SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 August 1891)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, this is a Bill which has several very useful provisions for further relieving lessees of houses from the consequences of breaches of covenants, that is to say, relieving them from the forfeiture which they would otherwise incur. The law has provided that relief in a great number of cases, and this Bill is to make the law more complete in that respect. It seems to me a very useful Bill, and therefore I beg to move the Second Reading. I understand the Lord Chancellor has certain Amendments, to which I have no objection, but that otherwise he does not object to the passing of this Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, in Clause 2 I move to omit Subsection 3. In the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, there are certain reliefs given on equitable grounds which are considered to be proper to be granted in several cases; but for good reasons, as it appears to me, the authors of that Act struck out from those cases where relief might be given a condition for forfeiture on bankruptcy of the lessee, or on taking in execution of the lessee's interest. I think they were justified in making those exceptions. This Bill, as originally framed, sought to apply that Act to those two contingencies. I think that is a very undesirable thing to do; and therefore I move to omit this subsection.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I had no notice of this Bill, and I had not seen it before. It is a very wide and strong measure, and affects the rights of landlords all over the country, 1225 affecting them, it seems to me, to some extent injuriously. It is laid down in Clause 3— In all leases containing a covenant, condition, or agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting with the possession, or disposing of the land or property leased without licence or consent, such covenant, condition, or agreement shall be deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that such licence or consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. That means to say that no man may prevent the underletting of his tenement, but he is obliged to go to a Court of Law to know whether it is reasonable or not. This is a very large borrowing from Irish legislation; and as, on what I understand is the penultimate day of the Session, there is no time for considering the Bill, this is a matter which I find it impossible to assent to. I must say that I think the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act itself was a very doubtful bit of legislation. It has been held to be the duty of landlords—I do not complain of that duty—to see that their houses are properly inhabited—that is to say, that they are not used for purposes which are against public policy, public morals, or public law; but the simple way of forcing landlords to fulfil that duty was to enable them to eject tenants for breach of covenant in those matters. Yet the law is to take away that power from the landlord, although public opinion claims from him that he shall effect that result which this power was his sole means of carrying out. It is a very difficult and thorny subject. I do not at all preclude myself from legislating upon it after full consideration, but it seems to me much too grave a subject, and to involve principles much too wide for your Lordships to consent to this measure under these circumstances, rushing it through on what is practically the last day of the Session.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, I must say in my own defence that I am not responsible for the Bill coming up so late. I consulted on the matter with my noble and learned Friend, who is far better acquainted with matters of law than I, and he thought that, on the whole, it was a useful Bill. Under those circumstances, I thought myself justified in placing the Bill before your Lordships, but, of course, the noble Marquess at the 1226 head of the Government has it in his power to stop the. Bill. There can, I think, be no doubt that the Bill deals with matters of great hardship at the present moment. There is no doubt that many cases arise out of breach of covenant which involve great hardship upon under-lessees, and it seems to me that the law should be carried much further than it is at present. There is an extremely useful clause in the Bill protecting the interests of under-lessees. Under-lessees now frequently suffer from a breach of covenant by the immediate lessee from the original lessor, and the Courts have endeavoured to relieve them from those consequences. This Bill would have gone a considerable way to improve the position of under-lessees. I think, as a matter of justice, an under-lessee should not suffer from the laches of the lessee who holds from the original lesson. Of course, if the noble Marquess objects to the Bill at this stage of the proceedings, it is in his power to stop it. I ought to add this: of course I do not contend that in the case of a Bill coming up so late as this does the Government is bound by what took place in the other House, but I understand it was approved of there after full discussion upon these grievances.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am not denying the existence of grievances in connection with this subject; no doubt such exist, and they ought to be remedied. I only say that it requires consideration, I think it was Sir W. Harcourt who stated that we have "ceased to be a deliberative Assembly." I hope at least we shall remain a deliberate Assembly, and that we shall not, at all events, rush into this legislation without considering what we do. Some of these clauses have a disagreeable aspect which I do not wish to introduce into this discussion.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I only wish to explain what my view is upon this Bill. When I saw it, there was pointed out what to my mind was an insurmountable objection, and that I still maintain. I am, of course, not out of sympathy with what my noble Friend has said, but I think I may state what provisions in the Bill might be useful and might be safely passed, notwithstanding Section 3 to 1227 which the noble Marquess has adverted. Practically, I may say this: I found that the operation of Sub-section 3 excepted from the Bill agricultural land, to which the Irish Office added pastoral land; mines or minerals; a house used, or intended to be used, as a public house or beershop; a house let as a dwelling house, with the use of any furniture, library, works of art, or other chattels not being in the nature of fixtures; any property with respect to which the personal qualifications of the tenant are of importance for the preservation of the value or character of the property. I am bound to say that with all those safeguards it did seem to me that, as far as my sight was concerned, I was not able to discern much danger in the passing of the measure. But I have no particular fancy for it, and if the noble Marquess at the head of the Government does not like it I shall not oppose him.