of the arbitrators who are proposed, but I cannot conceal from myself that we have had a great deal of experience of referring rents to external authorities. I am sure noble Lords from Scotland and from Ireland will agree. There is the probability. or shall I say the very reasonable possibility, that the practice will grow up, upon such an appeal from a tenant, of fixing something lower than what I will call the market value of the rent. There will be a margin. To whom will that margin between the market rent and the arbitration rent belong? It will belong to the tenant, and you only require one more provision in the law which a subsequent Act might easily produce—the
316
right of the tenant to assign his tenancy—and you have the complete article. The tenant in assigning his tenancy would get a price from the incoming man which would correspond exactly to that margin and you would have the whole principle of dual ownership in full operation. It is because I see that danger, and, unfortunately, I am old enough to remember all the steps by which the misfortune of dual ownership fell upon Ireland and something of the same thing in Scotland, that I desire to warn your Lordships against this subsection which I believe to be very dangerous.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should like to say one word following what the noble Marquess has said, because like hint I have always examined all the provisions of this part of the Bill from the point of view of one who dreads the introduction of anything like dual ownership. I say frankly that all these new plans of estate management are disagreeable to me. I suppose I look at them from the point of view of what may be the old Tory or Whig, but at any rate of one who would like to see complete liberty remain on all sides. I dislike this system of inspection and controlled management.
But I am bound to say—and this is why I have followed the noble Marquess—that so far as this particular provision is concerned, I do not see in it that danger and advance towards dual ownership which I recognise in some other parts of the Bill as it stands. You may say that to subject rent to arbitration at all is something of an advance in the direction of dual ownership. That is a proposition which can be disputed. But your Lordships have passed the provision which enables a landlord to refer an increase of rent to arbitration instead of enforcing it by notice to quit. It was passed without much comment, and the noble Lord now argues that this is a complementary proposition to that—not, I think, entirely, because it gives a certain new advantage to the tenant and a larger scope than that which can be said to be given to the landlord by the provisions under paragraph (d) of subsection (1). It will no doubt be treated as being in a sense complementary.
I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that in considering these matters we must forget all about our own properties, the terms we are on with our tenants, and the

317
system on which our estates are managed. There are a great many estates, as we know, mostly small, which are managed on quite different principles, and we have to examine as to whether hardship will be inflicted on the owners of those estates, as the noble Marquess behind me scents to think. I confess I do not see the probability of any such great hardship. Except in the case. of certain small holdings, I think there is very little farm land in the country which is let up to a rack rent valuation. The noble Marquess spoke of a margin which might exist between present rent and what he called market value. It has not been the custom in this country, even apart from large and liberally managed estates, to let farms at competitive rents. They have been let at valuation rents, and, as a rule, moderately valued. That being so I doubt very notch if there are many cases, unless there be some of those quite new cases of which the noble Lord spoke, in which land is seriously over-rented and to which the provisions of this subsection should apply. Therefore, as I do not follow the noble Marquess in seeing that this particular provision leads in the direction of dual ownership—on some later clauses I think there may be something to be said about that—I cannot support my noble friend Lord Hastings in demanding the striking out of this particular subsection.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill a question. As I read the clause I do not see anything to limit this right of the tenant to demand a reduction of rent or to go to an arbitrator. If a man takes a lease for twenty-one years, and at the end of ten or twelve years finds circumstances changed and the market fallen, I cannot see anything to prevent him, during the currency of his lease, making a demand to have his rent lowered; and if it wait not granted he might get compensation. In that case it is clearly a unilateral privilege, because nobody supposes that a landlord who has let for twenty-one years, if circumstances improved and the market rose so that the tenant had a good bargain, would break the lease and give him notice to quit. I understand that the position of a yearly tenant is somewhat different from that of one who takes a substantial lease. Those who take leases are supposed to be able to make bargains. I should like to know whether this provision would apply to a
318
leaseholder during the currency of his lease.
EARL STANHOPE: There is another point which I should like to put. Surely this is a direct incentive to bad farming. The tenant has a right to object to his rent being put up, and he can claim arbitration when he demands reduction of rent. Surely that would only apply when prices dropped seriously, or in cases where it corporation put up the rent too high. Your Lordships have had experience of the result of rents being fixed by Courts in Ireland, and you know that the general standard of fanning depreciates very seriously. Under this provision surely there will be a great temptation to let down the system of farming and to claim a reduction of rent.
THE EARL OF KTMBERLEY: I am one of those who bless this clause. I cannot see any kind of objection to it. There is a good deal of talk about arbitration and I have in my mind certain farms which are very much higher rented than arc perhaps others which are near. Supposing the tenant who pays the higher rent asked to have arbitration on the question of reduction, nine times out of ten the-arbitrator, if he is sensible, will take the average rent of all the farms around and fix the rent accordingly. I think there is no harm in it. If a yearly tenant wishes to ask for a reduction of rent every year he will get tired of it after once or twice. There is protection on both sides, and I cannot see the danger of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not in favour of arbitration rents, but I think there has been a mistake. As I understand it this applies only to the rent to be paid for a holding "as from the next ensuing rate at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit." In other words, it does not affect existing tenancies, but future tenancies, and would not therefore apply to leaseholds. Personally, I am not in favour of arbitration rents, but in these circumstances I do not think it involves in any sense the idea of dual ownership.
LORD CRANWORTH: I apologise for intervening in the debate, but I hope your Lordships will not pass this Amendment. Though I admit that all the cold arguments are with the noble Lords, yet I venture

319
to say that most of those who are landlords will be forced to agree with me that if you take these two claims side by side the landlord will be the gainer. I would remind your Lordships that there are not many landlords who, if it is proved to them—and I think we must assume that the arbitrator is a fair man—that their farm is over-rented, would really wish to take a rent which was more than their due.
LORD CLINTON: I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. I listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and of course one admits that such dangers must, and do, exist. No more than any of your Lordships do I like all my affairs being put into the hands of an outside arbitrator, but I do not think you can properly compare these to the Land Courts of which we have had experience in Scotland and Ireland. It was never suggested that the personnel of these Courts had any knowledge of agriculture, or of arbitration, or any judgment at all in land. I do not think anybody charged them with that. These arbitrators, however, are really selected by the most neutral personage you can find, and you must feel that they will be among the leading arbitrators in the country. Unless you are going to put confidence in these arbitrators it will be very much better to discard the Bill altogether, because we have a good deal to put into their hands. I disagree with Lord Hastings, and think we should be charged with a good deal of unfairness if we accept the provision in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) and decline to pass subsection (3).
LORD PHILLIMORE: Those who defend this clause do not seem to appreciate that paragraph (d) does not enable the landlord to force any contract upon the tenant, but it enables the tenant to force a contract upon the landlord. Under paragraph (d) what is the landlord's position? The property is held on a year to year tenancy, or, as is not uncommon in my county, on two years' notice. The landlord is not to be able to raise the rent till the time that he can turn the man out. He has to give a year's notice or two years' notice to quit, and not till that time is over is he able to raise the rent. Why? The contract is at an end, and he is making a
320
new contract. The tenant is given even this protection: if the landlord raises the rent unreasonably—that is, makes a new unreasonable contract—the tenant is entitled to have compensation. That is quite an unusual provision, and is special to this class of case. With regard to the tenant, he is to be entitled to say to the landlord, "You shall not turn me out for paying the rate which I have agreed to pay without having to pay me compensation for unjustly turning me out."
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill admits that the relations are so good between landlords and tenants that this provision is not likely to be put into force except under exceptional circumstances. That we will grant. It seems rather an extraordinary thing to set up this new procedure to meet a few hard cases, because it would certainly mean establishing Rent Courts, as was suggested by the noble Earl behind me. I would ask noble Lords what reason there is for altering the ordinary business relations between landlord and tenant, unless the idea of the noble Lord is that all business relations ought to be adjudicated upon. For instance, if you let a house you would want a House Court to decide what rent was to be paid by a tenant; or if a tenant had a yearly agreement I suppose the noble Lord would say he would have the power to appeal to a Court or Arbitrator to say whether his rent is to be reduced or not. You might equally say you must have a Court set up to settle what mineral rents are to be paid for coal, or for stone being quarried.
I must say I have always been one of those who thought that ownership and occupation of land ought to be treated on thoroughly business principles as far as possible, letting the landlord and tenant settle the matter between themselves, and not suffer interference by some Court of law. I would also ask the noble Lord whether, supposing a landlord refused to go to arbitration for perfectly good reasons, a tenant has the right thereupon to say he will give notice and will be able to claim four years' rent as a fine from the landlord for refusing to go to arbitration. It would be a capricious conviction, I understand, under the Bill.
As regards the other point which the Minister of Agriculture referred to, with reference to paragraph (d) in the first part

321
of this clause, of course if this subsection is struck out I am sure my noble friend behind me who moved this will be the first person to agree that paragraph (d) should go out at the same time. It puts the landlord and the tenant on exactly the same terms.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: We have had a long, and it seems to me exceedingly interesting discussion on this point, in the course of which many diverse opinions have been revealed from different quarters of your Lordships' House. I am only anxious in this matter to do what is most agreeable to the House as a whole, and for this reason. I do not know whether anybody has suspected me of any sinister design to try and introduce dual ownership or fixity of tenure—
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: I had no such thought in my mind for a moment.
LOUD LEE OF FAREHAM: In this case I think I can show a particularly clean bill of health with regard to that suggestion, because quite honestly the only reason for putting down these two complementary proposals was that, with my own limited knowledge of land-owning and dealing with tenants—I am very glad to think I shall have it no longer in future—I am firmly of the belief that it would be an advantage on the whole to landlords to have the power given in Clause 8, subsection (1), paragraph (d). But I am equally clear in my mind that whatever might be the strict merits of the case there would be an impression of unfairness created if you took the one and cut out the other, which would be very injurious to the reputation of your Lordships' House.
In those circumstances what I propose is this. Speaking on behalf of the Government, it is quite clear we could not accept the cutting out of this subsection and the retention of the one which has already been passed, and we should have to take steps at a later stage to omit paragraph (d) of Clause 8 (1). But I am not clear from the expressions of opinion whether it is the wish of your Lordships' House or not that the whole scheme should go by the board. In those circumstances I propose to leave the decision to your Lordships—as we used to say in another place, leave it for the House to decide without putting on the Government Whips.
LORD HARRIS: Before we divide I am going to take the liberty of offering a very humble word of advice from my own experience. I am one of those of your Lordships who had the misfortune to experience the commencement of the frightful agricultural depression of 1878, and I suffered very heavily by it. I have been convinced ever since then that we did not drop rents quickly enough. Of course, there was a very sudden drop in the value of cereals, but it was not the result only of an extraordinarily bad season. It was the result of mechanical invention which brought wheat across the Atlantic at a price far cheaper than it had ever been brought before at the very same moment that there were these extraordinarily unfavourable seasons. The combination was disastrous. We did not grasp that. We were in hopes that prices would go up again.
I am now sincerely hopeful that no such collapse as that is going to happen again. At the same time the rise in the prices of agricultural produce has been very hectic and rapid, and one knows that a quick rise is sometimes followed by a quick fall, There may be a sudden fall in the price of agricultural produce, and a drop in rents may be necessary. I think it would be wise if there was a resort to arbitra ion rather than leaving it simply to the, landlord. In those circumstances, although it is it great disadvantage—and I agree with much that Lord Salisbury has said—on the whole I think it safer to vote for the inclusion of both the provisions—that is to say, subsection (1), paragraph (d) and subsection (3).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not wish to detain your Lordships by going into the argument, but I desire to say, with regard to what was said by Lord Clinton, that there is a Land Court in this Bill in its application to Scotland, and you are not so very far off it in England.
Loan HASTINGS: If your Lordships will allow me I should like to answer one point which the noble Lord in charge of the, Bill brought against me. He reiterates that paragraph (d) and subsection (3) are complemental. I am unable to see that they are complemental in any sense whatever. I go so far as to say this, that if paragraph (d) was not in the Bill then I

323
agree that subsection (3) ought to be in the Bill. If paragraph (d) was not in the Bill the landlord would have the power which he now has of raising the rent without any restriction. Paragraph (d) admits that he has the right to raise the rent, and I go so far as to say it even encourages him to raise it, but it establishes arbitration and the arbitrator is going to fix it for him beyond the point beyond which he is unable to raise it. Subsection (3) gives the tenant the right also to demand arbitration and have that rent reduced. He does not want it, but if he does it is not complemental of paragraph (d), because he is already protected under paragraph
(d), because the landlord is unable to raise the rent beyond a certain point. Therefore both paragraph (d) and subsection (3) are in favour of the tenant, and it is meant that they should be, and therefore I am unable to see that they are complemental in any sense of the term. I think a large number of your Lordships desire to see subsection (3) removed from the Bill, and therefore I shall proceed to a division.
On Question, whether subsection (3) shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 86.

de Mauley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Savile, L.

Decies, L.

Leigh, L.

Sempill, L.

Dynevor, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Somerleyton, L.

Donington, L.

Methuen, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Ebury, L.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

Erskine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

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

Forester, L.

Mostyn, L.

Grey de Rtuthyn, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Hindlip,L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Sumner, L.

Holm Patrick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wavertree, L.

Hylton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Lamington, L.

Sandys, L.

