LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL. (Hansard, 1 May 1850)

§ MR. CHRISTOPHER
objected to the principle of the Bill, which would cause an undue interference between landlord and tenant. It would be much better that they should allow the landlord and tenant to arrange their own matters amongst themselves. That would be much better and much more safe than to adopt the principle which was introduced in the Bill. He had material objections to a clause which was introduced by the hon. Member for Berkshire, which would give the landlord the power of making a claim against the tenant in cases of slovenly management and dilapidation. Altogether this appeared to him to be a one-sided measure, which, under the present circumstances of the country, would prove highly mischievous. It had been said that great agricultural advances had been made in the county of Lincoln, in consequence of the good feeling that existed there between landlord and tenant. He would not venture to continue his opposition to the Bill if it was the opinion of the House generally that it was desirable. He, however, protested against the principle, and would, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln, move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ SIR G. STRICKLAND
seconded the Motion, and protested against such an unjust interference with the rights of property, as would destroy the freedom which every person ought to possess of managing his own private affairs as he thought best. It had been stated that this Bill was a permissive Bill, but it was no such thing; it gave no power which did not exist before. He had another strong objection to the Bill, as it had the tendency to promulgate bad systems of agriculture. It recommended marling, which was found in many places very injurious to land. It was provided in this Bill that if a tenant built, whatever might be the nature of the building—however bad, inappropriate, or unnecessary it may be—the landlord was to pay for the erection, or the tenant was to be allowed to take away the materials of which 1063 it was composed. That he considered to be a most dangerous principle. The proprietors of land in the county of Lincoln strongly objected to this Bill; and to give an instance of what the effect of it might be, he would state to the House that if this Bill were carried, and under its provisions a tenant of his was to attempt to build on his land, he would immediately give him notice to quit. He was sure that other landlords would adopt a similar course of proceeding. He felt that this Bill was not introduced for the purpose of promoting the interests of agriculture; but it was brought in by the hon. Member for Berkshire as an electioneering scheme.

§ VISCOUNT GALWAY
said, he would vote for the Amendment, as he felt the Bill would produce strong ill feeling between landlord and tenant.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
supported the Bill, though, perhaps, some alteration would be found necessary to be made in Committee. This was not a question as to whether marling was good or bad for land, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston would have wished them to suppose, nor did he believe, with the hon. Gentleman, that the landlords of Lincolnshire had any animosity to the principle laid down in it. Prom the opinion which he had of the sincerity of the hon. Member for Berkshire, and of his anxiety to promote the interests of agriculture, he was induced to repudiate the insinuation that that hon. Member had introduced the Bill as an electioneering scheme.

§ MR. PACKE
said, that although he felt that considerable alterations were necessary in the Bill, still, being aware of the many hardships arising to the tenant from change of ownership under the present state of the law, he was inclined to support the second reading. He thought that cases of hardship of this kind being frequent, the question was well worthy the attention of the House.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
begged to apologise for his unavoidable absence at an earlier period of the day. He declared his intention of decidedly opposing this Bill. It was called a Bill for improving the relations between landlord and tenant, but in his opinion it would have quite a contrary effect. Those relations wanted no improvement. He had consulted all the most extensive land agents in his part of the country, and all concurred in thinking that no alteration was necessary. For his own part, he had no dissatisfied tenants. 1064 Acting towards them on the honest principle of "live and let live," he had never heard even a whisper of dissatisfaction. Why, he expected soon to hear of a Bill being brought in to regulate what wages he should give his labourers, when they should dine, and what they should have for dinner. The best principle between landlord and tenant was to let the land from year to year, when both could part the moment they were dissatisfied. Away with Bills of this sort, which, instead of cementing the relations between landlord and tenant, were calculated to throw them into inextricable confusion! He felt sure that this Bill would be thrown out in the other House of Parliament, where the agricultural interest was still deemed worthy of some consideration.

MR. DRUMMOND
would vote for the second reading of the Bill, but he could tell the hon. Mover honestly, that unless it were so altered in Committee, as to be very unlike what it then was, he most give his vote against it on the third reading. In the abstract it might be fair that a man should not lay out money on land, unless he had a lease; but in his neighbourhood a landlord would not give leases, lest being obliged, at a future time, to raise money on his property, he should not be able to do so in consequence of the existence of long leases. The Bill would only be useful in one instance, that of settled estates.

§ MR. S. HERBERT
said, that the hon. Member for West Surrey's exception was decisive as to the merits of the Bill, and for this reason, that the great majority of estates in this country were settled estates. The great argument hitherto used against the Bill, was that it was wrong to interfere between landlord and tenant, and that every man should be permitted to make the best bargain he could. But this was merely a permissive Bill, there was nothing compulsory in its enactments, and its only object was to enable a landlord to make such arrangements as he might think fair between himself and his tenants. Confidence was much talked of, and confidence was a very great thing in the case of a liberal landlord; but landlords were like other classes, of a great variety of character, and where inclined to act unfairly there was little security for the tenant in the present state of the law. He knew a respectable farmer who had declared to him that he could not sleep in his bed for thinking of the state of uncertainty in 1065 which he should leave his property to his children. The hon. Member for Manchester, if present, would soon solve the difficulty by proposing that entails should be abolished; but, those who were anxious to preserve the law of entail should pause and consider whether it was expedient to push it to such an extent as to make it a general and intolerable grievance. This was a great social consideration connected with the Bill, which was well worthy the attention of the House.

§ MR. TRELAWNY
noticed the see-saw support given to the Bill by the hon. Member for West Surrey. For himself, he should be anxious to support any measure calculated to improve the relations between landlord and tenant; but believing that the present Bill would only render them more complicated, he felt bound to support the Amendment.

§ MR. COLES
considered that the Bill was an important and invaluable measure. He should support the second reading, but thought it was susceptible of some alteration in Committee. He gave it his hearty support.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
supported the Bill. He had only one objection, and that was, that the holder of a property might give such agreements to his tenants as might completely absorb the interests of his successor. He thought that the Legislature should guard against such a contingency.

COLONEL THOMPSON
concurred with the hon. Member who spoke last. It was important to see that no opportunity was given to tenants for life to damage the interests of their successors. He was in all ways for taking care of posterity.

§ MR. CHRISTOPHER
said, that the feeling of the House seeming to be entirely in favour of the Bill, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. PUSEY
begged that the House would give him some facility for proceeding with it. It was just as it had come improved from the Committee of last year. He begged that it might be committed on the next evening.

§ MR. CHRISTOPHER
said, that the Bill certainly required further alteration. The farmers considered it would be quite useless to them in its present form. It was a perfect delusion to imagine that it would be sufficient, and he would oppose any attempt to hurry it through the House.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he would oppose the Bill in every stage, and he did not care a pin who was pleased or who was displeased at the course he thought it his duty to pursue.

§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward the second reading of the Irish Landlord and Tenant Bill?

§ SIR G. GREY
said, there was a difficulty in giving a definite answer to the question. There were two or three Bills of great importance waiting to be forwarded to the other House, with which it would be desirable to proceed before bringing on the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill. It was quite impossible, therefore, to fix a day for it at present. As to the Bill before the House, he had no objection to its being set down for Committee upon the Orders of the Day for to-morrow, but it should be with the understanding that it should take its chance.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
asked if he was to understand that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed positively this Session with the Irish Landlord and Tenant Bill? As, if it were not, he should move that the provisions of the Bill before the House should be extended to Ireland.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that his noble Friend, upon a previous occasion, had stated that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Bill this Session.