LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL. (Hansard, 28 March 1849)

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
rose for the purpose of moving an instruction to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Ireland. It might be urged, perhaps, that those provisions were not suited to all the complicated relations between Irish landlords and tenants, and he might also be told that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had declared it to be the intention of the Government to bring forward a measure on this subject with reference to that country; but he must remind the House of the numerous and abortive attempts which had been made to legislate on this complicated subject. He did not mean to assert that this Bill was to prevent the necessity of future legislation; but he hoped the House would support it as a step in the right direction, for he knew they would be anxious to promote any measure which would contribute, however slightly, to encourage the investment of capital in Ireland. It had not been in his power, of course, to consult all the Irish Members; but he had spoken to a great many, and the result was that he did not apprehend that any attempt would be made to alter the Bill.

§ MR. PUSEY
had felt some reluctance to extend the scope of the Bill; but as so many Irish Members desired its extension to Ireland, he felt that he should not be justified in offering any opposition to a wish so generally expressed, particularly as he saw nothing in the Bill which could render it inapplicable to Ireland.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
regarded this 1447 simply as an enabling Bill, and being of opinion that, as far as it went, it went in the right direction, he would support its extension to Ireland.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
did not wish to interfere with Ireland, and he recommended Irish Members to follow his example with respect to his country. He did not think this Bill necessary for England; and although he did not mean to oppose the Speaker leaving the chair, he would certainly oppose the Bill on the report, and all future stages.

§ SIR W. SOMERVILLE
said, his head was turned at the time when the Motion of the hon. Member was carried, but he had no objection to include Ireland within the scope of the measure.

§ SIR J. YOUNG
rejoiced in the prospect of applying so well-digested a measure to Ireland, in lieu of the plan proposed last year; and wished to know if this Bill was to be regarded as a substitute for a Government measure?

§ SIR W. SOMERVILLE
could give no pledge on the subject.

§ MR. J. O'CONNELL
urged the Government to take advantage of the unanimity of Irish Members with reference to this Bill.

MR. DRUMMOND
protested against converting this into an Irish discussion, when the subject before the Committee was an English Bill.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
, in conceding the application of the Bill to Ireland, did not accept it as a substitute for the more extensive measure promised by the Government.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
feared that the extension of the Bill to Ireland would render it impossible to get through the Committee that day, or even that day week. He strongly recommended the Committee to make the Bill a good and complete measure as regarded England first, and then to extend its provisions, if they should think fit, to Ireland. If they began by extending it to that country, every one would be getting up to propound his favourite nostrum. ["No, no!"] He rejoiced to hear it— 1448 would any one answer for the Irish Members?

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, the anti-imperial speech of the hon. Member for Cockermouth had filled him with grim despair. It certainly was a most unfortunate circumstance that the head of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was turned when the question was put, for the thing was already settled when he rose, and perhaps under the circumstances it might have been better if the head of the right hon. Gentleman had continued to be turned. No proposal to alter the Bill had come from any of the Irish Members, who had shown themselves men of business by taking what they could get, knowing that half a loaf was better than no bread.

§ MR. PUSEY
proposed to limit the meaning of the word "notice," by inserting the words "notice served upon such tenant."

§ SIR G. STRICKLAND
said this clause provided that it might be lawful for a landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement. He would ask if it was not universally understood that every landlord and tenant had at the present moment that very power? So far as his knowledge went, they had that power at the present time. If that were so, he thought the clause would only have the effect of leading to litigation between landlord and tenant.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that as it seemed generally agreed that the words proposed should be inserted, he had no objection to their being so.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
thought that the effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the tenant claiming compensation from his landlord in cases where notice had been given by the tenant.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
asked the hon. Member for Berkshire whether he meant to give unlimited power to the tenant for life, and the tenant in occupation to saddle the remainder man with whatever liabilities his fancy might determine?

§ MR. PUSEY
said, that if the hon. and gallant Member would allow them to proceed with the Bill, he would soon see how the contingencies which he appeared to apprehend would be amply provided against.