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at, the end of subsection (3), to insert "provided that such compensation shall not be payable if the circumstances are such that a notice to quit could have been given by the landlord for any of the reasons mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of subsection (I) of this section."
The noble Lord said: If I may be allowed to say so, I notice that the somewhat interesting result of taking off the Whips is that there has been a larger accession of strength in the Government lobby, which shows how your Lordships are influenced much more by reason than by compulsion in these matters. With regard to the Amendment, which I now move, I think this is needed as a protection to landlords, because it would be quite possible, without this provision, that a tenant who was cultivating badly, and knew that in a short time he would be dealt with, might give notice requiring an arbitration as to rent, and the landlord might very properly refuse to accede to it, because he was not prepared to allow the tenant to continue in occupation. I think that without this provision the matter would be open to a great deal of abuse, and l hope your Lordships will see the wisdom of accepting the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, at the end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Loan LEE or FAREHAM: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("(5)")—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the proviso of subsection (4), after "shall not take into account any," to insert "increase in the rental value which is due to."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think this is only drafting.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble Lord will regard it as such, and really in effect it is so.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, after ("any") insert ("increase in the rental value which is due to").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ERNLEhad on the Paper an Amendment to move, in the proviso of subsection (4), after "execution," to insert "or which were outside the tenant's obligations under the terms of his contract [tenancy or the rules of good husbandry." The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting Amendment but it is wrongly printed. I have no doubt it is my fault. It ought to be "within" instead of "outside." I beg to move it in that amended form.
Amendment moved—
Line 33, after ("execution") insert ("or which were within the tenant's obligations under the terms of his contract of tenancy or the rules of good husbandry.").—(Lord Ernle.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am at a slight disadvantage. The note I had made in regard to the Amendment on the Paper was that "it is not clear what is intended by it." I have hardly had time to consider what the effect of the new wording may be, and I think it would be only fair to give me an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. My noble friend can then move it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, at the end of subsection (4) to insert "and provided that the arbitrator shall not fix the rent at a lower amount by reason of any dilapidation or deterioration of land or building made or permitted by the tenant."
The noble Earl said: I would ask the indulgence of the House upon this, the first time of my addressing your Lordships. I am not moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, but that which is in the name of Lord Saltoun, which I consider is better than mine. The Amendment, I think, explains itself, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will think that this is only a fair proviso to insert.
Amendment moved.—
Page 13, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: There is no objection in principle that I can see to this Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it, subject to a possible alteration on Report.
THE DUKE OF BLCCLEUCH: May I suggest that instead of the word "building" it should be "buildings." I think letter "s" has been left out.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: We will add "s" before the Report stage if it becomes necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would it not be better to move it with the "s" now?
THE EARL OF HOME: I beg to move the Amendment in the form now suggested.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 35, at end insert("and provided that the arbitrator shall not fix the rent at a lower amount by reason of any delapidation or deterioration of land or buildings made or permitted by the tenant").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or MALMESBURY THE EARL or MALMESBURY moved, at the beginning of subsection (5), after "sum," to insert "not exceeding one year's rent." The noble Earl said: We now conic to what I have been assured the majority of your Lordships and probably a large number of landowners throughout the country consider to be one of the most
328
vital and serious portions of the Bill. I am reminded by my noble friend behind me that this includes also yeoman farmers I refer to subsection (5) of Clause 8. There are words in that subsection which refer to the amount of compensation which shall be given a farmer on receiving notice to quit. The Amendment which stands in my name Seeks to limit as far as possible the amount of compensation which a tenant shall receive. I am not for a moment suggesting that my wording is the best which can be found. There are other Amendments on the Paper in the names of Lord Bledisloe, Lord Clinton, and Lord Ernie dealing with this subject. At all events whatever form of words is adopted it is quite clear that we must have some idea as to what we are embarking upon.
I would remind your Lordships that thin principle of compensation for disturbances is a comparatively new one. That came out very clearly in the debate upon the Second Reading. It was first introduced in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, wherein it was enacted that a tenant was entitled to recover compensation for inconvenience and loss consequent upon receiving notice to quit without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that this compensation is now to be exacted from a landowner for reasons consistent with good estate management, and I hope that your Lordships will not dismiss this, subsection without the very fullest consideration and discussion. We owe that obligation to a very large number, I may say a very largely increasing number, of landowners throughout the country.
I am sure no member of your Lordships' House or indeed anybody could take exception to the spirit in which the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture introduced the Bill. But in the course of his speech he said that the Bill did not introduce the principle of dual control. I agree with him; I agree with him to this point, that it introduces the principle of quadruple control—namely, control by the Minister; control by the wages board incidentally; control by the agricultural committees; and, finally and lastly, control by the landlord himself. Moreover, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, if you are going to take a very large slice of the capital value of a landowner's property you are really introducing all the initial

329
stages of dual ownership as well. I would only remind your Lordships that a great deal of the property in the country to-day is subject to mortgages and to all the incidents of taxation under which everybody is groaning, and it will be a very serious thing if the exaction of a large sum in compensation for notice to quit, which may be given in circumstances over which the landowner has absolutely no control, should render him liable to have any mortgages on that land foreclosed or to effect new mortgages at a very much higher Tate of interest. Moreover, he is probably already paying death duties upon the capital value of the land at present, whereas the land would now be very much below that value.
I hope that your Lordships will not arrive at any decision upon this matter without bearing the various Amendments discussed and carefully considering the various suggestions put forward by noble Lords to meet this point. We know the reasons why this is necessary. We know it is to justify the existence of the guarantees, to meet the demands of the agricultural wages boards, and we all regret to see the enforced changes of ownership in land which are taking place all over the country.
I believe a landowner in this country is still considered to be the owner of his own land, and while bearing in mind a very clear sense of justice as to what is due to the farmer for disturbance let us not be carried away into exaggerating that justice to the detriment of the landowner and the infliction of an injustice upon him. I am not dealing only with large landowners, who unfortunately are becoming fewer in number every day. I am dealing with the man who may have invested his money in land and treats it as a legitimate speculation in the same way as others may have invested their money in other legitimate speculations. We ought to have some limit fixed, or an idea of the limit which will be fixed to the amount of compensation that is granted, because after all it is not the had landlord who is dealt with by the Bill, but the good landlord who may be most unwilling and not at all desirous of giving his tenant notice to quit. I desire to impress that point very very strongly upon your Lordships.
In the same subsection, although I will not deal with it now, there is first of all an amount to be fixed for compensation and the further gift of one year's rent to the
330
tenant who receives notice to quit for reasons perfectly consistent with good estate management, and I hope, bearing the first point in mind, your Lordships will also remember the second point at the same time.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, after ("sum") insert: ("not exceeding one year's rent").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: I hope that this Amendment will not he accepted, for this reason. If compensation is to be given at all, which is the principle admitted in the Bill, it ought not to be less than such loss or expenses directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the tenant may unavoidably incur. The effect of this Amendment would be to give a tenant less than the actual loss or expenses which he directly incurred if that amount exceeded one year's rent. I think that would be very unfair to the tenant. I am not now dealing with subsequent matters. I think that the subsequent provisions both as regards one year's rent and four years' rent ought to be excluded from the clause. But I am not dealing with that at present. The proper principle is that the tenant should be paid the actual cost incurred by him attributable to his having to leave his holding. And. I earnestly hope that we shall not put in any fictitious limitation which might, and would have the effect in some cases of giving the tenant less than his due measure of compensation. That is the true principle of compensation, and that ought to he preserved.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am bound to say I agree on general principle with what my noble friend who has just sat clown has stated as a proposition. In my judgment a tenant who is disturbed in his holding, through no fault of his own but for reasons perfectly consistent with good estate management, does not in many cases get the compensation for loss which he deserves. As the law stands to-day such a tenant receives no compensation at all except compensation for unexhausted improvements which, of course, in the case of a man who is farming high, may run into very large figures. But that does not cover the whole of the loss which some good tenants now incur when they are dispossessed at short notice, although I am bound to say that, now that it is necessary

331
in every case to give a full year's notice to quit, the injustice that formerly used to be inflicted upon such tenants is to a large extent mitigated.
But what I want your Lordships to decide is whether in such cases of innocent dispossession—or, as I prefer to call it, resumption by the landlord—you desire to inflict a fine upon the landlord, or whether you are really out to pay the tenant compensation for the loss which he has actually suffered. if you desire to inflict a fine upon him I think one is entitled to ask for what reasons you desire to penalise a landowner who finds himself so placed, possibly through no fault of his own. In these days, in the case of the smaller landowners at any rate, it may become the natural, and indeed the only reasonable, source of livelihood to them to resume possession of, at any rate, a single farm, in order either to farm it themselves, or to put into it some member of their family. But I should think your Lordships will agree with me when I suggest that you must differentiate between capricious disturbance and non-capricious disturbance, by penalising in the former, and avoiding a penalty in the latter case. If that is so, what is left to us? The only alternative is to give the tenant farmer, who is made to quit a farm through no fault of his own, reasonable compensation for the loss which he has actually suffered.
The next question that arises is surely, What is that loss? And what is that loss intended to cover? Surely it is only fair to ask how much loss you tan hang upon a mere annual tenancy, even if you take into account the fact that in this country the annual farm tenancy, as bolstered up by the Agricultural Holdings Act, affords the tenant, in fact, much greater security of tenure than would be the case in any other form of tenancy in this country, or, indeed, so far as I know, in any other country in Europe. A noble Lord suggested just now that there must he some limit. On consideration I demur to that suggestion. What we want to do is to act fairly by the tenant, and. if that is so, it is no concern of ours to decide what the limit should be. The tenant surely is entitled to compensation for the loss which he has actually suffered.
Again, I ask is it fair to the landowner, and is it due to the tenant, that he should be compensated in respect of loss which he has not sustained as a farm tenant upon his
332
landlord's land and as the result of his occupying that land for the purpose of farming? In other words, I want to know whether it is desirable to give such a man compensation for the loss which he has incurred in connection with some totally different business—it may be a public house, it may be a greengrocer's shop, it may he a retail milk trade, it may be some other totally distinct business enterprise, for which the landlord did not let the land to the tenant, and in respect to which the landlord is receiving no rent. I suggest that there is no logical reason why a tenant should receive compensation in respect to anything other than the fanning business carried on upon his landlord's land. That is why I suggest that the right thing to do is to give the fanner the compensation for the actual loss which he has suffered as a farmer, no more and no less. It also occurs to me that that is the most honest, thing to do. We should endeavour so to amend the Bill in your Lordships' House that, when it goes to another place, no one can reasonably say that we have not done our best to treat the tenant farmers of this country with absolute fairness and in such a way that they cannot reasonably cavil at our decisions.
The alternative that is suggested is one year's gross rent, either in addition to the compensation now payable in the ease of capricious eviction under the 1908 Act, or as a maximum, as my noble friend Lord Clinton, and, I think, Lord Ernle, are about to suggest. The Amendment which my two noble friends are about to submit was an Amendment which originally stood in my name, but on consideration I feel that I cannot support such a proposal, because it involves the whole theory of dual ownership. That one year's gross rent—it is admitted now on all hands, it is admitted in the Opinion of actuaries—represents at least 7 per cent. of the capital value of the holding, in other words, 7 per cent. of the proprietary interest of the landowner. If you are going to hand that over to the tenant, whether the loss in fact was more or, as I believe in most cases on grass farms, considerably less, you are in fact instituting a system of dual ownership and laying the foundations of a process which, I think, in the long run, we shall all very much regret.
Of course, it is perfectly true that under the proposal which I make in some cases undoubtedly a substantial amount may come to be paid. In cases where a tenant.

333
has been in occupation for a considerable time and has been farming high, and in cases where he would suffer substantially by merely discontinuing his business as a fanner, there may be some considerable amount of loss. Those are the very cases where we ought to avoid disturbing a farm tenant. Those are the very cases—and they would be very few in my judgment—where a farmer is entitled to substantial compensation for the serious loss that he may actually suffer. In other cases—and I think they will be the majority of cases—the amount which the tenant will receive will hardly exceed a. year's rent, and may be considerably less. In any case, the justification for my proposal is that you are giving the man what he has actually lost, no more and no less.
What will be the result of this Clause as it stands in the Bill? Are you going to add to the security of the tenant? After all, that is what the Government is professedly after in submitting this Clause. In my judgment you are going to render the position of the farm tenant much more insecure than it was before. I am quite certain that immediately you started the process of dual ownership, as this in fact does, you carve a slice out of the landlord's proprietary interest and make a present of that to the tenant. In nine cases out of ten the legal advisers of landowners throughout this country will probably advise them either to farm the land themselves or to sell the land while they still continue to hold the whole of the proprietary interest in it. That is not going to be to the advantage of the tenant farmers of this country. All too many of them have bought farms with insufficient capital and to do so have taken capital out of the business of farming which ought to have been employed in farming. They have had to pay as interest not 2½ per cent., which was the ease when they used the landlord's capital, but 7½ per cent. and 8 per cent. on the amount borrowed. Is that in the best interests of the farm tenants? In my opinion, unless you modify the terms of this clause, you are going to render the position of the tenant farmers far less secure than it was before.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: May I say one word as regards the order of Amendments. It is going to be a little difficult to preserve the right of all the Amendments. I have beer into the matter rather closely with the learned Clerk of
334
the Parliaments, and the most convenient course, when the Amendments come to be taken individually, is that the Amendments on page 14, lines 4 and 5, standing in the name of Lord Parmoor and Lord Clinton, on page 10 of the Amendment Paper, should be taken before the Amendment in the name of Lord Ernle on page 9. They are in the wrong place. That will be the more convenient order from the point of view of putting the Question to the House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: This is certainly one of the most important and most difficult matters to be dealt with in the Bill. As Lord Bledisloe has said, we have to consider its bearing on a matter which has been already mentioned—namely, that of the possibility of doing something in this Bill which will start us down the slope at the bottom of which is a full system of dual ownership. That, I think, almost to a man here we desire to avoid. I always differ with the greatest possible diffidence from Lord Bledisloe because I recognise the immense weight of his authority. But. it appears to me, having considered this subsection to the best of my ability, that his proposal might take us much further down that slope in the direction of dual ownership than the words in the Bill as it stands.
The Bill as it stands proposes that compensation should be payable for loss and expense attributable to moving, expenses incurred in preparing a claim for arbitration, and also one year's rent. The proposal for one year's rent is bound to work, I fully admit, most unequally and in some instances most unfairly. It is in the fullest sense a rough and ready suggestion; but if you take it out, what is the alternative? The Amendment of Lord Bledisloe provides that loss is to be compensated for directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of the tenancy and cultivation. It seems to me, I may be quite wrong, that that would inevitably involve, or might involve claims for every kind of good will. When the tenant goes he would say, "I am losing my connection. I am losing the name under which my pedigree stock is sold for large sums of money to the Argentine and elsewhere; in fact, I am losing a number of things which can only be described as goodwill." That is to say, you will be creating something of a tenant's interest not easy to define, but

