THE TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.
AS usual, now-a-days, time was wasted in the House of Commons on Thursday, till the Premier was obliged to threaten that the new Bill granting Compensation to Tenants should be brought forward, however late the hour might be. This had its effect; but the hour was so late (1.5 a.m.) that Mr. Dodson was compelled to make an inadequate speech, or rather a speech so condensed that it is possible to misapprehend its meaning. We write, therefore, with all reserve ; but as we, on a first glance, understand the new measure, it is one erring, if at all, on the side of moderation. We have never been able on the subject of tenant-right to keep step with the Farmers' Alliance. We entirely understand the immense social gain which might arise from an extreme measure, authorising a tenant, on payment of compensation to the landlord, to become a copyholder beyond eviction while his dues are paid, for we see that such a law might create a new agricultural middle-class as independent as the old freeholders ; but we do not see either the utility or the justice of leaving the owner his full authority, yet refusing him the right of picking his tenants. Free sale, in fact, seems to us inconsistent with the whole English system, which, if altered, should be altered in a much larger way. But certainly, if we understand the Government Bill, we would go further than it does. It is moderate to timidity. The newest clause, for example, limiting the right of distress for rent to one year's rent, will, we fear, hurt instead of benefiting the farmer. The objec- tions to distress from his point of view are that the landlord's right limits his credit with his banker, who can only recover his loan after the landlord has swept away everything to satisfy his rent, and that it tempts the owner to trust in- solvent applicants who offer high rent and mean to cheat everybody but the landlord. The reduction of the right does not remove, though it lessens, those objections. The landlord will still be first creditor, though only for one year's rent, and will be almost compelled, therefore, to refuse any credit beyond
that period for fear of losing his rent. He will be made harder than before, while the tenant's gain in credit will be inappreciable. The right of distress, which is radically unjust —the landlord hiring out his land just as the banker hires out his money, or the engine-maker his machines—ought to be abolished altogether, not whittled away till it seems unim- portant to the landlord, yet continues grievously to fetter the tenant.
The remainder of the Bill is much more valuable, but the provisions are unexpectedly moderate. The tenant can ask for permanent improvements, and if the landlord consents can make them, and if he makes them will recover at the end of his tenancy their full value, estimated according to their value to the in- coming tenant. That is simple justice, and an immense im- provement on the existing law, under which a tenant might build a barn with his landlord's consent, and then be evicted next year in favour of a speculator who offered more rent., without conipensation for his barn. But we do not under- stand that the right to compensation could not be given up, and in years of competition for farms it would be given up by agreement. Mr. Dodson said, in the plainest way :—" For these and other permanent improvements, in order to obtain compensation under the Act, the consent of the landlord must be obtained. The consent might be given either uncondition- ally or upon such terms as to compensation or otherwise as might be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. In the event of any agreement being made between the land- lord and the tenant, the compensation payable under it would be substituted for the compensation under the Act." The landlord, therefore, could, with the tenant's consent, fix com- pensation at one farthing,—that is, contract himself out of the law altogether. The tenantry hoped, we fancy, for a clause allowing them, if the landlord proved unreasonable, to apply to a court and obtain an order ; but this is not con- ceded, except as to drainage which the tenant, after giving due notice to the landlord and receiving a refusal, can do for himself, and obtain full compensation. That is a substantial advantage, but it is not so much as tenants hoped for ; and we do not quite see why, if it is fair to compel drainage, it is not fair to compel irrigation, and allow for it as an improvement.
Temporary improvements are guaranteed much more thoroughly. The landlord must pay their full value, esti- mated by the amount of their value to the incoming tenant, a very good and satisfactory principle already adopted on all well-managed estates. But even here, though the landlord cannot contract himself out of his obligation, he can appa- rently whittle it away to nothing. Mr. Dodson says : —" The tenant would be entitled to make these improvements and to claim compensation for them without obtaining the consent of or giving notice to the landlord. If there were an agreement under a new contract of tenancy, then the compensation under the agreement would be substituted for the compensation under the Act." The effect of that is surely that present tenants are safe, but that new tenants, if they agree to accept sixpence an acre in compensation for all temporary im- provements, will have no more security than they have now. That system is quite intelligible and quite just, and is the system on which all house property is held ; but we understand the tenants to ask far more. Their contention is that owing to certain circumstances, and espe- cially to the fact that land is limited in quantity, they are not quite free ; that it is exceptionally advantageous to the com- munity that they should be free ; and that, consequently, they should be forbidden by law to submit to over-hard terms. Unless we misunderstand Mr. Dodson, they are not forbidden under this Bill, and will, therefore, not be satisfied. His words, indeed, are unmistakable, and our only doubt is whether, as both parties are forbidden to contract them- selves out of the Act, a visibly inadequate compensation arranged by agreement might not be held to be a colour- able evasion of the law. We fear, however, that is not the case and if not, new tenants gain under the Bill valuable rights in the absence of agreement, but are liable to be asked to agree to terms which, except for drainage works, leave them no more security than before. The compulsory principle is introduced, but is not applied in the thorough way for which, as we conceive, the tenant-farmers of England and Scotland have been agitating. The Bill, of course, may be strengthened in Committee, but if the Tories oppose, so many landlords will join them, that change will be nearly hopeless. The question will, therefore, be left open, and though we are not ourselves sorry for that, thinking that the best com- promise between full proprietorship and tenant-right has not been found, we fear the agricultural tenantry will remain dis- contented. They obtain much security against their landlords, but they asked also for security against themselves.
Previous page
