« PreviousContinue »
words altogether. It was not unlikely SIR HENRY JAMES asked how the that the question of the remainderman Amendment would operate in cases where would crop up again in certain clauses a mortgage in fee existed on the proof the Bill, and therefore he considered perty ? it would be better for the Government MR. RODWELL said, he could not to introduce a clause for the protection see that any difficulty would arise in that of the remainderman instead of insert-case. ing it incidentally.
SIR HENRY JAMES feared that MR. GREGORY said, he was about they were legislating too hastily, withto have made some such proposition as out considering the effect of their Amendthat suggested by the noble Marquess. ments. Many landlords would not like It appeared to him they were mix- their tenants to know the real facts of ing up this question of the remainder- the case. man in a manner which was not ne- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, cessary.
he would give the observations of his MR. RODWELL said, he had not hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir heard a better mode of dealing with the Henry James) his best consideration, question than by the adoption of his and he had no doubt that the InterpretaAmendment, to the effect that where the tion Clause could be so amended as to landlord was not, at the time of the con- meet the difficulty which had been sent given to the execution of the im- suggested. provement, absolute owner of the hold- SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT obing for his own benefit.
served, that the objection made was not SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT main- directed to the Interpretation Clause; it tained that the Amendment which the had reference to that under considerahon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire in- tion, and was one of principle. It retended to move on the 34th clause would lated to the absolute ownership. Whereeffect this object.
ever there was a mortgage, the proviMR. PELL said, he was unable to see sions of the Bill would be rendered imhow, when the life-owner occupied aperative by this Amendment. large portion of the estate himself, the Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN said, he remainderman could be protected, except did not see how it was possible to frame'an by such a provision as this clause con- Interpretation Clause to meet the necestained.
sities of case. No amendment could MR. GOLDSMID thought the sug- make the landlord the absolute owner gestion of the noble Marquess would of the estate. meet the difficulty.
MR. GOLDSMID said, there were COLONEL MURE said, the remainder- often as many as 10 or 12 remaindermen, man only came in incidentally. A land- and it would be very difficult to get the lord occupying his own land would not consent of all of them. come under the clause at all.
MR. KNIGHT thought that the tenant Question put, " That the words ' but ought to be satisfied with the personal
security of the landlord. 80' stand part of the Clause.” The Committee divided :--Ayes 193;
Amendment to said proposed AmendNoes 131 : Majority 62.
Amendment agreed to. MR. RODWELL moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after “that" MR. RODWELL then moved in page to insert
3, line 26, after the word “holding, “where the landlord was not, at the time of the insertion of the wordsthe consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for
“ The amount'of tenant's compensation, in rehis own benefit.”
spect of an improvement of the second class,
shall be the sum properly laid out by the tenant MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
on the improvement, with the deduction of a thought it would be an improvement proportionate part thereof for each year while to add the following words at the end the tenancy endures after the year of tenancy of the Amendment : .“ Or where the in which the outlay is made and while the imconsent of the remainderman has not provement continues unexhausted.” been obtained.” He would move that SiR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the said Amendment be so amended. to amend the said proposed Amendment
by inserting after the words "the amount Clause 8 (Tenant's compensation for of the tenant's compensation in respect third class). of an improvement of the second class MR. DISRAELI said, he proposed to the words
move a re-construction of the clause in a " shall be such proportion of the sum properly manner upon which he thought there laid out by the tenant on the improvement as was general agreement upon both sides fairly represents the unexhausted value thereof of the House. The clause provided to a succeeding occupier.”
tenant's compensation of the third class. In reply to Sir THOMAS ACLAND, It seemed to be the general opinion that
MR. HUNT said, the Government the manurial value remaining to the incould not give the exact words, but it coming tenant was the most satisfactory was their intention by the clause to test which could be applied; and he allow great latitude to the landlord and would accordingly move an Amendment, tenant to make agreements, provided making the clause stand thusthe interest of the remainderman was
“ The amount of the tenant's compensation, properly guarded.
