HC Deb 21 May 1849 vol 105 cc777-9

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

MR. MULLINGS

moved the insertion of the additional clauses of which he had given notice.

MR. PUSEY

thought it would be very inexpedient to make any such addition to the Bill as that proposed by the hon. Member; but, acknowledging the importance of the principle which the hon. Member wished to establish, suggested that he should withdraw his Amendment and bring in a separate Bill on this subject.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

considered that the Bill would be detrimental both to land-land and tenant, and would therefore oppose it in toto to the utmost of his power. Not a single petition had been presented in favour of the Bill from any tenant farmer, whose interest especially it was supposed to advance. In the present day, change was sought for the sake of change; but did any benefit result from those changes? Let them ask the merchant, the tradesman, the farmer, and the landlord; the answer from all would be the same. He solemnly believed that those changes had not, and that they would not, be productive of any good. The Bill might pass that House, but he trusted that it would not pass elsewhere; and he, at all events, should take the sense of that House upon it. He regarded it as a dangerous delusion and a partial measure. They were told it was permissive; but it enabled people to interfere with the interests of others against their will; it affected the interests of the Church; which was in his eyes a great objection. Under its provisions an incumbent might be prejudiced by his predecessor to a serious extent. He did not know what could have induced a member of the agricultural body to introduce a measure which was so objectionable, and was not desired by any class of persons connected with the agricultural interest.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now brought up."

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this Bill, as amended, be further considered upon this day six months," instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MULLINGS

then moved the insertion of the following Clause:— That in case the growing crops of the tenant of any farm shall be seized and sold by any sheriff or other officer, by virtue of any writ of fieri facias, or other writ of execution, such crops shall, so long as the same shall remain upon the farm, be liable to the rent which may accrue and become due to the landlord after any such seizure and sale, and to the remedies by distress and otherwise for recovery of such rent, and that notwithstanding any bargain and sale or assignment which may have been made or executed of such crops by any such sheriff or other officer.

MR. PUSEY

would leave this clause to the judgment of Members more competent than himself to judge of it. He could not see what it had to do with a Bill to regulate the relations between landlord and tenant.

MR. HENLEY

thought, if the clause could be considered as coming within the title of the Bill, his hon. Friend opposite would himself admit that it was not an unjust clause, or one that was not needed. And as the title of the Bill was very wide in its scope, he saw no reason why it should not be fairly considered as coming within its scope.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Clause brought up, read 1o, 2o, and added.

Another Clause added; Amendments made.

Bill to be read 3o on Thursday.

Bill, as amended, to be printed.