LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 28 October 1908)

§ The EARL of HALSBURY
had a series of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1. Clause 1 ran— 1. If any superior landlord shall levy, or authorise to be levied, a distress on any furniture, goods, or chattels of any under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord for arrears of rent due to such superior 240 landlord by his immediate tenant, such under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord may serve suck superior landlord, or the bailiff or other person employed by him to levy such distress, with a declaration in writing made by such under tenant, lodger, or other person, not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, setting forth that such immediate tenant has no right of property or beneficial interest in the furniture, goods, or chattels so distrained or threatened to be distrained upon, and that such furniture, goods, or chattels are the property or in the lawful possession of such under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord; and also, in the case of an under tenant or lodger, setting forth the amount of rent (if any) then due to his immediate landlord, and the times at which future instalments of rent will become due, and the amount thereof, and containing an undertaking to pay the superior landlord any rent so due or to become due to his immediate landlord, until the arrears of rent in respect of which the distress was levied or authorised to be levied have been paid off, and to such declaration shall be annexed a correct inventory, subscribed by the under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, of the furniture, goods, and chattels referred to in the declaration; and if any under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, shall make or subscribe such declaration and inventory knowing the same or either of them to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanour. The noble and learned Earl's first Amendment was to leave out, at the beginning of the clause the words "any under-tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord" and to insert (a) any under-tenant liable to pay by equal instalments not less often than every actual or customary quarter of a year a rent which would return in any whole year the full annual value of the premises or of such part thereof as is comprised in the under-tenancy, or (b) any lodger, or (c) any other person whatsoever not being a tenant of the premises or of any part thereof, and not having any beneficial interest in any lease, under-lease, or tenancy of the premises or of any part thereof." The Bill, he said, owed its origin to the complaint of a particular club and to artistic property not being within the exemptions of the law of distress. Sentimental comments were made upon the hardships of a law that had for two centuries been found adequate for giving security to the owner, and facilities for letting premises. There was not only the question of a 241 supposed tyrannical castle-owning landlord, there was the position of poor people whose only possession was a little house used for letting. The law was intelligible when properly administered, and this was a sentimental attempt to provide for every case. But suppose a tenant, instead of reserving a proper rent to which the landlord would be entitled under the Bill, took a lump stun down and reserved merely a peppercorn rent for the owner, justice would not be satisfied. He proposed by his definition that persons to whom the Bill should apply should be those who had reserved a proper rent.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
, in opposing the Amendment, said the promoters of the Bill desired to protect the goods of an under-tenant from being seized for rent due by the immediate tenant, but with the proviso that the under-tenant should, after the situation was made known to him, pay the rent reserved on the tenancy to the superior landlord. The noble and learned Earl wished this provision to be limited to those cases in which the rent reserved and to be paid by the under-tenant was of the full value of the premises. He submitted that the case imagined by the noble and learned Earl was one of a most extraordinary and almost inconceivable character. Could they conceive the case of a man who took premises as an undertenant paying the immediate tenant a lump sum for his interest, and contracting to pay a peppercorn rent afterwards? The right of the superior landlord to re-entry was not affected by the Bill, and this should be sufficient for the protection of his interest. If, however, that power was not, on full consideration, deemed sufficient, he was prepared to strengthen 242 that right by acceptance of an Amendment of which Lord Avebury had given notice to Clause 4, by which the tenant in possession would have to clear out in twenty-eight days. He suggested that the noble and learned Earl might be content to let the Bill go through Committee now, with the acceptance of Lord Avebury's Amendment, and then if that did not satisfy his anxiety, Lord Halsbury might put down his Amendment again on Report. But if the matter was to be decided that afternoon, he submitted that the power of re-entry was enough to protect the superior landlord from any injustice.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
said he had never heard a more cynical proposal. The landlord was not to get his rent, but would have power to re-enter. No doubt the landlord would be very much obliged, but he would rather get his rent. As to the statement that the case he had supposed would never occur, he thought that people nowadays were not slow to discover the possibility of making arrangements of this sort if the law allowed them to do so. With regard to the remedy of re-entry, was the noble Lord sure that the Courts of law worked quite so harmoniously as he suggested, and that there was no difficulty in getting repossession? In many cases persons had been compelled to agree to very ruinous terms in order to get rid of undesirable tenants. He adhered to his Amendment and declined to postpone it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)
said his view was entirely against the Amendment. The principle on which he had supported this Bill was that they had no right to rob Peter to pay Paul—to take the money of one man in order to pay debts due by another. That, at all events, was a doctrine which had the merit of simplicity, and he was not sure that it did not commend itself to natural justice. According to the noble and learned Earl's Amendment this could take place: A man might let a tenement to another person and that other person might take a premium from an under-tenant and then accept a rent not equal to the real annual value. For instance, the superior landlord might let a house at £50 a year to a person who might sublet it to another at £40. 243 In that case, if the landlord did not get the rent from the person with whom he had made the bargain, he would be entitled, under Lord Halsbury's Amendment, to take the furniture of the sub-tenant.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
said that was the law as it stood, and it was 200 years old.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said it might be the law as it stood, but it was not the law as it should be; for, although it was two centuries old, it was a bad law. It was because this ought not to be the law that the Bill had been brought in. He knew perfectly well that the noble and learned Earl could command a majority in their Lordships' House, and, as the Amendment was to be persisted in, he was afraid the prospects of the Bill did not look as bright as they had done.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
supported the Amendment, and said the protection to the superior landlord in the Bill might

§ *LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
, referring to Lord Halsbury's statement that the Amendment was moved equally in the interest of small people whose only possession was a little house used for letting, said that a deputation from a society of small house-owners in North-East London, the very class on whose behalf the noble and learned Earl had pleaded, waited upon him and stated that they had looked through the Bill and were entirely satisfied with it as it stood.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
said that, as Lord Halsbury's Amendment had been agreed to, it was a matter to be considered whether it was worth while proceeding further with the Bill. In the meantime he moved that the House do resume.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Peterborough, L. Bp.	Glantawe, L. [Teller.]
		Herschell, L.
Crowe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Allendale, L.	Lyveden, L.
	Armitstead, L.	Marchamley, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)	Colebrooke, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Carrington, E.	Courtney of Penwith, L. [Teller.]	Saye and Sele, L.
		Shuttleworth, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain)	Fitzmaurice, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)	Russell, E.	Dunboyne, L.
Northumberland, D.	Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Hindlip, L.
Rutland, D.	Westmeath, E.	Inchiquin, L.
	Wicklow, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Ailcsbury, M.		Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Bath, M.	Churchill, V. [Teller.]
Lansdowne, M.	Falkland, V.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Salisbury, M.	Goschen, V.	Lamington, L.
	Hood, V.	Lawrence, L.
Camperdown, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Leigh, L.
Cawdor, E.		Macnaghten, L.
Cromer, E.		Oranmore and Browne, L.
Dartrey, E.	Alverstone, L.	Sanderson, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Ardilaun, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
	Ashbourne, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Fortescue, E.	Atkinson, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Halsbury, E.	Avebury, L.
Lichfield, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Londesborough, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lytton, E.	Cheylesmore, L.
Onslow, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Waleran, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Clonbrock, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.