in respect of an improvement of the third class, MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be remarked that the principle of the such proportion of the sum properly laid out by Amendment of the hon. Member for the tenant on the improvement as fairly repreKirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was
sents the manurial value thereof to an incoming
tenant." precisely the same as that propounded by the Prime Minister on a subsequent
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN clause. The benefit from an improve- believed the Amendment would very ment did not always result in the first or much simplify the matter and save å even in the second year, and instead of great deal of discussion. He would only drawing a hard-and-fast line, it should make a verbal criticism. It seemed to be left to the valuers to determine the him the word “manurial was hardly value of the improvement to the incom- admissible, inasmuch as although ining tenant.
telligible it was not English. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT re- MR. KNIGHT expressed his regret marked that but little benefit was de- that part of the Bill was handed over to rived from boning or chalking land for the valuers, and contended that there the first two or three years, and that was nothing more difficult to ascertain therefore it would be unfair in assessing than the manurial value. In his opinion the amount of compensation to charge there ought to be some competent authe outgoing tenant for a larger propor- thority, such as the Inclosure Commistion of benefit from such improvements sioners, who should make an analysis of than he had received.
different manurial values and fix some MR. MONK said, that to reckon the authorized manurial value. proportion at the same amount for each VISCOUNT GALWAY said, he would year would not be fair, because some like to do away with values altogether, manures were of little use till the second if possible. year.
MR. R. E. PLUNKETT felt some diffiMR. CLARE READ said, that the culty as to “manurial" value-what effect of such improvements so far from did the adjective mean? It would be increasing as time went on was only too possible to put upon it great varieties of transient. He thought the interest of meaning. Adam Smith said that nations the tenant would be sufficiently protected were directed, governed, and by the Amendment of the hon. and nured,” by three sorts of persons. Of learned Member for Cambridge.
course, if the First Lord of the TreaMR. RODWELL thought his proposal sury, who was so great a literary auhad the merit of being the simpler of the thority, vouched for the word “matwo, and that the good results of the nurial,' and would undertake the measure would be in proportion to the parentage of this unusual adjective, he simplicity of its provisions.
had no more to say; but, if not, he Amendment to said proposed Amend- hoped the phrase "value of manures” ment negatived.
would be accepted by the House.
MR. WHITWELL believed that Amendment agreed to.
these valuations would really be settleClause, as amended, agreed to. ments as between neighbours,
Sir George Campbell
or of the
MR. NEWDEGATE said, he had THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON heard of so many errors made by valuers observed, it was only fair that honour that he thought it desirable not to trust should be given to whom honour was too much to them. He would ask the due. The Committee had, by a large Prime Minister in all good faith whe- majority, rejected the Amendment of ther he meant to attach to the word his hon. Friend the Member for North "manurial” anything beyond“ produc- Devonshire, and a great deal of time tiveness" in an agricultural sense. He had been spent over this matter of comconcluded, however, that there must be pensation for improvements; but he some extra meaning to the word. would leave it to the Committee to say
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON what was the difference in effect between agreed that the Amendment of the hon. his hon. Friend's proposal and what had Member for North Wilts (Sir George been agreed to. Jenkinson) relegated the Bill to a con
Question put, and agreed to. siderable extent to valuers. Practically it would be found most convenient for Clause 9 (Consent of landlord for first the landlord and tenant to make their class). own agreements and lay down a scale COLONEL DYOTT moved, in page 4, with regard to manurial value; but what line 7, after “first,” to insert“ the Committee wanted to know, and did second." His object was that the consent not yet know, was how far landlords and of the landlord should be given to imtenants under those agreements would provements of the second class, as well continue under the provisions of the as of the first. Bill? He admitted, however, that this MR. HUNT hoped his hon. and galAmendment was an improvement. lant Friend would not press the Amend
MR. GOLDNEY believed that the ment. As the improvements of the 16th section, under which the landlord second class stood upon a different and tenant might agree as to the amount, footing from those of the first, it would mode, and time of compensation, with create obstruction and very unnecesout contracting themselves out of the sarily hamper the action of the tenant. Bill, sufficiently answered the remarks If it were carried, a tenant could not of the noble Lord.
