§ Lord Hatherton, in moving the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill, said that it was extremely probable that most of their Lordships were not aware of the difficulty of obtaining the recovery of small tenements, though such Members of that House as were acquainted with the manufacturing districts might be apprised of it. He was himself a trustee of property on which there were more than 3,000 cottages, and in that capacity not a month passed but he had experience of the extreme inconvenience of the present state of the law. He believed, that the poor themselves were the greatest sufferers by this state of things. The object of the bill was, not to give the owner any additional remedy for the recovery of rent, but more certainty in recovering the possession of the premises. The mode proposed of operating a change in the law, was by enabling the owners of tenements, after due notice to the party, holding over, to apply for a magistrate's warrant to take possession, notice of not less than seven days having been given to the tenant holding over; and if the magistrates in petty sessions should be satisfied as to the ownership of the property by the applicant, they might issue their warrant at once to take possession, but at least twenty-one days' notice was to be given to the opposite 772 party. Then, the bill provided, that if the party obtaining this warrant had not the right of possession, such warrant was to be a trespass, and the party holding over having given his own bond and that of two sureties to prosecute the action, if he obtained a verdict, was to be entitled to at least double costs. He thought, therefore, that under this bill the rich man would not be likely to avail himself of any unfair advantage. If, however, the defendant obtained a verdict, he would recover his costs from the party holding over, or from the sureties joined with him. He trusted this bill would not meet with any opposition. He believed, that under the present law persons were frequently obliged to spend more than the value of the property in an attempt to recover it from a tenant. The bill had been three years in the House of Commons, and had never been opposed by a larger minority than seven, and so far was that House from thinking the measure unpopular, that they raised the value of the tenements to which the bill applied from 10l. to 20l. He therefore moved, that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Broughamremarked, that there might be a termor and a title, and if so, this plan amounted to trying an ejectment in a summary manner.
§ Lord Hathertonsaid, that the question of title would be tried at the Assizes. When the party holding over entered into a bond to prosecute the action, he would retain possession of the property till the question was decided at the Assizes.
§ Bill read a second time.