335
which will be treated as a subject for compensation and which in a few years' time will become the subject of assignment and sale. You will then be very far down indeed that terrible slope.
As compared with that possibility the idea of having to pay one year's rent, little though anyone of us like it, goes no way in the direction of establishing dual ownership. One reason for the one year's rent is that it compensates a farmer not only for the loss which he sustains in leaving, but for the loss lie is going to sustain when he goes elsewhere. Suppose a man takes a farm at the other end of the county. He arrives there knowing nothing of the markets and not knowing the individual butchers and dealers. There are very few cases where a man taking a fresh farm makes much of a profit the first year. This one year's rent is, I think, not altogether an unfair attempt to deal with the man who has made a move. It will, of course, deal hardly in the cases which have been mentioned, where a farm is taken over by a small landlord in order to work it if he can find the capital to do so. But I do not think it would work as unfairly as claims that might be made under proposals for a general scheme of compensation which some of the other Amendments appear to involve.
I know it is provided in some cases that in no instance should claims on the lines Lord Bledisloe mentioned exceed one year's rent, but that does not seem to be very fair to the outgoing tenant. If you once admit he is to be compensated for whatever he has lost, I do not see how you are going to limit the amount, and personally I do not think it is possible to compensate the outgoing tenant for anything that the arbitrator may hold he has lost in a general sense without incurring the payment of very large sums and without creating a definite tenant's interest in the holding, quite apart front anything that he has spent in the way of unexhausted manures and so on, for which of course he receives compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Therefore, unless something is said which causes me to take a different view—and after the manner in which my noble friend behind me, Lord Bledisloe, has put the case I do not think it is likely that the matter can be pressed more forcibly than he has pressed it—as at present advised I confess I prefer the proposition in the Bill, though I am not
336
greatly enamoured of it, to anything I have seen on the Paper.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Are you going to divide on this?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I was under the impression that we should have a general discussion over the whole range of the question, and I hope to hear further expressions of opinion before we came to any of the Amendments. Otherwise, we shall have most disjointed and unsatisfactory discussions. I was hoping that the discussion would continue, and I proposed to speak later.
LORD CLINTON: If that is so, I will deal with my Amendment now. I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, and it appears to me that his is the most logical of all the Amendments on the Paper, and much more logical than the proposal of the Government. I am entirely dissatisfied with the minor effort of my own, because it is open to all the objections which I am going to state to your Lordships against the Government proposal, and also some additional ones. I have not the least objection to telling your Lordships that, because the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has already said that he is the author of my Amendment. I say that the noble Lord's Amendment is logical because it asks the arbitrator to ascertain what is the actual loss for which we are paying a tenant. He endeavours to find that loss on certain matters which he believes are those which a tenant, out of his particular tenancy and cultivation, ought to receive. We agree that the tenant on leaving may sustain certain loss, more or less, and that for this he ought to be compensated, but we cannot at all foresee what the judgment of an arbitrator will he, or what he will regard as fairly attributable to the loss of a tenant leaving the tenancy. I am bound to say I rather shrink front allowing any arbitrator full play without any limitation whatever. I think it is dangerous, and it may eventually affect the capital value of the land much more than any loss which is limited, however great that limit may be.
The cases where compensation will chiefly arise will undoubtedly be in connection with sales, not because the owner who is going to sell is going to give notice, but because the man who buys, almost always an occupying owner, will have to

337
give notice to get possession. The buyer knows that when he gives notice he will have to pay compensation, and if there is no limit at all to the compensation which he has to pay, I think he will discount that to a very large extent in the capital value he pays for the land. For that reason it appears to me that a limit must be placed, but my Amendment becomes rather fluid again, because Lord Parmoor has suggested to your Lordships, and perfectly correctly I think—do not think he used the word dishonest, but he suggested—that it was dishonest to allow a tenant to claim for loss and then, having ascertained the loss, decline to pay it. That is a really serious difficulty, and I am not surprised that the Government have taken the course which they have taken in this measure, and apparently got a short cut to what may he required and definitely laid down that the compensation shall be for one year's rent.
I must point out that it is a very serious penalty upon the owner. You are fining an owner for certain loss which a tenant has incurred and, in addition, one year's rent, because he has done something which he is not only legally entitled to do, but which he, does in accordance with good estate management, and which, in many cases, he is absolutely forced to do. It rather offends one's sense of justice that he should be so severely fined for doing this. Apparently, one has to take one's choice between the obvious injustice to the owner and. what Lord Parmoor calls the obvious dishonesty to the tenant. On the whole I am afraid I have to fall on the obvious dishonesty to the tenant, not because I want to do it, but because I am a partner in an Amendment with Lord Bledisloe. Consequently, I shall have to move later that the compensation shall be the loss ascertained and the sum in respect of such additional loss or expense directly, at rributable to the quitting of the holding, et cetera, provided that the sum so awarded shall not exceed one year's rent.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know whether I am entitled to say a word or two further, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, but when I addressed your Lordships before I limited myself to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. In substance I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. I think in the first place that you must not, in the form of compensation, give a tenant less than the damage and injury he has actually
338
suffered. I do not think that is a matter in respect of which an arbitrator—and I fancy I have had more experience of arbitrators than any one—will have any serious difficulty. It would not involve good will and things of that kind. The words which the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has suggested may, I think, be taken in preference to those of the Government, although I am not dealing with the actual words now, but with principle. His words are—
"such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably incur."
I do not want to pin my faith to those words, but I think they are better than the words in the Government draft as they stand at present.
I wish to deal with another matter upon which Lord Clinton and my-self have put similar Amendments on the Paper. I think you ought not to penalise the owner, as the Government proposal would, by adding to a full compensation also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding. I cannot see any principle for that. It is not suggested that the owner has done anything that is wrong. The owner is simply exercising rights which he has by contract ex hypothesi, and I think it is entirely unfair in these circumstances to add a penalty. So far as the tenant is concerned, there is nothing dishonest towards the tenant if you give him in compensation the full loss he has suffered. Surely that meets the two sides. That is what the tenant ought to have, and there is no reason whatever for putting a special penalty on the landlord.
There is a later matter which arises if the notice to quit is what is called "capricious." I have put down an Amendment, and I think Lord Ernle has put down another, admitting the principle of a penalty if the owner acts in that way, but certainly objecting to the four years' rent as being far too heavy a penalty. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will remember that there are many cases in which an owner, be he poor or wealthy, legitimately desires to get possession of the land. It may be that he requires the land in order that his son when he comes of age shall go into occupation and carry on the business of a farmer. I give that as an illustration. In those circumstances

339
why should he do more than pay an honest compensation to the tenant? Why should he be penalised for exercising a contractual right which he very properly desires to exercise under those conditions? Where I agree with the noble Lord opposite, and Lord Bledisloe, in principle, apart from words, is in saying, Act honestly, give full compensation without any limitation, whatever it may be that the arbitrator decides. I think we can perfectly trust an arbitrator in a matter of that kind. On the other hand, do not penalise the owner who is merely exercising a contractual right which he has a perfect right to exercise. I think that would be very unfair. As we are discussing the whole matter, I want the penalty to be excluded, and, on the other hand, the tenant to be honestly dealt with and, if he has to leave his holding, to go out without loss.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I venture to point out to your Lordships that this is a matter which is very serious to small landowners, especially those who bought their holdings at a recent date. I will only detain you for one moment while I tell you of a specific case that has been brought to my notice. A man, after saving money for thirty years, bought the holding which his wife's father farmed, and he always wished to farm this land himself. He had not quite enough money to buy it when it was sold, so he mortgaged his land and had to work for another seven years to obtain the money to pay off the mortgage. During the year 1917 he wished to take over the farm. His tenant was an unmarried man and was liable for military service, and he begged his landlord not to turn him out, as he said he was making a tremendous lot of money out of the farm at the moment, and if he were turned out he would have to do military service. The owner of the farm allowed him to stay on, and now when he wants to turn him out and farm this land himself, which he has been desirous of farming for thirty years, he is faced with this clause. I certainly support Lord Bledisloe's Amendment. In the face of a case of the sort I have quoted, it seems to me that the tenant should receive no compensation at all, for in fact the tenant has been the person benefited by not being turned out till the present moment instead of being turned out before.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am going to say a few words which will rather
340
surprise you. I have an Amendment connected with this subject, which is that any landlord who desires to farm a farm shall only pay compensation under the 1906 Act, always provided he farms it for eight years. My reason for putting it at eight years is very simple. If he is very desirous of farming he will farm not only for eight years but will go on farming it. I question very much whether any landowners except those fond of farming will ever wish to farm land, because they will leave it to their land agent, and the land agent will hate to have the trouble.
I regard the question of compensation very much as if you are giving compensation for going out. Supposing this man was not a yearly tenant, or that it was compulsory in this country to give a tenant two years' notice, a man would not want much compensation if he knew how to farm. I undertake to leave a farm after remaining two years there and it shall be as clean and as beautifully farmed as you might wish, although when I go out at the end of two years I shall have made a considerable quantity of money. You laugh, but I can do it. I know how it is done. Of course, you have to grow a certain quantity of roots, and if you get a favourable season your roots will be magnificent and in an ordinary season your corn will be magnificent. If a man has a yearly tenancy, however, he does not get much chance of getting a great deal, and it may be you have to give him compensation because he has lived there a great number of years and there is a sort of desire on his part not to leave the place. I rather sympathise with him. He may have brought up his children there, and so you may wish to give him a solatium when he moves elsewhere. What is that to a rich man? He writes a cheque and never knows he has done it. It hits only the poor man. It is very hard on a man who has bought or has inherited a farm of about 400 or 500 acres when he has a son whom he wishes to farm the land. It is the small people really who you want to have regard to in seeing that the compensation is not too great.
I believe nothing will ever satisfy this country until the time comes when no man shall be allowed to own more land than he, can farm himself. If he is a millionaire let him farm 100,000 acres if he can, but he will not do it long. He will be so bored with it. He will have other things to think about, and his land agent will

341
always be persuading him to get rid of it because it will make his duties lighter. If that is the case, then you will do away with the great difficulties of this compensation. I was very much struck by a thing I was reading in a certain diary I possess. I find that my father, the writer of that diary, said in 1879 and 1880, "I cannot conceive what is going to happen to landowners. It seems to me that the end must be that no man will be able to own more land than he can farm himself." That is the whole secret. In that case you will not have any trouble about compensation. When that comes about, if a man wishes to buy land on a mortgage he shall only mortgage it to the Government who will lend him money at the lowest rate of interest. Of compensation I have no fear according to the lines drawn up by Lord Parmoor.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say one word. I confess I am adhering to the principle so ably explained by Lord Bledisloe. I know that we have against us the great authority of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I wondered whether what was stated afterwards by Lord Parmoor may not have modified his view; for Lord Parmoor, speaking with great experience of arbitration—because no one. I suppose, has had so great experience of arbitration—said he did not anticipate that, any of the extravagant claims of which the noble Marquess was afraid would be considered by an arbitrator.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It was not a case of extravagant claims, but of what may be called moral and intellectual claims.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Parmoor is not here at present, but I am quite sure that he would include in what he said the belief that an arbitrator would not consider such claims as the noble Marquess mentioned.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have also the support of the noble and learned Lord below the gangway. In those circumstances surely we may fall back upon the principle that you should not pay a man more than is owing to him. We have here a proposal by Lord Bledisloe, the principle of which seems to be quite
342
sound, that you should pay the man his, out-of-pocket expenses in consequence of the toss of his holding. That is a principle which anybody can understand, and it does not infringe upon the property of the landlord. Once you admit that principle, that for the expense a man is put to he deserves compensation, supposing he is a good tenant, then you do not really infringe upon the property of the landlord. But if you once say to the tenant, "We give you a year's relit"—if it be the case, its I am told it is the ease, that the compensation in the great: majority of cases would be much smaller than a year's rent—you have practically cut a great slice out of the owner's property and presented it to the tenant. You cannot disguise it. No reasoning that it is shorter and simpler will avoid the inevitable fact that what Lord Bledisloe calculated, I believe on very good authority, at some seven per cent.—
LORD BLEDISLOE: At least seven per cent.
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: At least seven per cent, of the landlord's, property is transferred to the tenant. That appears to be a principle which we ought not to admit, and therefore I shall adhere to what is called the honest course—I not, want to use the adjective as being disrespectful to those who take the other view, but the honest course which Lord Bledisloe suggested.
There is, of course, a question which arises—I think a minor question—whether there should not be some kind of superior limit. The Amendment in the name of Lord Clinton does recommend a superior limit. For my part I think that would be a reasonable addition to make, but I do not put any great weight upon it. If I am to choose between the Government proposal in the Bill and Lord Bledisloe's proposal, I should certainly choose Lord Bledisloe's proposal. I think it would be better to have a superior limit in that I think it would very often be found useful in order-to guard against some extreme cases. There might be certain extreme cases where the compensation might run past the limit, and where it would be rather hard upon a poor landowner to throw such a very heavy expense upon him. If that is thought to be so illogical as to be indefensible, then I should not adhere to it, but I should support Lord Bledisloe's proposal.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I desire to ascertain the wishes of your Lordships. I have naturally got to think over what has been said and to consider very carefully to what extent, if any, it is possible for the Government to go in tile direction of meeting the views of your Lordships. We have reached a somewhat critical hour of the day, and I was under the impression that there probably would have been considerable general discussion, in which I should have proposed to intervene at a later stage. I do not know whether it would be your Lordships' desire to adjourn now for dinner and to meet again at a quarter past nine, and then for the general discussion to continue. I should then perhaps be in a better position to express the views of the Government than I am at the present moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: On the proposal to adjourn can the Government give us any indication as to what the course of business will be to-morrow? I understand that the questions which might arise between this House and the other House on the Government of Ireland Bill have been greatly narrowed in the last few hours, and I would like to ask whether it is possible for that Bill to be taken as the first Order to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are anxious on this point to do what will be convenient to the majority of your Lordships. It is a matter of the utmost indifference to us, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a great number of noble Lords are very much interested in agriculture. It is quite true the noble Earl assures me that the discussion on the Commons' treatment of our Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill may be a very short one, but one can never be quite sure on these matters, and I should be disposed to leave the question to the judgment of the House as a whole. I would suggest that it might be a convenient course if the noble Earl or some Party leader were to submit a substantive Motion. Our only desire is to know the opinion of the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In those circumstances what is the object of the Notice which I have just received, saying that we are to meet to-morrow at
344
3 o'clock and are to start the Irish Bill at that time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I announced at the commencement of business to-day that we should meet at 3 o'clock to-morrow.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Notice which I have in my possession is that we should begin the Irish Bill at 3 o'clock. It would he a great inconvenience to many members of the House if we were to do anything of the kind, and if I have an opportunity I shall challenge the opinion of the House upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Notice addressed to the noble Lord must have been the product of zeal, and is not a communication from this side of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I would point out that there is this difference between the two Bills. Their relative importance need not be discussed, but there is the fact that noble Lords from Ireland are placed in a somewhat different position from those who merely have to come up from the country in England, and I think that their convenience ought to be considered in the first place as far as possible.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps your Lordships will allow us to consider this a little further, and to mention it later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. I do not know whether it would be a convenient course—we wish to leave it to the House, and I know of no other method—for the noble Marquess or one of his friends to put down a Motion.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: We were invited by the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture to say a few words in general discussion, and I gladly avail myself of his invitation. I shall begin by saying that I am sorry the question of paying the tenant the outgoings to which he is entitled

