SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 May 1880)

§ MR. WARTON,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a Bill for the purpose of removing some of the evils that now affected leasehold property. It often happened that tenants entered into very stringent covenants, frequently of a somewhat vexatious character, which were enforced against them. This Bill was to give relief in some of those cases. The 4th section of the Bill was for the purpose of remedying a slight omission in Mr. Marten's Bill passed in the previous Session. The other part of the Bill dealt with the costs of a conveyance. It frequently happened that in transactions where building societies were concerned, as well as in other cases, the lessees were made to pay a large amount of costs which ought not properly to fall upon them. It was proposed by the Bill to remedy this as well as some other inequalities. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that although no notice of opposition to the Bill had been given, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) could scarcely hope that it could be read a second time at that advanced hour. The Bill was one which proposed to make important changes in the law; and although it was true that it had been once before the House on another occasion, he did not think that it had been sufficiently 740 discussed to justify its being read a second time at that hour of the morning. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the Bill was a very important one in regard to its effect upon vested rights; and it was important that it should be fully discussed. As he did not think that it could have proper discussion at that hour, he should second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he should have no objection to the adjournment of the debate, if the Law Officers of the Crown would give him their assistance by allowing him a day.