HC Deb 14 May 1851 vol 116 cc946-8

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. SPOONER moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said was for the purpose of facilitating the arrangements between the outgoing and incoming tenant relative to existing crops, and buildings erected at the tenant's own expense. There were very often persons in possession as occupiers and owners of land whose tenancy occupation was liable to be at once determined, either on the death of another, or their own death. The law of landlord and tenant was then laid aside, and the law of emblements came into action. He knew of one case in which a clergyman, after having sowed all his crops, died in November. The incumbent who succeeded him had not the slightest right to receive the rent, or to do anything with the land, until these crops were severed and taken away. The consequence was, that the incumbent, until the following August, received no income whatsoever. But if the incumbent died in September, instead of November, no such consequence would follow. It was, therefore, altogether a lottery upon whom the injury would fall, as it depended upon the particular month in which the death occurred. The object of the Bill generally was to secure to the occupying tenant the full benefit of his own improvements. He did not see how any objection could be made to the principle, although some of the details might not be approved of.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, he objected to the fourth clause of the Bill, which empowers the tenant to remove buildings and fixtures erected by him, unless the landlord shall arrange to take them.

MR. CHRISTOPHER

said, that while he concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, there was no reason why they should not agree to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. PACKE

had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, but hoped care would be taken in Committee to make the consent of the landlord or his agent necessary before a tenant should have the proposed power committed to him.

MR. ROBERT PALMER

would not object to the second reading, but thought that in Committee a distinction should be made between dwelling-houses and houses erected for agricultural purposes.

SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND

said, that the Bill proposed the most extensive alterations in the law. He was quite certain that every landlord and tenant would make better arrangements between themselves than any law of this House could effect. The custom in the particular part of the country where these questions arose, was the best arrangement that could he made. He thought that the measure be- fore the House was likely, if passed into a law, to introduce uncertainty and litigation as to the rights of either party The power proposed to be given to the occupying tenant, in respect to the removal of buildings, was a most dangerous one. He had so much confidence in the honour of landlords, that he thought they would be likely to do greater justice to their tenants than any law they could pass could enforce.

MR. SOTHERON

said, the Bill gave power to landlords and tenants to enter into arrangements that could not be effected without legislation. At the same time, he was sure that if anything could be done to improve it in Committee, his hon. Friend who had taken charge of the measure would do so with the greatest readiness.

MR. HUME

was afraid the Bill would operate in such a way as to break up all leases, and lead to great litigation. In the leases which he had given, it was provided, that if any tenant erected buildings without his sanction, he should not be allowed to remove them, but the Bill would entirely do away with every such lease. On principle, he was disposed to oppose such a measure, and he hoped the attention of the law officers of the Crown would be directed to the question how far its provisions would affect existing leases.

MR. BOOKER

would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, for he thought it proposed an equitable and fair arrangement between landlord and tenant. But there were some defects in the details which, if not removed, would give rise to interminable disputes at the end of the tenancy.

SIR GEORGE GREY

thought the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) were deserving of consideration. That hon. Member had pointed out some manifest defects in the Bill. He did not, however, think that there was any reasonable objection to the principle of the measure.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

said, it seemed to him that the Bill was founded upon the most equitable principle. The objection of the hon. Member for Montrose was removed by the clause which provided that the tenant shall remove his own improvements on the land without injuring the other part of the property; that, in fact, he was bound to place the property in the same position in which he found it.

Bill read 2°.