345
on leaving the farm was ever connected in any way with the question of one or more years' rent. It seems to me wholly in-applicable for that particular kind of case. For this reason, that the value of the land differs so greatly in the various parts of the country.
Take the case of the Lothians in Scotland. There you find some of the most valuable land in the world. I have walked over farm after farm in the Lothians in the company of an owner of a great estate there, the late Mr. Nesbit Hamilton, who had a magnificent estate in the East Lothians. The land there was let for growing much the same articles as he grew in the great estates which he also owned in Lincolnshire. But whereas the usual rent for the farms in the Lothians was £5 an acre—it was some of the richest and most fertile land in the whole of the United Kingdom—the rent of the land in Lincolnshire and ether Southern districts in England was I5s., 20s., or 25s. an acre. There being that difference, how can you apply the system of awarding the tenant so much of the rent?
What the tenant gets now upon quitting depends very largely upon the time at which he enters his farm. There are various kinds of entry. There is the Michaelmas entry, the Lady Day entry, and the May Day entry, and the compensation which he receives is totally different or very largely different in those cases. There is not much difference in the ease of the Lady Day entry and the May Day entry with which I am most familiar. In Lincolnshire they were universal, and in Nottinghamshire I believe they were the same. I think the East Riding of Yorkshire and other great corn growing districts were all conducted upon the system of Lady Day entry or May Day entry with a six months' notice to quit. The consequence was that under that' system there was every inducement to the outgoing tenant to farm as well as he possibly could to the very last moment, and for two reasons. If he did not do his duty and do it properly certain things might happen. This custom was the foundation upon which all the Agriculture Bills from the first have been passed during my time in Parliament, and I have discussed this question over and over again with Mr. Disraeli himself, who was leader of the Party when I first came into Parliament.
One of the practices under that custom provided that if the work of the farm—such as cleaning the land, which is very
346
important—was not being done properly by the outgoing tenenat after he had received or given notice to quit, the incoming tenant or the landlord had the right of sending his own horses and men and implements to do the cleaning and the work of the farm for him. As a consequence the outgoing tenant always did it to the very best of his ability, and that was one of tire reasons why counties where farms were held under that tenure became more celebrated than almost any others for the perfection of the farming which was carried out at that time.
I hope it will not be thought that I am speaking egostistically, but I remember perfectly well the first time I rode over my estates I said to the old agent, who had gone through the ranks and had been a ploughman at one time, "I want to see a piece of twitch; I want to see what it is like." These were all large farms, and I am not exaggerating when I say that I had to ride two or three miles before he could find a piece of twitch to show me. Yet during the great depression I have seen that land covered with twitch almost from beginning to end. That shows what could be done under reasonable and fitting arrangements between and tenant and on entering and quitting farms. That is wiry I was sorry to hear the question discussed as if it was a matter which could be settled by giving as compensation so much money—either part of a year's rent or a month's rent of the farm, which has practically nothing whatever to do with it.
LORD LEE or FAREHAM: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will realise that this proposal has, nothing whatever to do with outgoing valuation, which is entirely outside the-scope of the Bill. The Bill has only to do with compensation for disturbance in case of removal.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: That is part of the whole thing. Everything is paid for now under the existing practice on every well-managed estate. It is all included, though it is called by different names. In Lincolnshire it used to be called the tenant right, or the inventory, and all these things were settled without the smallest difficulty. And during all the years in which that custom was imposed no case in that county had ever been taken to law, and that is over fifty or sixty years that I

347
can recollect, myself. What is the use of going into all these confused details, so difficult to understand? Having had to do with every agricultural Bill for regulating the position between landlord and tenant, I never remember one so difficult to understand. I went this morning through the Bill, as it was first introduced into this House, and in Clause 4 alone I found eighteen different sections and sixteen subsections containing subjects of reference to which von had to refer before you could understand this Bill. That used to be something unknown. It may be difficult in these days when Bill after Bill is crowded upon them for the draftsman to avoid it—probably they have not the time.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: We have not done it in this case.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I know what difficulties the noble Lord has had, and my sympathy has been increased by the tactful and kindly way in which he has met us. What I should aim at is to give effect in this Bill, as far as the law can do it, to all the different customs which exist—there are customs in every county—and in doing that you could save yourselves enormous trouble and difficulty, and any number of disputes.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am afraid it will take a good deal to persuade me, if anything can persuade me, to vote for a fixed penalty which should be both a maximum and minimum in a case in which, by the conditions supposed, the notice to quit has been given with good and sufficient cause and for reasons consistent with good estate management. I have searched amongst the other Amendments for a form of words which I think fits the case properly. I agree with some noble Lords that if you abandon the principle of a fixed penalty the only alternative is complete and genuine indemnity to the tenant for what he has suffered. I am afraid in the Amendment proposed by Lord Bledisloe I find too much that is visionary and altogether nebulous in expression to satisfy me. We want some words inserted in his Amendment which make it clear that what the tenant has suffered is an interruption of his tenancy and the interruption of the profits he might have reaped from his cultivation.
I abandon the idea of a penalty because it is repugnant to the immemorial principle
348
of our law. It is a well-known doctrine that the Courts of Equity and Common Law lean against the imposition of a fixed penalty for the double reason, that, on the one hand, it is odious, and, secondly, because it fails as a test of the injury inflicted. It is too much or too little, and there can be but few cases in which it can really fit the case of the injury suffered. I turn to the Amendment of Lord Clinton, and I find that it much more fits the case, except for the fact that I do not think we ought to subject it to the broad maximum limit of one year's rent. For my part, I should support any settlement of this difficult and vexed question which will rest on the principle of complete indemnity for the losses legitimately suffered, not merely sentimentally suffered, and shall not subject a landlord to a penalty which, being arbitrary and fixed, is in its nature for that very reason probably unjust.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I have wondered ever since I read this Bill whether it was really one for the improvement of agriculture, and the more we have gone into it the more it seems to me that it is not calculated to improve agriculture. In the past we have suffered a great deal from the election speeches and promises of the present Prime Minister, and we are suffering a great deal at the present. Let us regard this question as to whether it is going to be for the good of the country and for agriculture. As far as I am concerned, if it is really going to improve agriculture, I am prepared to make some sacrifices. But do not let us have any sentimental nonsense that because a farmer has to leave his farm he must therefore be paid something. You have to look at the whole question. You have to look at the capital employed in the agricultural industry; and if you are going to penalise the landlord's capital, which is the principal and most important capital, you are' going to do more harm than by giving greater security to the tenant's capital.
My own experience has been this. I am glad to say I have had very few changes of tenancies. I have never felt that I am in a superior position to the farmer in negotiations. I have a farm which I must let. He can take it or not, as he choose, and I suppose that most of us have always felt that the farmer, as a rule, has rather the whip hand. Most of the farmers and some of the landowners with whom I have to deal are rather like

349
the Scottish minister. I dare say your Lordships know the story of the Scottish minister who was giving advice to his son who was about to go to foreign parts. After a lot of useful suggestions the minister added, "Neither cheat nor be cheated, but rather cheat than be cheated." I think that landlords and farmers are the same. In Scotland not only farmers, but small holders and others, rather pride themselves, and I thins rightly, that they can make a good bargain. Is all this going to do any good? Are you going to encourage enterprise?
If the farmer is to be compensated surely he must take the same risk as anybody else. It seems to me that some people suggest that the farmers should be put in a position where they would be able to speculate freely and have their losses made good. My own opinion is that under the present Regulations the bulk of the farmers have confidence in the compensation they can get. They are not altogether fools, and if a landowner is not going to play the game the probability is that he will not get good tenants. I think that, anything like a fixed sum is totally wrong. My noble friend Lord Chaplin spoke of a part where I happen to have land, not as highly rented as lie has stated, but still the rent is high. Is there any more expense to the tenant there in moving, or even as much expense, as there is many other parts of the country where the rent is lower? I admit that many things are not likely to hit, anyone like myself very hard, but rather the small man. I think your Lordships must be very careful that, while you may wish to be fair and even generous to the farmer, the point you have to keep in mind is what is really going to be for the good of agriculture and the production of food.
I think that this one year's rent has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It will be not only unfair to many landlords, but unfair as between farmer and farmer. It will have the same effect as other Government interference has had. Take the railways. There they have standardised signal men, and the man on the branch line gets practically the same pay as the man on the main line, with the result that the man who is doing three or four times the work of the other and getting the same pay is discontented. So it will be here. We want fairness and justice, and I am sure that farmers are the last people to cry out for charity. They are an independent body of men, well able,
350
as a rule, to hold their own. My experience is that when farmers have made a bargain they have made a hard bargain, and once it has been made it has been kept. Our relations have been very satisfactory and, indeed, in some cases over-punctilious.
I am afraid that all these things, instead of doing good to agriculture, will do harm. In the south of Scotland where many farms are held by one man, I think it is always found that the most severe critics are the shepherds and the ploughmen and the farm stewards. They are the ones who find most fault, and they say it is not fair that a man who is not cultivating his land properly should have it. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill will stereotype the bad or indifferent farmer, and it will be almost impossible, I suggest, from my experience, to get rid of him. That is a very grave danger, and it is a great injustice to the young rising man who may have capital, and to the somewhat older man who, through his own exertions, may have accumulated capital. It is a difficult position, but I think the proposal of my noble friend Lord Clinton is the most likely one to meet the case. I think the bulk of the farmers will be perfectly satisfied and will consider that they have a reasonable and sufficient compensation for being moved.
I do not think it has been sufficiently appreciated by your Lordships that we are only discussing eases where removal takes place under good estate management, and surely good estate management must mean management for the good of the estate and for the good of the food production of the country. If that is so, is it right that a man, especially a poor man, who takes action should be penalised? I can only say if that is to be so, it will simply mean he will not in any circumstances do anything in the way of giving notice to a tenant who has not cultivated his land either in the interests of his estate or in the interests of the food production of the country.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I approach this matter from the position of an agricultural landowner in a small way and a farmer in a small way, but also as a lawyer and a man of business. I say to myself, What happens when two men make a contract and one breaks it? What does the one have to pay, and what has the other to receive? One has to pay, and the other has to

351
receive, the damages which the breach of contract has caused to him—no more and no less. Sometimes it is difficult to measure those damages, and the Courts of law have had difficulties in applying a measure; but on the whole it is easy to say what the damages are that flow from a particular breach, and it is easy to compensate the injured person by giving him those damages.
Here we are dealing with a case where no contract is broken. We are going to put the tenant in as good a position as if the landlord bad broken his contract. So be it. Why should we do more? If the contract is broken we give the man compensation by way of damages for the breach; why, when no contract is broken, should we give a man more than the damage he has sustained? If there is a doubt whether any of these words are large enough, let them be made larger. I must say it seems to me that the words in the Bill are large enough, and the right course to take is to strike out all words after the word "compensation" in the fourth line of page 14. But if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill wants larger words let him suggest them, and I am sure the House will be glad to give them.
There are certain noble Lords who are afraid of allowing this rule. They are afraid of what the arbitrator will do, but I think they are unduly timorous. We are not ashamed of what we do, and we are not afraid that the arbitrator will go wrong, but if he does the Courts of law will correct him. All arbitrators can be compelled, if it is supposed that they are going wrong on points of law, to state a case for the opinion of the Court, and will then be told by the Court what they ought to do. If a landlord anticipated that the arbitrator was going to give the tenant farmer something quite ridiculous—it was suggested to me that supposing a tenant farmer's daughter goes to a very good and cheap school close by and in consequence of the farmer being evicted he has to take the girl away from school—if the arbitrator was going to award damages on that account, the landlord has only to go to the Court and the arbitrator will be asked to state a case, and he would be- corrected and stopped.
Therefore we need not be afraid that the arbitrator will give what President Kruger once called "moral and intellectual damages." Noble Lords need not be afraid
352
that the arbitrator will give damages to the tenant otherwise than for what he has suffered, and the tenant ought to get those damages. We are giving him something which he does not now get—the same rights as a man whose contract is broken, although here no contract is broken—but the tenant is to get that and no more, and no more whether the eviction is capricious or not. He suffers no more because the eviction is capricious. To give damages for capricious eviction is mixing up civil and criminal law, and imposing an additional penalty upon a landlord. The tenant ought not to be able to put into his pocket four years' rent because he has been capriciously evicted. He ought to get damages liberally estimated, and no more. I therefore suggest that one or two of the Amendments of the noble Lords should be accepted, or that it would be quite as satisfactory to stop the section at the, word "compensation."
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think it my duty at this stage to intervene in the discussion, and I am more anxious, having had a little opportunity both for refreshment and reflection, to put my views or the views of the Government before your Lordships in, I hope, sufficiently clear form. May I say with regard to the speech of the Duke of Buccleuch that I am sorry he should have thought it necessary in the beginning of his speech to suggest that in this matter I was playing politics.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I did not mean the noble Lord, but the Government as a whole.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am the author of the Bill.
Several NOBLE LORDS: The Government is the author.
LORD LEE OF FAREIEAM: I am the responsible Minister, and I can assure the noble Lord that in this matter I have had no thought whatever for any political consideration, and I have only accepted responsibility for the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, I think it is necessary to give effect to the lessons of the war, and secondly I believe it is good for agriculture. If I had not believed those two things, nothing would have induced me to be responsible for it.

