HC Deb 14 June 1837 vol 38 cc1459-61

MR. Aglionby moved, that the House go into Committee on the Recovery of Tenements Bill.

Mr. Wakley

considered the Bill to be of a most arbitrary nature, as it empowered any person who chose to call the premises his to turn the occupant of a tenement out of possession four days after the term of his tenancy was declared by him to have expired. The effect of such a state of things would in some boroughs be most disastrous. The Bill cast aside trial by jury, and gave a magistrate the power of deciding on trials of ejectment. He was convinced the Bill must be a bad one, as it was so very palatable to a large majority of that House. He should therefore move, as an amendment, that the House do go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.

Mr. Jervis

seconded the amendment. He wished to know if the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth was acquainted with the state of the new trial paper. If he was, he must know, the most difficult questions arose upon the sufficiency of notices to quit, and yet the hon. and learned Member would give a single magistrate the power of deciding these questions and questions of title, without appeal. This was a bill against the poor man, and in favour of the landlord. As the law at present stood if the landlord's notice to quit was sufficient, he might enter upon the premises, subjecting himself, however, to an action of trespass if he were proved to be in the wrong. The only consequence of this Bill would be, that the landlord would be protected in his misconduct, while the poor man would be oppressed.

Mr. Aglionby

denied, that this bill was intended for the oppression of the poor. He believed there were many Members in that House quite as zealous for the rights of the poor as the hon. and learned Member for Chester. The country was decidedly in favour of the Bill, and had taken a great interest in its success. A public meeting had been held at Salford, and resolutions in support of it were carried unanimously. He really doubted whether the hon. and learned Member for Chester had read the Bill, for there was no foundation for the objections which he had raised with reference to the decision of the magistrate on questions of title. The Bill only allowed the magistrate to act ministerially, and gave him no power to decide on judicial questions.

The House divided on the original motion Ayes 93; Noes 2:—Majority 91

List of the AYES.
Angerstein, J. Elley, Sir J.
Baines, E. Elphinstone, H.
Balfour, T. Fector, J. M.
Baring, F.T. Ferguson, Sir R.
Beauclerk, Major Fleming, J.
Bewes, T. Forbes, W.
Blackstone, W. S. Gaskell, D.
Blake, M. J. Geary, Sir W.
Boldero, H. G. Gordon, R.
Borthwick, P. Grey, Colonel
Bowring, Dr. Hardy, J.
Brotherton, J. Hastie, A.
Buckingham, J. Hector, C. J.
Chalmers, P. Hindley, C.
Chichester, A. Hobhouse, Sir J.
Collier, J. Hodges, T. L.
Crompton, H. C. Ingham, R.
Cripps, J. Johnstone, H.
Dennistoun, J. Johnston, A.
Dillwyn, L. Lefevre, C. S.
Divett, E. Lennard, T. B.
Dowdeswell, W. Lennox, Lord G.
Dundas, J. Lennox, Lord A.
Lowther, J. H. Rushbrook, Col.
Lynch, A. H. Seale, Colonel
Marsland, H. Shaw, Right hon. F.
Marsland, T. Sinclair, Sir G.
Martin, J. Smith, J. A.
Martin, T. Talford, Sergeant
Maule, hon. F. Thompson, Colonel
Morpeth, Viscount Thornely, T.
Musgrave, Sir R. Took, W.
Neeld, J. Trelawny, Sir W.
Neeld, John Tulk, C.
O'Connell, M. J. Vere, Sir C.
O'Connell, M. Verney, Sir H
O'Conor Don Vigors, N.
Perry, Sir L P. Warburton, H.
Pattison, J. Ward, H.
Pechell, Captain Wilson, H.
Penruddocke, J. Winnington, H.
Plumtre, J. P. Worsley, Lord
Pollen, Sir J. W. Wyse, T.
Potter, R. Wallace, R.
Pusey, P. Young, G. F.
Reid, Sir J. R. TELLERS.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Aglionby, H. A.
Rundle, J. Villiers, C. P.
List of the NOES.
TELLERS.
O'Brien, W. S. Jervis, J.
Trevor, hon. A. Wakley, T.

The House went into Committee.

Clauses of the Bill agreed to.

House resumed.