HC Deb 30 April 1851 vol 116 cc359-61

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE moved the Second Reading of the Farm Buildings Bill, which he considered was based upon the Irish Drainage Act of 1849, and the object of it was to enable the owners of land to raise money to be charged on the land for the erection and improvement of farm buildings. It had been objected to the measure that there could not be sufficient security given for the money advanced by private companies; but the parties should look to that matter themselves. The Bill would be of the greatest importance to Scotland, where more effectual means of erecting farm buildings was greatly called for. He had received a very large number of letters with reference to the measure, and there was not in any of them an objection to the principle of the Bill. He begged in particular to call the attention of the House to one of those letters which he had received from a gentleman who was factor over thirty estates in Scotland. With respect to the details of the measure, some objections had been made. An objection had been made by the right hon. the Lord Advocate of Scotland, about the priority of the charge: that was a very important feature, and all he could say was that if the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, he would consent to an alteration being made in the Committee. He should also be prepared in Committee to insert a clause to prevent parties borrowing money under the Act from availing themselves at the same time of the recent Entail Act.

MR. TRELAWNY

opposed the Bill. It was said that a similar measure had been passed for Ireland, but it did not follow that because a Bill was good for Ireland, it would be also good for England.

MR. MULLINGS

thought the measure was one that might cause very serious consequences. He did not object to the principle of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen should consider that this was a Bill not only to enable parties to erect but to repair the existing buildings. He asked the hon. Gentleman to make some provision, if he could, to guard against the evil consequences that must ensue in all cases where tenants for life and other parties, having a limited interest, neglected to do anything until an advanced period. Suppose a tenant for life for thirty years, having received all the rents and profits, allowed the buildings to go into perfect ruin, and then borrowed a large sum of money which would be charged against the reversioner, what would be the consequence? He did not think that was a provision which should receive the sanction of the House.

MR. HUME

thought this measure would be the means of giving to landed proprietors the power of borrowing money without the usual charges. It appeared to him that it would be an encouragement to persons to allow the buildings on their estates to become dilapidated, and to saddle at a late period of their lives the charge for their repair on their successors.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 25: Majority 41.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.