353
May I go back a little to the history of this proposal? As you are aware, it is not the original proposal which was in the Bill as introduced in another place, but we have always had the same object in view, and that was to give a sufficient sense of security to the good farmer to encourage him to the utmost amount of enterprise, and higher standards of food production. That was our object, and there were two alternatives which were proposed to the Government. One was fixity of tenure, dual ownership; the other was adequate compensation for disturbance. Of these two alternatives I unhesitatingly supported the latter, and, as I have mentioned more than once, I have so far as I know steered clear of anything in the nature of fixity of tenure throughout the provisions of this Bill. I am a little nervous about it, because I feel as if I was living in a house where, if I emerged for a moment from the door, I always found myself on a sort of toboggan slide which led down to the bottomless pit of fixity of tenure. Your Lordships warn me luck again the instant that I show my nose outside the door. I hope I shall be able to show that there is nothing of heresy in these particular proposals.
But in the first draft of the Bill there were three different proposals with regard compensation—first, a sum to cover loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding incurred in connection with the sale or removal of stock, implements and so forth: secondly, for losses or expenses directly attributable to the quitting and thirdly, one year's rent in non-capricious cases, and a sum of between one and four years' rent in capricious cases. Those were the original proposals. In the course of discussion in another place there were naturally innumerable conferences and discussions with the various interests concerned. I quite agree that in many cases it. is not possible to get any body of men who are plenipotentiaries and who are able to treat on behalf of all the interests. It is true that on the farmers' side the National Farmers' Union were able to speak more or less as plenipotentiaries for the whole of their organisation, and on the other side a number of distinguished representatives of landlords in another place did discuss this mater with the Government and with the farmers, agreed eventually, and supported by their votes the agreement which is embodied in this subsection. I do not
354
suggest for a moment that is binding on anybody except the individuals who made it, but I put it forward as a reasonable explanation of the Government's action in feeling that it was a reasonable compromise.
It will be observed that in the course of the compromise the second of these scales of compensation disappeared altogether, and that was very much welcomed on the landlord's side because it removed from the proposal a very indefinite, and as I think necessarily indefinite, description of the basis on which compensation was to be assessed. On the other hand, in another place, on account of this compromise, very little objection was raised afterwards to the retention of the payment of one year's rent in every case in addition to the cost of sale and removal. That is the proposal which is now before your Lordships, and I would like to suggest that it is not, whatever you may call it intended in any sense as a fine or as all injury to the landlord. It cannot be defended in logic, that is quite obvious. There is nothing that is logical, except the full proposals of Lord Bledisloe, that everything which is directly attributable to quitting, however large the sum may be, should be paid, no more and no less.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Arising out of the farming operations.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Yes, I am not using all the words. That is the only logical position. But I am not sure that logic is always the best guide to policy, and this is frankly, and has never pretended to be anything else, an arrangement which was thought to be on the whole more convenient to both parties concerned. It is a rule of thumb method if you like, but it has this advantage at any rate that both sides know pretty well where they are, and this interminable vista of legislation and investigation into this or that possible loss is closed. I think the daughter's high school education is the most extreme that I have yet heard suggested, but there are many other very difficult ones. There is, for instance, the point that was raised by a noble Lord before dinner in regard to the name of a pedigree herd which may he a good will of real value, and which disappears absolutely as soon as the tenant has to leave his holding; and there are many other valuable local agricultural connections strictly relating to the tenancy.

355
I venture to say if you are going to adopt a system under which every one of those questions is the subject of investigation by an arbitrator and of assessment for loss, I think you are entering upon a road which may lead you in many cases very much further than you have any idea of. I think all these factors which are very real subjects of loss are at the same time almost incalculable, and it would be a practical impossibility in the sort of cases which will frequently arise really to assess the loss except as the result of an almost interminable legal process.
I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that we have every confidence in the arbitrators and I feel sure their decisions would not be foolish, but they would have exceedingly difficult matters to investigate and exceedingly difficult decisions to come to, the proceedings, I am convinced, would take an immense amount of time and cost a great deal of money. At the same time as the result of this discussion I have been very much impressed with two points of view. There is the logical point of view voiced by Lord Bledisloe and more recently by Lord Stuart of Wortley, and I should like to see that given effect to as far as possible. At the same time in view of what has taken place up to now and during the last six or seven months that this matter has been the subject of negotiation I do not feel able to assent to any proposition which would deprive the outgoing tenant of the one year's rent which he would receive under the present clause. But I am hoping that I may be able to suggest for the consideration of your Lordships a compromise on this question to which I will refer in a few moments. I am inclined to agree, with I think the noble and learned Lord who preceded me, that it is difficult to justify in logic or anything else the differential treatment of an eviction of a tenant whether it is for one motive or another.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Whether it is for reasons consistent or inconsistent with good estate management; not because I do not think it would be a very good thing for quite other reasons to penalise a capricious landlord, but because, after all, it makes no difference whatsoever to the tenant.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The object which we have in view is to give the tenant a sense of security in regard to his capital, and not to put a fine in his pocket as the result of the sins or delinquencies of his landlord. There is also the difficulty that arbitrators, however wise—and I am prepared to accord to them all the wisdom of which the human race is capable—would inevitably give uneven and sometimes conflicting decisions with regard to what is and what is not capricious, and this might bear more hardly on one landlord than on another. And all the time there would be this feeling of uncertainty hanging over the heads of landlords, when they were proposing to get rid of a tenant, as to whether or not their action might be considered capricious. I think there is a real objection to that, and in view of the fact that the tenant is just as much injured in the one case as in the other, and in order to get rid of the uncertainty and to simplify the position, I should be prepared to consider, if necessary, the dropping of that proposal in the Bill which deals with increased compensation in cases of capricious disturbance.
There is also the distinction between rent and net rent. I am afraid we should land ourselves into a mass of inconsistency if the proposal of a net rent were adopted. After all, the net rent depends entirely on what may be the particular outgoings of that particular landlord, which may bear no relation whatever to the outgoings of another landlord similarly situated—the great differences in connection with tithe rentcharges and other outgoings, and the fact that one estate may have required more expenditure than another, and so forth—and I think that would lead one, not only into a mass of inconsistencies, but into results which would be very unjust to the average tenant, if he were only entitled to the net rent. But I do hope that your Lordships will not look on this subject too narrowly from the point of view merely of justice to the landlord. I have endeavoured all through these debates to keep before your Lordships what I believe to be the national interest with regard to the increased production of food, and the undoubted fact, so far as all our information goes to show, that some measure of increased sense of security is absolutely essential for the tenant farmers of this country, if they are going to be spurred on to greater efforts in the future. This controversy has been going on for years.

357
There are on the one side and the other violent champions of extreme courses. I have endeavoured to avoid any connection with their ideas, and to steer a middle course, and I cannot help thinking that there is in the circumstances of the time and of the Coalition Government—if it has no other uses—an opportunity which might never occur again for a reasonable settlement of this extraordinarily difficult and vexed question.
Now I will indicate to your Lordships what seems to me a reasonable solution. Although I naturally much prefer the proposal which is in the Bill, and which so far has survived, I am conscious of the exceedingly strong feeling in the House. I am quite sure that you will be influenced by no consideration but the good of agriculture and the welfare of the State. But I know that the feeling is exceedingly strong, and I am anxious, as I hope I have shown myself throughout so far as possible, to meet the strong views, and even the prejudices, of your Lordships with regard to matters with which you are so intimately connected. I have tried to combine in this proposal what seems to nut the best in the various views put forward, and I believe it represents the limit to which it would be possible to whittle down the clause of the Bill if it is to have any of the effects which the Government desire and are considered necessary in the national interests.
The effect of my proposal would be that the quitting tenant, the tenant who has been given notice to quit, when not in default—we do not propose that he should receive any compensation for disturbance in that ease—shall in every case be entitled to a sum equal to one year's rent, inclusive of all the subjects enumerated in subsection (5) but that he shall not be entitled to any further compensation for disturbance unless he can prove that. the loss and expenses directly attributable to the twitting and unavoidably incurred in connection with the sale and removal of his stock, etc., exceeds one year's rent, in which case he shall be entitled to the whole of the loss and expenses so incurred up to a maximum of two years' rent. There is no provision for capricious eviction at all. I will give your Lordships the exact words of the subsection as it would stand—
"The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum equal to one year's rent of the
358
holding or, where the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and unavoidably incurred by the tenant upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or stock on or used in connection with the holding, together with any expenses reasonably incurred in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation) exceeds that sum, such sum not exceeding two years' rent of the holding as represents such loss and expenses."
LORD PARMOOR: Does that mean that one year's rent would be given, although there was no damage sustained at all in a particular case? Admitted there is no damage, under those circumstances one year's rent should be given?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Obviously a tenant would have some expenses in connection with the quitting of his holding and the sale or removal of his household goods and farming implements, but it provides that there shall be no arbitration or litigation with regard to the amount so long as no claim is put in in excess of the year's rent if it is in excess of that sum, if the tenant wishes to claim more than that, he will be unable to get in any ease more than two years' rent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: may be considerably less than that sum.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is possible, but your Lordships will see that my proposal combines both the rule of thumb method, which I think would settle most cases, and in a very limited sense the logical basis of compensation suggested by Lord Bledisloe.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like some further explanation of what is meant by this proposal, because one year's rent and two year's rent mean different things North and South of the Tweed. In Scotland the owner pays the larger proportion of the rates, much larger than the tenant, and a year's rent to him is a very much more serious penalty. I have spoken to a great many personal friends of mine and they almost universally agree with me that the net sum at the moment which goes into the landlord's pockets does not exceed 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £ of the nominal rent. I am supposing that you take off the average amount for maintenance allowed by the Inland Revenue for Income Tax, the minister's stipend, local

359
rates and Income Tax. If I am right—and I could show figures to prove it—and the landlord is penalised by having to give one year's rent and only gets 2s. 6d. in the £, it will be eight years before he recoups himself for that loss. As I understand it he will not get any deduction from Income Tax on the ground that he has had to pay the year's rent. He will still be penalised in the whole of the Income Tax and also Super-Tax, if he has to pay it.
LORD STANMORE: In regard to the question so far as it regards Scotland, which formed the first part of my noble friend's speech, I do not know if he has noticed the Amendment in my name on page 34 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. It deals with this matter in very much the terms in which the noble Lord put his question—

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

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

will not be included in the rent.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If we are to discuss the meaning of rent I would mention that by Statute law the landlord has to pay the tithe, which is not chargeable on the tenant, and yet the tithe is no part whatever of the landlord's income or his rent. He is a mere conduit pipe for passing on the money to the parson.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I have no desire to move the words now. That was not the proposal unless it was your Lordships' wish. The proposal was that I should put down this suggestion on the Report stage for discussion then.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Lord assent to what I may call the penalty part of the existing clause being cut out now and leaving the question for discussion on Report stage? He does not mean, does he, that we are to pass the clause and the penalty of one year or four years—he admits now that it ought to be the same in both cases—in addition to the ascertainment of the actual amount of damage. If he would cut this out the matter could stand over to be considered later.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has raised a very serious point. I would put it in
360
this way. In ally business, if you had to pay this compensation, it would naturally come out of profit, and therefore yon would not have to pay income Tax upon it; but owing to the landowner paying Income Tax under Schedule A it cannot be avoided. I know that my noble friend cannot do anything in this Bill, but, speaking for myself, I think if he could in any way give an assurance that the amount would be allowed as a deduction in respect of Income Tax it might alter the situation very much.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I will certainly look into that, and I hope to be able to clear it up at the Report stage. I am not a free agent in the matter.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Would not a simpler way be if we were to leave out the whole of this subsection down to the word "proper," and then the noble Lord could bring up the new subsection on Report?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I desire, as I gather that my own Amendment is not the most popular one, to withdraw it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I take that to be the pleasure of the House?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am afraid I cannot follow the same course. I cannot possibly admit that rent is any guide whatever to the loss which the tenant has actually suffered. If I may say so, the reference to two years' maximum only aggravates the objection which I feel to the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE then formally moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding as the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred be him in the preparation Of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation), and also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding," and to insert "such loss directly