§ MR. E. DENISON
stated his opinion to be in favour of the clause as it originally stood, as, by the Amendment proposed, they would most probably deprive the measure 1449 of those advantages which it was evidently intended to confer.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
was in favour of the clause.

§ MR. SOTHERON
was also in favour of the clause as it stood, as it would be very easy for the tenant, if he were so inclined, to act in such a way as to force his landlord to give him notice.

§ SIR R. PEEL
was of opinion that if they introduced the Amendment proposed, they would render the Bill almost altogether inoperative. The proposal was—that in the event of the tenant making permanent improvements in the farm, he should not be entitled to recover the appropriated value of such improvements in case he gave notice to the landlord of the termination of his tenancy. Suppose a tenant at will, having confidence in his landlord, and contemplating a probable tenure of the property, expends a good deal of money and labour in permanent improvements—if, then, they said to such a person, "We invite you to make these improvements, the effects of which would endure for—say twelve years "—if they then said to him, "but in the event, however, of your giving notice in the second year, of the expiration of your tenancy, you may lose the benefit which, under other circumstances, I admit may endure for ten years longer:" surely no man, under the circumstances, would be induced to invest his capital in these improvements. Several contingencies might arise to render it advantageous to the laud-lord as well as the tenant to determine the tenancy—such as unexpected misfortunes, bad health, &c. Now, by the Amendment proposed, they said to the tenant, "If you terminate the tenancy by your own act, the profits to which you would otherwise have a legal claim will go to the landlord." If the landlord objects to enter into the agreement, there would be no obligation on him; but, on the other hand, if they deprived the tenant of that just compensation to which he was entitled, because he happened to have given the notice, they would most likely prevent the Bill from coming into any useful operation.

§ MR. HENLEY
instanced the case of a clergyman entering upon a living on the death of an incumbent between whom and the tenant an agreement had been entered into in respect to certain improvements upon the farm. The tenant turns round upon the new incumbent and tells him that if he does not reduce his rent 30 per cent, he will give up the farm, and require the 1450 compensation allowed him under this Bill for the drainage and other improvements he had effected. The clergyman, under the circumstances, being not very flush in money, would be thus placed in a very great difficulty; and it was to guard against such a contingency he wished the words proposed to be added to the clause.

§ MR. PUSEY
was induced to propose the additional words to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, although they were not quite in accordance with his own views. After, however, what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. HENLEY
wished to ask the hon. Member for Berkshire what meaning he intended to convey by the word "lessor," which occurred in the 1st Clause?

§ MR. PUSEY
proposed to strike out the word "lessor," and to substitute for it the word "owner."

§ SIR R. PEEL
asked, were there not intermediate persons? Could there not be a lessor without being an owner?

§ MR. PUSEY
said, that the word "owner" in this Bill, was defined at great length in Clause 11.

§ MR. SHEIL
suggested that the agreement referred to in the clause should be stated to be in writing.

§ MR. PUSEY
said that he would do so in the report.

SIR J. Y. BULLER
proposed to omit the words "by the purchase of food for cattle or sheep." He thought it most unjust that the tenant should have the power of claiming compensation for the purchase of food for his cattle in the temporary improvement of his farm; for he would suppose the case of a tenant occupying a farm near London, or some one of those fashionable watering places where he could carry his hay and straw and sell them for a good price. Having done so, it was quite natural to suppose that he would purchase oilcake, Indian meal, and articles of that sort, for which he would have the power, by the clause as it stood, of recovering compensation; whereas he had already disposed of all the food that might be fairly raised from the estate.

§ MR. PUSEY
observed, that there were two classes of improvements—temporary improvements and durable improvements. Temporary improvements generally fell on the tenant; durable improvements, drainage and so forth, ordinarily belonged to 1451 the landlord. There was no doubt that the effect of this Bill was, to a certain degree, to throw on the tenant durable improvements, which the landlord was hitherto in the habit of defraying. It would have a bad effect for the landlords to say to the tenants, you shall take your share of what hitherto has been ours, but we refuse to bear any portion of your outlay. The hon. Member read portions of the evidence to show the necessity of allowing compensation for outlay for artificial manures.

