THIRD READING. (Hansard, 17 August 1883)

LORD DENMAN
objected to its being generally believed that this Bill must pass, without any alteration, by a certain time very close at hand. He thought it might be improved by a free conference between both Houses; and, if no agreement could be come to, he thought there could be no cause for regret if the measure were rejected.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, as a matter of form, he would move that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
thought the Amendment quite consistent with the principle of the Bill.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he had objected to the Amendment on the English Bill, and he must oppose it in the case of the present Bill.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he rose to move an Amendment in Clause 4, which he had suggested on the previous day, to the effect that instead of fixing a definite rate of interest to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for money expended on improvements, it should be left open to the landlord to charge such a rate of interest as he would have to pay for the money borrowed. He was himself perfectly content with the 4 per cent interest allowed by the clause; and he would not press the Amendment if the Government thought the clause was better as it stood.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, the Government thought 3 per cent interest was sufficient; but their Lordships had changed it to 4 per cent. The effect of 951 the words proposed by the noble Duke would be to remove any limit to the rate of interest that might be charged, and to enable a landlord to borrow at any rate of interest and charge it upon his tenant. It was, therefore, impossible for him to accept the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that, after the remarks of the noble Lord, he would not press the Amendment; but he should like the House and the country to observe that this was a case where the Government were proposing that one should lend his capital to another man at a lower rate of interest than that at which he could borrow the money, that other person being quite certain that he would receive a very large profit on the money so lent. He could not conceive how such a proposal should be passed by any House in its senses. It was an invasion of all the principles under which men dealt with their own capital, and it would constitute an alarming precedent, which might be extended to other forms of capital. Suppose the landlord wanted to spend his money in a more profitable investment, he would be compelled to see his tenant deriving, perhaps, from 12 to 30 per cent on the money expended on the improvements, while the landlord was losing largely by his money being locked up at a low rate of interest. He thought the objection was rather overstrained, that by his proposal a landlord would be allowed to charge any interest he chose, because he would have to borrow from the Land Improvement Companies, and the rate rarely exceeded 6½ per cent. Many tenants would willingly pay that to have their land properly drained. He had himself tenants quite willing to pay it, because they benefited largely by the transaction; but, as he had said, he would not press the Amendment.