361
attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably ncur."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out from ("representing") to ("or") in line 5 on page 14, and insert("such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant nosy unavoidably incur").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I could not, of course, accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I do not propose troubling your Lordships to divide on the matter in view of the fact that the whole question will have to be decided on the Report stage when my Amendment is moved.
LORD HARRIS: Did not the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill say that he would bring up a definition of rent? I do not think he has given any reply. Obviously, if he is going to base his clause upon a year's or two years' rent he must have a clear definition of what is meant by "rent."
LORD SHEFFIELD: This will come up on Report, but I wish to say I prefer the words of the Bill at the bottom of page 13 to the words which Lord Bledisloe proposes to substitute. Having gone through all these Amendments which aim at the same conclusion but aim at it in different ways, it seems to me that the best words are those which the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, put. As they are scattered through three Amendments it is a little troublesome to get at them. The noble Lord strikes out the one year, and he was than proposing to give one year if the farm was kept in thorough good order and if the man was turned out unreasonably. But I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has, abandoned what I may call the penalising of the unsatisfactory landlord, as distinct from the compensating of the tenant who is to go out. I think we ought not to be prejudiced on Report by striking out the words at the bottom of page 13, because I think those words are better than the words which Lord Bledisloe has used.
THE MARQUESS 0F SALISBURY: I am sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has shown consideration in accepting the sense of your Lordships' House and in
362
taking Lord Bledisloe's Amendment. Of course, it will require adjustment on Report.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I think it is fair to your Lordships to say that, when the motion is moved from the Chair to adopt the substituted words of Lord Bledisloe, I shall ask your Lordships to accept an insertion into those words of the words "the interruption of" before the words "its tenancy."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will now put the question that the words moved by Lord Bledisloe be inserted.
Loup STUART OF WORTLEY: In order to make it quite clear that the compensation to the tenant shall be limited to that which arises out of the notice to quit, and shall not give him anything in the nature of compensation for his own agricultural failure and loss of profits, I wish to insert in the Amendment of Lord Bledisloe the words "the determination of." The Amendment will then read, "such loss directly attributable to the quitting of the holding and arising out of the determination of its tenancy and cultivation as the tenant may unavoidably incur."
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am afraid I should not welcome the insertion of these words, if, as I think, it would include just those side-shows which may be wholly unconnected with the tenancy of the agricultural holding. Personally, I feel much firmer on the ground I have taken up.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord move his proposal as an Amendment to the Amendment?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: That was my intention.
Amendment to the Amendment moved accordingly.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
Then, original Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "equal to one year's rent of the holding." The noble Earl said: I understand that the Minister of Agriculture has accepted this Amendment. I move it for three reasons. It cuts out the four years for capricious eviction—
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think it might save time if I reminded your Lordships that the Amendment deals with capricious eviction, which I have already expressed my willingness to surrender.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("holding") to the end of line 9.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in paragraph (a), after "sale" to insert "or removal." The noble Duke said: I think this is chiefly drafting. The words appear in a previous clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 11, after ("sale") insert ("or removal").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not think it is merely drafting. If I thought there was any advantage to the landlord in making the valuation of any of these things before removal rather than after I should make no objection to the Amendment, but if a claim is made for damage to some implements due to the removal the landlord would wish to have it inspected after and not before removal.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It is not a big point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (6), to leave out "two" ("not less than two months") and insert "three." The noble Earl said: I think two months is rather short, and it would be an advantage to all parties that the landlord should know earlier when the tenant is going to make a claim.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not take any violent objection to this Amendment, but I do not see how this can possibly confer any advantage on the landlord unless, as is inevitable in some cases, the tenant through ignorance of the law or forgetfulness may omit to give notice in the time required and thus be deprived on what is really a technical point, of the compensation that is fairly due to him. I think it makes a pitfall for the tenant which
364
is perhaps rather unfair in some cases, and I do not think the landlord gains anything.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We do not know what form this clause is to take eventually, and as the clause is at present I had in my mind a case of capricious disturbance. The landlord might give notice for reasons that appeared to him perfectly bona fide. Three months would give him more time to look it over, and to withdraw his notice if he thought fit.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: if the capricious is dropped perhaps the noble Earl will revise his opinion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will withdraw it for the present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved in subsection (6), after paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph—
"(c) Where the notice to quit is given and expressed to be given for the purpose of seeing the holding in order to provide for payment of death duties which the landlord of the holding is liable to pay."
The noble Duke said: At the present moment when a man dies the duties are so very high that very often his son, in order to pay the duties, having no assets, has immediately to realise a very large amount of land. If this Bill becomes law the amount that he will have to realise will be very large indeed, in many cases probably tens of thousands of pounds. This will have to be got by the sale of land. This affects not only a large number of your Lordships, but also people in other walks of life. A great many landlords, even small landlords, would have to pay heavy death duties. It seems to me a very reasonable thing that compensation should not be payable to the tenant on the scale imposed by the Bill where the sale is taking place solely for the purpose of paying death duties which are immediate liabilities. Farmers made great sums of money out of the landlords during the war. Landlords, on the other hand, had received small rents, amounting perhaps to £500 or £600 a year. In some cases farmers who paid only £500 or £600 a year rent have made £5,000 or £6,000 for themselves. I have nothing to say against farmers, but I think landlords should not have to pay this heavy compensation to

365
people who are so much better off than themselves, especially when they have to pay such heavy death duties. There is one member of your Lordships' House whose father, a great landowner, died only a short time ago, who I understand has exactly £100 a year to live on at the present moment. I do not think there are many farmers or other people in that walk of life who would be content to work for that amount per annum.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 18, at end insert the following new paragraph:
("(c) Where the notice to quit is given and expressed to be given for the purpose of selling the holding in order to provide for payment of death duties which the landlord of the holding is liable to pay.")—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Without going into the vexed question as to whether farmers have or have not made great fortunes or whether your Lordships would be successful in persuading the country at large that you are an impoverished class as compared with tenant farmers, in any case we all have to pay death duties, unfortunately, at some time or another.
A NOBLE LORD: The successor has to pay.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Surely it is the successors who are present and to whom I am speaking. It is a little hard if a tenant who has become entitled under the provisions of this Bill to compensation for disturbance should be called upon to pay part of the death duties which belong to the estate of his landlord. There are, unfortunately, many cases in which landlords for one reason or another find themselves obliged to sell their lands, and this is one of the causes of the feeling of insecurity among tenants at the present time. I do not think there could be any justice or logic in putting part of the death duties on the tenant and I must resist the Amendment.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Surely the amount might be deducted. Why should not they deduct the amount of the charges?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is different proposition.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I should have supported the noble Duke's Amendment had it not been for the speech which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill made a short time since with regard to the consideration of the whole question of the scale of compensation of disturbance. After that statement I do not think it would be wise for the noble Duke to press his Amendment until we know what that proposition is to be. I think, therefore, that the noble Duke would be wise to withdraw his Amendment until we come to the consideration of the terms of compensation.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: When I first drew up this Amendment I did not realise that a good deal of the compensation which is payable by the tenants to the landlord would be cut out of the Bill, as apparently it has been by the Amendment which has been accepted by the noble Lord, and there is not doubt that a difference is made to my Amendment by this fact. Under the circumstances, and in view of what Lord Ancaster has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (6), to leave out "three" and insert "six." The noble Earl said: The point. of this is simply that an owner may be at the other end of the world, perhaps under the service of the Crown, and there is no time in the three months for his agent to communicate with him.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I think that is a real point, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, in the first line of paragraph (e), after "let to," to insert "or permitted to be used by."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and the one which follows, together with two other Amendments on the next Clause and on Clause 21, deal with less exciting matters than those we have just been concerned with, but are not without importance. This Amendment is moved at the instance of the London County Council, with regard to the war allotments of which

367
so many were provided during the war. But it affects other public authorities and also, I think, the cases in which allotments were permitted to be made on commons. During the War the London County Council allowed a great number of allotments—14,000 altogether—to be taken up by various people in London very largely in the parks and open spaces, but these allotments were not in the strict sense let. No kind of agreement existed with regard to them, and it was really a licence to certain persons to cultivate small lots of ground, 5 rods as a rule. The Council is advised that these allotments, not having been let, do not come under the exemption from payment of compensation. Then equally there is the case where an "authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or Department." In some cases land so acquired was not put to the use for which it was acquired. An education authority acquired land and it was used for open spaces. Through an abundance of caution they desire the insertion of the words "or appropriated" towards the end of paragraph (e).
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, after ("let to") insert ("or permitted to be used by").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Are the tenants under the Crown Lands exempt, or do they receive the benefits under the Bill?
LORD LEE OF FARFHAM: I should be glad if the noble Marquess will allow me to make sure on that point. With regard to the Amendment I think it is meaningless. If there is no tenancy, if no tenancy is created, the clause is inapplicable. As to his second Amendment I do not think the word "appropriated" is the proper word to use, but I will see if the right word can be inserted on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGShad an Amendment in paragraph (f), to leave out "and".["and which has since the fourth day of August"] and insert "or." The noble Lord said: The paragraph as drawn will apply to
368
grass letting unless it was previously ploughed up. I do not know whether this was intended: there seems to be no purpose in including annual grass letting in this paragraph.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The point is covered by an Amendment of mine later on.
LORD HASTINGS: I rather prefer my own words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point is covered more completely by the noble Duke's Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, after subsection (6), to insert "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 noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to meet the case that I put forward on the Second Reading, of the owner occupier who has bought his farm and dies leaving a son who has still to be educated, and the widow wants to let the farm during the period of her son's education, and then to resume occupation. It is very carefully guarded. It applies only to a holding that is in the occupation of the owner, who, when it is let, must give notice she intends to resume occupation within the specified term, and she must resume it within that term. I cannot help thinking that if the Amendment is not passed some very hard cases will arise.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 11, after ("seeds") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I agree with the noble Earl that this is a hard case.

369
Hard cases must occur in almost any legislation and I understand they make bad law. The noble Earl will recognise that it is obviously quite immaterial to the tenant whether the eviction is prompted by a desire on the part of the landlord to occupy the land himself, or to put a son or a new tenant upon it, and the Government all through the discussions on the Bill have taken the stand that it is impossible to make exceptions to the general principle as to the sense of security which is given to tenants. If exceptions are made it will be exceedingly difficult to prevent the privilege being abused. Once we admit them there will be no end to them and it will be possible to drive a coach and four through the provision. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment because it is possible to bring up other cases of a similar kind, and I think the clause would become meaningless.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very sorry that I cannot accept my noble friend's refusal. Indeed, I do not think he can have read nay Amendment. He says it makes no difference to the tenant. It makes every difference in the world under the conditions I have stated. There is a farm which is in the occupation of the owner who has died, and the widow says to somebody else, "My son is being educated and will be able to farm the land himself in seven years' time. I will let it to you at a rent based on the fact that you are going to give up the land again." It makes the whole difference to know the conditions under which he takes it. He knows he is only going to take it for a limited period and at the end of that period, having received his quid pro quo and entered into the bargain with his eyes open, he quits possession. Why should he receive any compensation? I do not think my noble friend can have read the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If the noble Earl goes to a Division I shall certainly support the Government. We are now dealing with the question of compensation and, as I stated on a previous Amendment, until we know what the actual terms are for compensation for turning out a tenant it is difficult to deal with all these matters. I am one of those who have always been opposed to a heavy fine, which might amount to four years' rent, upon any person who wishes to resume possession of his own property. I think
370
that a hard and unjust proposal. But the Government apparently are now going to make very modified suggestions. When the noble Earl puts down an Amendment to deal with a particularly hard case we must remember that there will be not one but fifty or sixty such cases where people have acquired property, have not been able to take it up immediately and have let it to another tenant, intending to resume occupation themselves in two or three years' time. I have always felt that it is an enormous hardship in dealing with these people that they should have to pay a fine of four years' rent in order to resume occupation of their own property. The noble Earl, Lord Powis, at an earlier period of our debates this afternoon, gave the case of a man who acquired property and went out to the war and fought, and let the farm to a man who preferred farming to fighting, and later he returned from the war and wished to obtain possession again. Under this Bill, as it previously stood, he would very likely have had to pay to the man who did not go and fight four years' rent in order to obtain possession of his holding. That is just as hard a case as the noble Earl has quoted to-day. I do not think you can deal with this question by moving Amendments in order to try to get over hard cases. The simple question is, If a man wishes to resume possession of his Own property, what compensation ought he to pay to the man who has occupied it? Until we have decided that, it is not worth while going on.
LORD SUMNER: It is not a question of a hard case. It is a case of a bargain. I do not think the noble Earl has read the Amendment. It has been let to the tenant upon express terms that if the landlord desires to resume occupation before the expiration of a specified term the landlord shall be entitled to give notice to quit—that is to say, the tenant has been put ill as a "warming pan," and he knows it. That is the bargain that is made. It is not a question of a hard case, although if it be true it is one hard case and there are fifty others; that is only a reason for having fifty more Amendments and not for excluding this one. It is not a hard case at all. It is a case of a specific person having been let in on specific terms that he is to go out if called upon to go out, and he has thought it worth while to make that bargain. Why is he to get compensation
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble and learned Lord on the cross benches, Lord Sumner, says it is a case, of a bargain, but so it is with every 19 years' lease. And yet I understand they are all to be upset.

CONTENTS.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Stanhope, E.

Harris, L.

Sutherland, D.

Westmeath, E.

Hastings, L.

Wieklow, E.

Hindlip, L.

Ailsa, M.

Holm Patrick, L.

Bath, M.

Bangor, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camden, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lamington, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hampden, V.

Lawrence, L.

Crewe, M.

Hood, V.

Leconfield, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Methuen, L.

Salisbury, M.

Avebury, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bellew, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Abingdon, E.

Berwick, L.

Queenborough, L.

Albemarle, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Chichester, E.

Blythswood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Devon, E.

Clinton, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleach and Queengberry.)

cloncurry, L.

Romilly, L.

Cottesloe, L.

St. Levan, L.

Grey, E.

Decies, L.

Sandys, L.

Ilchester, E.

Denman, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Innes, E. (D. Rosburghe.)

Desborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Jersey, E.

Dynevor, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

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

Kimberley, E. (Teller.)

Ebury, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Strachie, L.

Mayo, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Midleton, E.

Farington, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Morton, E.

Farnham, L.

Sumner, L.

Northesk, E.

Forbes, L.

Wavertree, L.

Powls, E.

Forester, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Sandwich, E.

Gainford, L.

Wynford, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Greville, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cranworth, L.

Exeter, M.

Erskine, L.

Ancaster, E.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Sandhurst, V. (V. Chancellor.)

Killanin, L.

Caithness, E.

Falmouth, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Milner, V.

Lovat, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Peel, V.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

Eldon, E.

Abinger, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Fitzwilliam, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Phillimore, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boston, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lucan, E.

Cleyd, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Lytton, E.