§ SIR J. TYRELL
said, that of all the classes of compensation, the most difficult was that which had reference to the improvement of the soil by the use of oil cake and artificial manures. That was the point on which there was a great difficulty in legislating; there was no difficulty in the case of permanent improvements.

§ SIR R. PEEL
said, that it must not be taken for granted, that because certain arrangements had worked well in one county, they would work well in new districts which were not accustomed to them. It might be very true, that in Lincolnshire the arrangement was so satisfactory that even the landlord might hardly be aware of it; but it did not follow that when you introduced it into Devonshire it would work equally well there. Was it to be said, that if he fed his sheep with turnips grown on his own farm, he had no claim for compensation; but if he purchased the turnips he had a claim for compensation? In that case he would sell all his turnips, and would purchase the turnips of his neighbour. He would even go further, and make an agreement with his neighbour, and say, "I will sell my turnips to you, and you shall buy your turnips of me, and then we shall have a claim upon the landlord for temporary improvements."

§ MR. PUSEY
said, that if these words were struck out altogether, it would be the greatest possible discouragement to the farmer. It had been found, by the report of the Committee, that by law no landlord could give this compensation unless he was supported by the custom of the country. As to the word "sheep," he must admit, that, according to some of the evidence, there was not the same risk in feeding sheep as in feeding cattle. The words might be altered to "by the purchase of food other than of any kind grown on the farm." If they wished to encourage high farming, they must give this power.

§ SIR R. PEEL
suggested that the words should be, "by the purchase of such descriptions of food for cattle or sheep as shall be specifically mentioned in this agreement."

§ SIR J. TYRELL
observed, that on the banks of the Thames, in many parts where mangel wurzel was grown, nothing was so common as for the farmer to send his mangel wurzel to town, and then with the proceeds to buy artificial manure. Much of the artificial manure was wholly absurd and useless; it was fabricated to impose on the young farmer, who had not the experience of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth and the hon. Member for Berkshire.

§ SIR W. JOLLIFFE
objected to the words proposed to be struck out by his hon. Friend the Member for South Devonshire, as incapable of general application. In the county with which he was connected, the rights of the tenant were already so extensive as to render the proposed concession a matter of no interest.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
said, that the Bill had already been before a Select Committee; but there seemed to be so much difference of opinion about the subject, he thought that the best way would be send it to another Select Committee. He objected to important public business being-obstructed by a long discussion as to whether sheep or cattle should have linseed cake. He should oppose striking out the word "sheep," because he thought if they were fed upon artificial produce it would increase the value of the land.

MR. DRUMMOND
said, that the Bill was looked upon with great anxiety by the tenant farmers of the country, who at the present moment were catching at straws. And he was of opinion that they were looking to a measure which would turn out to be a gross delusion, and from which the great majority of them would receive no benefit whatever.

§ SIR G. STRICKLAND
objected to the increased power proposed to be given by the Bill to the valuers. The great difficulty at present seemed to be to define what animals were cattle and what were not. He knew that the hon. Member for Berkshire was a great feeder of pigs. Now, pigs were important animals, and he wanted to know why they were not mentioned in the Bill? And he put the question to the House, Are pigs cattle, or are they not? He asked that question for the purpose of 1453 pointing out the difficulty of defining what are cattle and what are not.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
thought the Bill was one of the most dangerous character. So far from conciliating landlord and tenant, it would breed only dissension. So far as his information went, it was approved of by neither landlord nor tenant; and he suggested that the best thing the House could do would be to reject the Bill altogether, and at once.

§ MR. HENLEY
suggested, that as the House was in total ignorance of what they were to divide about, it would be better that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

§ MR. PUSEY
was anxious only that the House should decide upon the principle of the clause, and then he would be happy to adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Tamworth.

SIR J. Y. BULLER
supported the proposition to postpone the decision upon the clause; time would afford the hon. Member for Berks an opportunity of adopting words which would carry out his meaning in a manner satisfactory to all.

§ MR. PUSEY
bowed to the wishes of the House, and in the meantime he would endeavour to construct the clause according to what he believed to be the sense of the House.

The CHAIRMAN
then reported progress.