HC Deb 03 July 1908 vol 191 cc1101-6

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

MR. RAWLINSON moved to omit Clause 1. He thought the House ought to know something of the reasons for it before passing a Bill of this kind. At the present time a landlord had power if a tenant was in arrear to seize any property on the premises and sell it under distress. It was sometimes felt that injustice was done where another person had goods in the house of the person in arrear with his rent, because if the landlord came down and seized those goods the person to whom they belonged must either pay the rent or allow his goods to go. There was an exception to that rule in the case of a lodger who had paid his rent up to date, and if the Bill only extended that exception in the direction of its being applied to bona fide under-tenants he would not oppose it. The Bill, however, went further. It exempted the property of other people. In the case of a father and son, the latter was neither a lodger nor an under-tenant, but he was living in the house. If his furniture was to be exempt from distress it might have two effects. Such a law would open the door to fraud, because the father would be able to say the furniture belonged to his son either by purchase or by gift. That was the first objection. The second was that in every case there would be a great temptation to say it was harsh to the stranger whose goods were on the premises. That was a misleading argument because the persons really injured by making the law of distress too easy as in the case of this Bill was not the landlord but the tenant. In the case of owners of large areas of house property the only effect of exempting certain of the property in those houses from the law of distress would be to make the landlord harsh in his terms in order to cover the risk. In the case of the owners of small property, and there were many such in this country, who probably would not be found to act harshly, but who might be induced to levy distress earlier than they otherwise would—in that case great injustice would be done to them by taking away the power they now had, which on the whole had worked well, of distraining on all or any of the goods on the premises and leaving the owner of them, who was armed against the man who had distrained upon the goods, to take his remedy. He submitted that this alteration of the law, though well meant, was undesirable from the point of view of the tenants and that the law had better be left as it now was. He begged to move.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

seconded the Amendment, and observed that the words of the section did not appear to him to be quite clear; they were capable of creating considerable hardship on tenants in houses in populous places.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."— (Mr. Rawlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'lodger,' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."

MR. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)

thought the House was indebted to the hon. Members for raising this question, and it was right that they should have an opportunity of hearing the matter discussed, although it was thoroughly discussed in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had correctly laid down that the position of a landlord as a creditor was more favourable than that of a creditor in another trade, because he could take the goods of anybody else which he found on his premises, besides those of his debtor. That had given rise to great hardship, and gradually, wherever such a case had arisen it had been whittled away either by decisions or by statute, but those decisions had been given upon no general principle. The special case of hardship which led to the introduction of this Bill was that of a gentleman, named Robinson, who was the ground landlord of Willis's Rooms, which he let to a company for a very high rent of £1,200 or £1,300 a year, and that company sub-let a part of the premises as a club to a Mr. Challoner. One of the objects of the club was to encourage the sale of works of art by inviting artists to send their pictures there in order that they might have periodical exhibitions, and then perhaps unknown artists would have an opportunity of being brought out. The ground landlord allowed the rent of his immediate tenants to fall into arrear, and of course Mr. Challoner had no opportunity of knowing that. He invited an exhibition of pictures at his club, and a number of artists sent in their pictures to the club. When the exhibition was at an end and the owners were going to take their pictures away, down came Mr. Robinson and said: "I will take every one of these pictures for that rent which, by my own negligence, I have allowed to fall into arrear," and he did so. That was a great hardship. It was immediately followed by a similar case at the Earl's Court Exhibition. An exhibition was held there of Paris dresses, and a number of people sent models over and paid every penny of the rent due in respect of their stalls, and when they were going to take them away at the end of the exhibition down came the ground landlord and said he would sell them all for the rent which he had allowed his immediate tenant to fall in arrear with. There was also an extraordinary case mentioned by the Attorney-General during the discussion of the Bill in Committee, of a friend of his who was driving in his motor car in the country. It broke down, and a kindly individual said: "Put it in my coach-house until you have had it mended." He did that, but when he came back for it, he found that the landlord had taken the motor car in distress for the rent. Everybody was agreed that some alteration ought to be made to prevent that sort of thing, and the way in which he proposed to make an alteration was to take the principle of the Lodger's Goods Protection Act, which he thought was a very reasonable principle. That principle and the principle of this Bill was that each person's goods should be liable for every penny which he owed in respect of the premises, but should not be liable for what was owed by anybody else. He had drafted the Bill himself, but a private Member was not in so favourable a position for carrying through a Bill as the Government, and, therefore, when one had to carry a Bill through, practically by common consent, it must be something which was really felt to be a great hardship. He quite agreed to some of his friend's observations, and he had tried to be very careful not to open the door to fraud, for care had been taken that the Bill was not to be made an instrument of fraud. One found that, unfortunately, the very happy relationship of marriage, had been made a shocking instrument of fraud as against creditors, and, therefore, he did not allow a tenant whose rent was in arrears to shield himself behind his. wife. The clause had been drawn with a view to preventing in any case the tenant escaping from the payment of his rent by fraud. He offered in Committee and was willing now to accept any Amendment which was necessary to make the clause watertight, and he saw that there were a couple of Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston. He was not sure they were necessary, but he was willing that they should be put in.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RAWLINSON

said he need only formally move tha Amendment on the Paper, in view of what the last speaker had said. The Amendment dealt with the exemption of certain goods from the effect of the Act. Bills of sale and hire purchase agreements were well-known business documents which did not require protection.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 26, after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'bill of sale, hire purchase agreement, or.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HERBERT

said he was quite willing to accept the Amendment. He did not think the words were necessary, but they did no harm.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,.) Glamorganshire, Mid

said he quite agreed with the criticism as to the method of drafting a Bill by reference, and he suggested that after this Bill became law the promoters should incorporate in one Act the Lodgers Goods Protection Act, 1871, and this Act, so that no reference need be in this Act to any other Act.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he gathered that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was prepared to insert the clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton in another place. Was that so?

MR. HERBERT

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.