Cochrane of Culta, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, although it is irregular I believe it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if the Government could make some announcement as to the course of business to-morrow, so that noble Lords may know the order in which business will be taken.
On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 43.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is so important that this House should maintain its ancient tradition that it has no Rules that as a new precedent this is not to be despised. I think it is new. Nevertheless in the interests of general convenience, perhaps your Lordships will permit a very short discussion upon the matter raised. I am informed that the points which still remain to be discussed between the two Houses on the Government of Ireland Bill have been very much reduced

373
in number as a result of the decisions taken in the House of Commons to-day, and, therefore, unless there is a strong objection or behalf of noble Lords who are interested in the Agriculture Bill, I should myself be prepared to assent to the wish that the Irish matter be disposed of first, and with the object of making it certain that the course of this Bill would not be unduly interfered with, it would be possible for the House to sit at half-past two if noble Lords would be prepared to do so. That would give half an hour.
The only observation I would make upon that is—I am taking the House most frankly into my confidence—that the Government Whips have only been sent out for three o'clock, and therefore I should trust to the honour of noble Lords to see that no Division was challenged before three o'clock. Under these circumstances, and being persuaded that the Irish question—although, of course, it will require discussion because two or three substantial points remain—will not really impinge greatly upon the time available for the discussion of the Agricultural Bill, I should myself, on behalf of the Government, welcome the decision, if your Lordships were disposed to take the same view, that precedence might be given in these circumstances to the Irish Bill to-morrow. I should do that very much more heartily if I was sure, and I think I am, that your Lordships were prepared to sit for a considerable time to-night to deal with agriculture. We are in no way inferior to the House of Commons, and I am informed that the House of Commons is sitting till about two o'clock, and I would entreat your Lordships, though I will not promise to stay the whole time, to exhibit a striking instance of endurance.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble and learned Lord if we are taking the Scottish Housing Bill to-morrow?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose we shall be guided by our experience.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not till after this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly not. The noble Duke will no doubt wait till we have disposed of other matters.
THE DURE OF ATHOLLhad on the Paper an Amendment at the end of para-
374
graph (f), to insert the following new paragraph
("or (g) accommodation lands or grass parks let to butchers, cattle-dealers and the like, whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral.")
The noble Duke said: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill is most anxious, I understand, to have a logical point, and I think what I am asking is perfectly logical and is also practical. 1 am not at all desirous of detaining your Lordships any longer if the House is prepared to accept that Amendment as I think may possibly be the case. It has already appeared in Scottish Bills. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear because the avowed object of Clause 8 is to give the tenant security for his capital sunk in the land. In the case of this accommodation land and these grass parks tenants have no capital sunk in the land at all, nor is there any question of the tenant being turned out of his hearth and home. Therefore I fail to see why these lands should be included in the Bill.
These lands are always situated on the outskirts of towns and are purely accommodation lands, the tenants are yearly or for even shorter periods. It would be absurd that they should be given the same security of tenure as others or that they should be given a reward which they do not deserve at the end of their tenancy. If you are going to give all the tenants of these accommodation lands—auctioneers and people of that sort—security of tenure. I think it will raise extraordinarily difficult points in every district around every village. It has not been asked for, it is not wanted, and there seems to be no reason at all in equity or necessity for putting it into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has asked me to put "fishermen" into the Amendment because in many cases these lands are used by fishermen for drying their nets. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment as altered.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 11, at end insert the following new paragraph:—
("or(g) accommodation lands or grass parks or other grass lands let to or used by butchers, cattle-dealers, dairymen, fishermen, and the like, whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral.")—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HASTINGS: I withdrew a similar Amendment in favour of that moved by the noble Duke, but I should like to add these words at the end: "also grass lands customarily let on annual lettings" because the words put down by the noble Duke would not cover such things as marsh lands which are commonly let in many parts of England by auction annually. I should like to support the Amendment with the addition of those words.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not quite certain what the position of the Government is with regard to the Amendment, but so far as my Amendment is concerned it could be drafted in any other way, and I am prepared to take any wording which is agreed.
LORD LOVAT: I cannot see the object of including fishermen in the Amendment and I think it would be most inadvisable to do so. But I am quite in sympathy with the other objects of the Amendment because it involves no hardship on the people who use these lands.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Unless the Government particularly wish it I would ask them to keep in fishermen, because I have been advised by two noble Lords who are experts that that is necessary, and they have asked me to put it in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There appears to be some slight difference of opinion between noble Lords who are in favour of this Amendment, which raises the point which Lord Hastings had previously brought forward. As I understand the proposal it is that no compensation for disturbance shall be paid in respect of accommodation lands or grass parks let to persons whose business or calling is not primarily agricultural or pastoral. It may be that the customs in Scotland are not the same as in England as regards the letting of grazing rights to butchers, but I confess I had assumed them in their main features to be similar. In England the common arrangement is to let the grazing, but not the land itself, to a butcher or grazier for a period usually less than twelve months, but seldom, if ever, more than twelve months. I have never in my experience known a case of letting for more than twelve months. In such a case the butcher or grazier is not a tenant of the land at all, and, if he were a
376
tenant, his tenancy would come to an end, with no notice to quit, at the expiration of the period for which the grazing rights of the land were let to him. Of course, no case under this Amendments would arise in that contingency.
But on the other hand, a butcher or grazier might take land in the ordinary way—and I should think that would arise also in Scotland—on a yearly tenancy for the purpose of his business, very likely for the purpose of finishing his cattle, or keeping them pending their slaughter or disposal, more than for the purpose of farming the grass land. But if he does that surely his loss by eviction from the farm would be as great as that of any other tenant. It must be so in the cases I put to the noble Duke. And I cannot see why in such a case he should not receive compensation for disturbance when his tenancy is determined by his landlord.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: He has got "flying" stock. It is quite a different thing. He has got no residence in the land. There are two or three butchers, and it is put up to the highest bidder, and one of them takes it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He is either a tenant of the land or he is not a tenant of the land. Supposing he has taken the grass land in the ordinary way on a yearly tenancy for the purpose of his business. Surely his loss might be very serious, even in the case supposed by the noble Duke, and I cannot understand why in that case he should not receive compensation for disturbance when his tenancy is determined by the landlord.
I am informed that, as far as England is concerned, there is no necessity at all for this Amendment, and this particular Amendment could in no case be accepted. The words "the like" are not words of art and could not be reasonably construed in the Courts. If the noble Duke is of opinion that there is a special case as regards Scotland and will bring up some more appropriate words on Report, the Government is not the least averse from considering it. They are clearly of opinion that no special case exists as regards England.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The words used are taken from the Small Holders Scotland Act 1911.
THE L0RD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Lee is most anxious to acquaint himself with the special case of Scotland, and if noble Lords from Scotland will make him acquainted with that special case before the Report stage, he will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON: moved at the end of subsection (6) to insert the following new subsection—
"() Where notice to quit is given by the landlord in order to resume possession of the holding for a specific purpose, such purpose having been expressly provided for and the notice being given in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in a contract of tenancy entered into prior to the twentieth day of May one thousand nine hundred and twenty."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment excepts certain cases from the Bill. Not the hard cases with which we have lately dealt, but the ordinary business cases which occur where an estate adjoins a developing town. Farms are there let on the understanding that certain numbers are taken off as required for building purposes, and the fact that compensation will have to be paid might to sonic extent retard the development of such towns. I am asking your Lordships to omit those cases in which such arrangements have already been made in the lease.
Amendment moved—
page 15, line 11, after ("seeds") insert the said words.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The same objection applies to this Amendment as applied to Lord Selborne's. It is an exception to the general rule and the Government do not feel it possible to make these exceptions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert the following new paragraph—
(g) If the land has been sublet without the consent of the landlord, provided that such consent has not been unreasonably withheld."
The noble Lord said: This is to provide for the case of sub-letting. The clause is intended to provide compensation for a person who is disturbed in his holding, but there seems no reason to provide compensation for a man who is not there. In
378
some cases one man takes several allotments and then sublets, the original allotment holder making a profit rental. That clearly is a case in which the landlord should not be mulcted.
Amendment moved—
page 15, line 11, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This was the subject-matter of a previous Amendment which stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor—
"page 15, line 11, at end insert (g) if the land has been sublet"
I observed that my noble and learned friend was not in his place, and I suspect that he became aware that it was not really an Amendment which, on consideration, could be supported.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Lord had to retire to bed, I am told.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand, the proposal is that compensation for disturbance shall not be payable if the land has been sub-let. I suppose this refers to the case of sub-letting a whole-farm, because the noble Lord would be involved in very great absurdity if it referred to the sub-letting of a small fraction of a farm.
Therefore, the substance must be concerned with the hypothesis that a whole farm is sub-let. Compared with the noble Lord I am a child in these matters, but I am informed that the sub-letting of a whole farm is extraordinarily rare. My own small experience in dealing with the law teaches me that most contracts of tenancy in eases of this kind expressly prohibit the sub-letting of a holding. It is obvious that when a landlord lets a particular farm an element, which determines his selection is the personal element. The noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong, but I believe it to be almost unknown to sub-let a whole farm.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Quite frankly, I have not in mind the sub-letting of a whole farm.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then we are dealing merely with the sub-letting of parts of a farm. Here, again I feel a great disadvantage When I consider the experience of the noble Lord, but I should have supposed that you nearly always find the

379
sub-letting of comparatively small pieces or of allotments, is for the accommodation of a neighbour. In these circumstances I should have thought it was hardly worth while inserting an exception in this case. Had it been proved that it was common to sub-let a whole farm I agree at once that the argument against compensation would be very strong, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that, where you get the sub-letting of a farm, in nine cases out of ten it is a small concession in favour of the movement towards allotments, or some trifling relaxation of the strict law of the tenancy to accommodate a neighbour. No sufficient case is made out for relaxation in this case. As the noble Lord candidly admits that he is not dealing with the subletting of a whole farm, I do not think he is able to make a sufficient case to exclude compensation here.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I have known of cases on my own property where the sub-letting has been because the tenant has been short of money, and other cases where it is because he has been incapable of managing the farm. I think it is not quite so rare as my noble friend opposite thinks.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am wondering why the noble and learned Lord resists the Amendment. It is of very slight operation, yet so evidently fair on the face of it that one would have thought he would have accepted it. I do not profess to be so familiar with the Bill as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, but I cannot help thinking the noble and learned Lord has forgotten Clause 9 which deals with allotments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I have not forgotten it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ought not to have thought the noble Lord had forgotten anything. I am sure he very seldom does forget. But in the case of allotments a whole allotment might very easily be sub-let, and in that case the Amendment of my noble friend would apply.
LORD BLEDISLOE: At this time of night I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "reduced by." The noble Duke said: I admit that this applies rather more to Scotland than to England. In Scotland the multiple farmer is very unpopular, certainly among farm labourers and shepherds. But beyond that it is maintained that as a rule when a man has several farms, a farm is not looked after so well nor cultivated so well, nor does it employ as much labour. Therefore probably in the interests of agricultural production there should not be these multiple farms. This question was raised in another place, and they came to a decision there that he was not to get the same compensation as the man who simply had one farm. The way in which it is put in the clause is that the landowner would have to show that the man had not suffered this loss. He would not have access to his books or anything of that kind It is impossible for the landlord to prove that, and my Amendment is not to alter the compensation in any way but simply to put the onus of proof on the tenant who has several other farms to show what loss he has, and not on the landowner to show he has not suffered loss, which of course it would be impossible for him to do. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and in reality it is carrying out what was intended very much better than as it is in the Bill at the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("reduced by").—(The Duke of Baccleuch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Duke will follow me, as far as I understand it the clause as amended, if his wishes were assented to, would run as follows—
"In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the loss attributable to the notice to quit notwithstanding the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings, but shall not in any case exceed the amount which would but for this subsection have been payable under subsection (5) of this section."
I think that is the effect of the series of Amendments standing in the name of the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes.
LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose the object is merely to alter the onus of proof in the event of the tenant remaining in occupation of other land. It follows that a landlord who gave notice to quit the holding has to prove that the compensation should be reduced on account of the tenant having other land, which in many cases he would hold from another landlord. I should not have thought that was unreasonable. The landlord prima facie should be liable for the result of his notice to quit, and any reduction of the compensation which is payable by him is surely somewhat in the nature of a windfall.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: To the to tenant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To the landlord. It is a reduction of the compensation paid, and it is due to the fortunate circumstance that the tenant holds other land. The objection to the noble Duke's Amendment is that it really does more than alter the onus of proof. It alters the whole basis of the compensation for disturbance, and limits it to the proved loss that is attributable to the quitting. That is not the effect of subsection (5), which has already received the assent of the House, and is as follows—
"The compensation payable under this section shall be a sum representing such loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding at the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock," and so forth.
That after all is by no means the same as this Amendment would introduce. The Amendment, besides shifting the onus, would really destroy the effect of subsection (5).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not think that is the case. It is already restricted in another place to quitting. I think mine is a reasonable Amendment, and I am very much astonished that the noble and learned lord is not able to accept it. I do not think there is any alteration made except as to the onus of proof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At least I am on firm ground when I say that the result of the Amendment will be to alter the basis of compensation for disturbance, in this respect that it limits it to the proved
382
loss attributable to the quilting. That is not the effect of subsection (5).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely there is something in this. Another place tried to put it right, and what my noble friend is trying to do is to improve the words arrived at in another place. The case is this. If a man loses his only farm he loses his only home. If the multiple farmer has to quit one of his holdings he does not necessarily lose his home. By the Bill the onus is put on the owner of proving that owing to the possession of other farms the tenant does not suffer the loss that he claims to have suffered. Surely it is almost impossible for any owner to prove that, because the other farm may not be his at all. All that my noble friend does is to suggest that the farmer should prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that although he has got another home yet that he has lost more than the owner says he has.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I adhere entirely to my own opinion, and I venture to think still that if Lord Selborne will read to-morrow what I have said, and will consider it in relation to the terms of the Bill, he will assent to the view which I have stated. But Lord Selborne is a friend of the Bill and he has great experience of these matters; and if he entertains a doubt it is sufficient for me to say that the matter shall be most carefully considered before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection 7, to insert "after taking into account the amount of the capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the agricultural land in his occupation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an instruction to the arbitrator to take into account, in assessing compensation in the case of the multiple farmer, whether he has sufficient capital or employs sufficient capital and therefore labour for the large area of land that he is farming in a multiple way. My defence of this proposal is that it is entirely in the interest of increased food production, because one has to confess that there are a considerable number of multiple farmers in this country who are farming much larger areas of land than their capital justifies them in taking, with the result that much of the land is

