HC Deb 23 August 1883 vol 283 cc1767-9
MR. DODSON

said, he rose to move, in accordance with what he believed was the usual practice, that the Lords Reason and Amendment to the Commons' Amendments be forthwith considered.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords' Reason and Amendment to the Commons' Amendments be considered forthwith,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, Provided, That no compensation shall he claimed under this section for any improvement where the agreement fixing the rent was made on the express or implied condition that such improvement should he executed by the tenant,' '

proposed in lieu of the Proviso in page 2, line 11, read a second time.

MR. DODSON

I have to move that this House disagree with the Lords in their Amendment as amended. The wording of it does not appear to me to be very clear. I confess I do not know what is meant by "agreement fixing the rent" in contradistinction to a contract of tenancy, the other expression used in the clause. If it only refers to the case where the tenant, in consideration of his engaging to make an improvement, has obtained a lower rent, which I presume is the intention, then the case is sufficiently covered by Clause 6; and to insert this particular Proviso in this case would only be misleading, and likely to weaken the general effect of Clause 6. On the other hand, if the Amendment is intended to go beyond such cases as this, and to cover the case in which a tenant is debarred from compensation although he makes an improvement, it is an Amendment which we should not accept; and I move, therefore, to disagree with it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that as it was clear the Government had made up their minds on this point he did not suppose it was worth while arguing it; but the Amendment was designed to carry out the object of the Bill. The intention of the Government was that, if there was a contract entered into with regard to the making of an improvement for anything given by the landlord, such contract should stand. The Amendment would do away with the obscurity which hung over Sub-section A of Clause 6. He did not see how it could do any harm, and he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government should waste the time of the House and bring themselves into conflict with the other House upon so trivial a matter. At the same time, he did not think it worth while pressing the matter further; and he supposed they must assent without further objection.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARREE HERSCHELL)

said, it must not be taken as admitted that these words would do no mischief. Their contention was that if there was an arrangement between the parties concerned by which, for a consideration, in the shape of low rent or otherwise, improvements were to be made, that was already provided for in the Bill, although not in the same terms. On the other hand, if they inserted a Proviso, as in the present case, they would give rise to difficulties, and raise an argument that something more was meant.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he entirely agreed with the Amendment, and was utterly unable to follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The clear meaning of the Amendment was that all contracts should be binding both upon the landlord and upon the tenant. Her Majesty's Government now proposed that practically freedom of contract should be abolished, and that tenants should be at liberty to break agreements into which they had deliberately entered. As the Representative of a great commercial constituency, he (Mr. Whitley) deplored the fact that such a dangerous policy had been embarked upon; and he hoped the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would divide the House upon it.

MR. WARTON,

supporting the Amendment, said, he hoped that when the Solicitor General succeeded to the Bench he would remember the construction he had put on this clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Commons do not insist on their disagreement to the Lords' Amendment, in page 3, line 5, on which The Lords do insist.

Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill:"—Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SHAW LEFEYRE, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.