383
under-populated in the matter of live stock. I think one of the reasons why both our cattle and sheep in this country are to-day so much less in number than the land ought to carry is that so many farmers are trying to carry on farming on large areas of land for which their capital is wholly insufficient. They forget that where as before the war something like £10 an acre was a reasonable amount of capital for a mixed farm, it requires to-day at least £20 an acre and in some cases £30 an acre. In the best interests of food production I should like to see the noble Lord hit these multiple farmers a deal harder than he does hit them in the Bill in the interests of those who are prepared to step into their shoes. put more capital in, and get greatly enhanced production.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 20, at end insert. ("after taking into account the amount of the capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the agricultural land in his occupation").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The subsection to which these words are proposed to be added deals with the very involved case of what is known as the multiple farmer. These words were not introduced into the Bill without great discussion between those who represent—and I think have a right to speak on behalf of—the landowning interest and the tenant farmers. It is very difficult for the arbitrator to arrive at a proper compensation in a case where a tenant is evicted front one farm but remains in occupation of another. I cannot help thinking that if the arbitrator is in terms directed to take into account the amount of capital and labour normally employed by the tenant on the land in his occupation he would find his problem one of almost insurmountable difficulty. There is a great danger in these Bills in giving excessive direction to an arbitrator. Unless it is quite clear he is excluded by the terms of the reference to him from giving consideration to these matters, I assure my noble friend, speaking with great experience of these matters, that there is a great risk, and I hope the noble Lord will think it is not a wise proposal that he makes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("twenty-eight days") and insert ("six weeks").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: We were under the impression, in framing this, that twenty-eight days was sufficient. But I do not think it is a point I should like to oppose if my noble friend prefers six weeks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, at the end of subsection (9), to insert "provided that in any such arbitration either party may appeal on any question of law or fact against the decision of the arbitrator to the judge of the county court."
The noble Lord said: I am certain that the majority of these arbitrators will be men in whom we can place every reliance, but in case either party thinks he is wronged by the arbitrator I think they ought to be allowed to appeal to the Judge of the County Court on any question of law or fact. Under the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, they are allowed to appeal on a point of law, but not on a point of fact, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see fit to accept my Amendment, which safeguards the rights of either party if they think themselves wronged by the arbitrator.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Forester.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Everyone, I think, must sympathise with the object the noble Lord has so clearly explained, but we must distinguish between appeals on points of law and appeals on points of fact. There is already an appeal by way of a statement of a ease for the opinion of the County Court on any question of law, and the noble Lord's object is completely safeguarded in that regard. But we are dealing with a very different matter when we come to appeals on questions of fact. We here enter upon a subject-matter which is very familiar. It is contrary to all procedure, all convenience and all reasonableness that you should allow an appeal on facts from the decision of the arbitrator to the County Court. We have always treated the arbitrator in these matters as exactly in the same position as in the case of workmen's compensation, and to allow an appeal from him on fact would mean re-

385
opening the whole matter and re-hearing it. These arbitrators are very carefully selected and there must be finality on questions of fact. Questions of law are capable of much argument and can be taken from court to court, but questions of fact once settled by the arbitrator cannot be reopened.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEhad on the Paper an Amendment after subsection (9) to insert a new subsection. The noble Earl said: The Government accepted an Amendment to Clause 4 which was moved by Lord Phillimore exactly to the same effect as that which stands on the Paper in my name. But in response to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, Lord Phillimore made certain alterations in the wording. I propose to move my Amendment exactly in the form in which the Government accepted that Amendment. Nobody ever let the land round his house except on the Duplication that he wanted to resume possession of it when he could without having to pay a fine. No tenant has ever taken such land without that understanding, and I move, therefore, that such land "be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, after subsection (9) insert the following new subsection:
("() The expression 'holding' in this section shall not include any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or of any home farm attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house, or any land adjoining the mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity and the compensation for disturbance payable in respect of a notice to quit given in respect of any such land shall be that which would have been payable under section eleven of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Surely the case is not quite on all fours with the previous Amendment of Lord Phillimore's. We were then dealing with the case of a mismanaged estate and the putting in of a receiver, but here we are dealing with a tenant who is a tenant in the ordinary way and who would be deprived of his compensation if he loses his tenancy, if Lord Selborne's Amendment were accepted. He deals with three different kinds of subjects. There is first the park. The usual practice in England, I think, is that, the land in the park is not let—the grazing is let, but not the land—and, therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply in that case, because the tenant of the
386
grazing would not be a tenant of the holding within the meaning of the Act. To that extent that case is, I think, excluded. Then there is the case of the garden or pleasure ground. It is hardly, I imagine, ever the case that a garden or pleasure ground is let to an agricultural tenant.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I know a case.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Oh, yes.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I have certainly never heard of a case myself. Then, with regard to the home farm. The home farm we have found, particularly in connection with the Small Holdings Acts, and indeed from one's own experience, is very frequently let for a period of years, just like any other farm. And therefore the tenant who is in occupation of it, and who is given notice to quit, really suffers exactly the same inconvenience and loss as the tenant of any other holding. This is one of the exceptions which, I know, your Lordships have sought to make in connection with this compensation, but I cannot think that this is one that is really defensible. The injury seems to be precisely the same to the tenant of a home farm as of any other holding, and I do not see consistently with the attitude that the Government has taken up with regard to this question of compensation, that I could possibly accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I hope that Lord Selborne will press this Amendment to a Division. Lord Lee says he did not know that land in a park was actually let to a farmer, but only the grazing. I have known numberless such cases where part of the park, or part of the land which usually forms part of the park, is actually in the yearly agreement, and it would be very difficult for an arbitrator to decide whether that is not part of the farm for which arbitration is sought. I myself have let park land on an annual tenancy, very often to oblige a farmer, knowing that I could resume possession of it on a year's notice.
LORD STRACHIE: I had a similar Amendment on the paper, and I can only support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that it is quite common practice, if a park happens to be large, to let off part of it as an annual tenancy. In the cases of comparatively small landowners, of which there are a large

387
number in the county from which I come, it is a very common thing for the home farm to be part of the park, and very often every inch of land is let right op to the mansion house. There have been cases where a man owing to the heavy taxation has had to let his home farm. There is a precedent for this. Under the Small Holdings Act there is no power to take the home farm or park. It is protected, and if after being obliged to let his home farm a man must pay one year's rent it seems to me rather hard.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It used to be a common sarcasm, though an unjust one, against us in this House that we were only stirred to deep emotion on a question where parks or home farms were concerned. I always thought it most unjust. But I really think we should make a mistake if we voted on this question without a clear idea of what we are voting about. In the case of a park it is rarely the case that there is a tenant of the land itself. The land may be let out to grazing for a few months, or for the year, but not the land itself, and the provisions of the Bill would not apply to ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. The garden or pleasure ground is hardly ever let to an agricultural tenant.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the prevailing poverty it is quite a common thing. I know of three or four cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are thousands of gardens and pleasure grounds and the mere fact that the noble Earl knows of three or four cases does not mean that the practice is becoming at all Common. If you take the whole of the gardens of England the proportion of those let to tenants is extremely small; but if there is a large number of these cases they should be dealt with.
But we ought to be careful about the home farm. It is constantly let, and I know myself of case after case in which persons have been compelled to let the home farm who have never let it before. If the home farm is let upon the ordinary terms can we really on principle distinguish between the claims of such a tenant and an ordinary tenant. I think we should make a great mistake if we adopt that line. If there is a case to be met on the pleasure grounds—I confess I have some doubt—I hope on the question of the home farm we shall not let it be said
388
that we attempted to assert the preferential position of the landlord over the tenant.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am bound to say I cannot think that the noble and learned Lord has proved his ease. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that so far as gardens are concerned the practice of letting them has become very frequent and I should think it is likely to become more so. The number of people who can keep up a large garden is decreasing every year, and the same rule would no doubt apply to what is intended by the term "pleasure grounds." As regards the home farm I can quite understand that the noble and learned Lord is thinking of a case where people have given up the idea of farming at all, have parted, so far ahead as they can see, with what used to be the home farm, have let it as an ordinary farm, and have no idea of its ever being resumed. I can understand that in a case of that kind it might be a hardship if the tenant did not get the same benefit as all other tenants. But there must be a large number of other cases where the farm is let for a short period, perhaps during the temporary absence of the owner of the land and the country house, and in those cases there does not seem to be any real ground for placing a quite temporary tenant in the position of the regular farm tenants on the estate. The only effect of this enactment, if it were placed in the Bill, would be that people would not let home farms, except on eleven months' tenancies, and would probably lay down some part of the arable fields to bad grass and let the grazing on them in order not to incur the penalty which this clause would bring upon them. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lords in charge of the Bill will think again on the matter, and if they are obdurate I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We seem to have a good deal in common, and I do not know if we can reach an accommodation. As I read Lord Selborne's Amendment I think if we were to omit the words "or of any home farm"—to which we certainly should not agree without an adverse decision of the House—and then were to adapt Lord Phillimore's Amendment which the House has already adopted, which would involve the omission of "or near to"—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl thinks we have sufficiently met his wishes in that respect we should be willing to do this. Would that be agreeable?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not want to commit myself against the, home farm, but if I accept the noble Lord's suggestion now I am free to move the home farm separately?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Earl must expect that we shall oppose it, but he is free to move it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that the following new subsection, as altered, be here inserted—
"The expression 'holding' in this section shall not include any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house, or any land adjoining I he mansion house which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience, and the compensation for disturbance payable in respect of a notice to quit given in respect of any such land shall be that which would have been payable under section eleven of the Act of 1908 if this Act had not been passed."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of sub-section (10), to insert the following new sub-section—
"(1l) When determining for the purposes of this section what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding a which is held otherwise than on yearly tenancy, the arbitrator shall, failing agreement between the landlord and tenant, fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed."
The noble Duke said: Under the Bill the arbitrator has no power to give more than one year. In the case of Scotland the rent is fixed for five years, and whereas the tenant would have the option of leaving at the end of any one of the five years, the landlord is bound to carry out the five years. I do not see that there can be any objection to this Amendment, which is giving power to the arbitrator. I think it would lead to a great many advantages, because you would have a fixed term of years where it was desired, and the landowner would be very much more willing to lay out money in buildings. It especially affects Scotland because of these five years, during which the landowner is bound absolutely and the tenant is perfectly free. I think it is not only a fair and reasonable Amendment, but it is one which I feel quite certain would be to the advantage of agriculture generally. My Amendment not only gives power to the arbitrator to fix a longer
390
period than one year, but he can, of course, if he thinks right, fix it for the one year. I am afraid I have not been very successful in what I have suggested this evening, but I hope that my noble friend opposite will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"Page 15. line 39, at end insert the new subsection."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I assure the noble Duke that anything he says is most carefully considered, and I am not at all sure that the noble Duke has not contributed already to the present structure of the Bill. But I think his present proposal is based on an entire misconception. If Clause 11 is retained when we come to that part of the Bill—I imagine that the noble Duke would support Clause 11—the position will hereafter be also in England and Wales that the leases will not automatically expire but will continue until duly determined by notice to quit.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: From year to year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Very likely, from year to year. That being so, a landlord or tenant can require an arbitration as to what is to be the rent as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been determined by notice to quit given at the date of the demand for arbitration. I do not think the noble Duke had that in his mind.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEITH: Oh, yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will effect it very much. Observe that the result of the arbitration will leave the contractual relations between the parties unaltered except that the rent from the date referred to will be raised or reduced. In Scotland the practice is to have certain breaks in the lease. Nobody knows that better than the noble Duke. At such breaks the alteration of rent would take effect. The length of the tenancy under the altered rent, would, of course, continue to be governed by the existing contract of tenancy. This Amendment really is not necessary.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think my noble friend misunderstood me. When a lease comes to an end then it must, unless the landlord and tenant agree, be an annual tenancy. The object of this is to give the arbitrator power—I think it is a very reasonable provision—if he thinks right, to say that instead of it being an annual

391
tenancy at a certain rent it shall be at a rent for the five years for the tenant in the same way as it is fixed for five years for the landlord in Scotland. I think it would be advantageous in the way of getting people to be more willing to provide buildings and other improvements for the holding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am still of the same opinion that the Amendment of the noble Duke adds nothing for the reasons already given. At the same time I am bound to admit I do not think the noble Duke's Amendment does any harm; and if the noble Duke feels that he attains any additional safeguard by the concession, I certainly should not resist it. Every unnecessary clause inserted in a Bill gives considerable employment to the profession to which I used to belong.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 8 as amended shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I have been asked, on behalf of a large body of persons who believe that they will be placed in some difficulty under this Bill, to lay their case before the Government. There are some solicitors of considerable standing in the Midlands who have sent me the following statement of their case—
"Under the provisions of this Bill compensation is payable in respect of a notice given before or after the passing of this Act; and in many cases trustees have sold properties before the Bill was heard of and given notice to quit, some of which notices will not expire until after the Bill is passed. In many cases the trustees having no idea that, any such Bill would ever be introduced have disposed of the proceeds of sale among the beneficiaries, and will now be called upon to pay the compensation provided by the Bill and in many cases will be unable to obtain repayment from the persons who are entitled to the purchase money. The Bill being made retrospective in this particular way will work injustice among vendors and a request is made that the Bill should be amended either by striking out the retrospective clause or making it applicable only to cases where sales take place after the Bill was introduced."
I know nothing of the case myself, but I have been asked to lay this before the noble Lord.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I hope the noble Marquess will give me an opportunity of considering the very complicated case of which he complains. If the noble Lord will be kind enough to trust me with the original letter or a copy of it I shall be pleased to look into the matter and give him an answer.
On Question, Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he proposes to continue the debate further to-night. It is by no means only a question of the convenience of your Lords-hips, but one has to think of the officials of the House upon whom a late sitting presses perhaps more hardly than upon us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are most anxious, of course, to be considerate of those in attendance upon our convenience here, and equally anxious to attend to the convenience of your Lordships. We had hoped to get Clause 9 to-night, and we obviously shall be confronted with a considerable night's work to-morrow if we now go no further. At the same time your Lordships have been working since four o'clock, and if it is the sense of the House on the whole that we have made sufficient progress we shall not resist the adjournment of the debate.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report prepared by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on the work of the Council of the League and recently presented to and published by the Assembly of the League at Geneva, may be printed and published as a Parliamentary White Paper and presented to both Houses of Parliament, and to ask whether he is aware that at a recent well attended meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the League of Nations Union a resolution was unanimously passed regretting that the above Report had not been laid.
LORD STANMORE: In reply to the noble Lord I have to state that His Majesty's Government has agreed to lay this Report as a Parliamentary Paper, and it will be shortly laid.

ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS BILL.
Order of the 24th of June last committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve o'clock midnight, until half-past two o'clock to-morrow.