lay dawn half-a-dozen loads of clay COLONEL BRISE thanked the Govern- without writing to his landlord. ment for the Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATE said, he did not MR. WELBY, pointed out that the see the value of giving notice to the word "manurial was in common use landlord of improvements, if he were in agricultural discussions as well as in not to have any notice of their applicaexisting agreements.
tion. Some of those were very large, MR. DISRAELI said, that if the word amounting to £10, £12, or £20 per acre, "manurial" had not yet become Eng- and the tenant, after he had received lish, it was likely soon to become so, notice to quit, might enter upon them. after all the remarks that had been made He knew lands upon which bones had about it. To prevent any difficulty, as no effect, and others upon which marlit was unnecessary, he would propose ing was carried to such an extent as to to leave it out of the clause, and to retain positively destroy the production. He simply " the value thereof."
also knew lands upon which the applicaCOLONEL DYOTT said, that manurial tion of chalk was deleterious. As the value was the very essence of the clause, Bill stood, the only check that the landand therefore the word " manurial lord had was a notice to quit, and if a ought not to be struck out.
difference arose directly after Lady Day, MR. HUNT said, that as the Amend that would practically amount to two ment dealt with the subject - matter of years. It would be far simpler to say the third class of improvement, the that the landlord's consent should be words could have no other meaning than requisite, than to place him in the inthat which his right hon. Friend had in vidious position of enforcing his notice view.
to quit. He should support the Amend
ment. Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, On Question, “That the Clause, as the object of the notice was to give the amended, be agreed to ?”
landlord the right to see that the work VOL. CCXXVI. (THIRD SERIES.]
was rightly done, and that the tenant MR. NEWDEGATE opposed the should not put on cinders and charge Amendment. for bones.
MR. HUNT said, that the Amend. MR. ASSHETON considered the land- ment would render it necessary for the lord should have some control over the landlord to keep watch over every farm improvements included in the second to see what the tenant was doing. class, as he had in the case of the im- While he was attending to his Parliaprovements of the first class. In many mentary duties in London, one of his instances he was a better judge than tenants in Northamptonshire might be the tenant of the necessity of such im- executing improvements of which he provements. Besides that, he was the knew nothing. Every landlord would person who would have ultimately to require the eyes of Argus, if this pay for them.
Amendment were agreed to. MR. HUNT pointed out that the land
Amendment negatived. lord could, if he desired, contract that second-class improvements should have
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON his written consent.
moved, in page 4, line 8, to add at the MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN end of the clause the wordssaid, the proposed restriction could sub- " and unless at the expiration of the tenancy ject the tenant to restrictions which the improvement is either in substantial repair, would make farming impracticable,
good working order, or condition of growth.” would be intolerable to the tenant far- MR. HUNT did not see any objection mers, and render the Act unpopular. to the adoption of the Amendment. Anyone possessed of agricultural expe- MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN rience would know that, in practice, it pointed out that these were precisely the would be most vexatious and annoying points which the valuers would have to to require that no tenant could put a consider, and hoped the Government load of chalk on his land without the would re-consider their decision. written consent of his landlord.”
MR. M‘LAGAN also trusted that the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government would not accept the
Amendment, as it would amount, in his MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 4, opinion, to simple confiscation of the line 7, after “class,” to insert or of tenant's property. the second class when it is made after MR. CHAPLIN approved of the prohe has given or received notice to quit.” posed Amendment. A considerable sum of money would, in
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE saw some cases, be spent for which the land- no harm in the introduction of these lord was responsible, and there was no words. thing unreasonable in giving him the MR. JACKSON thought they were power of saying whether that expendi- not inconsistent with the spirit of the ture should be incurred. In cases where Bill. notice to quit had been given, some SIR HENRY JAMES, after an alluprovision should be made enabling the sion to the thin appearance of the landlord to put a stop to improve- benches, remarked, that although they ments from which the tenant could not might not be able to defeat the power possibly benefit.
of the Government, and also the inMR. HUNT said, that the Amendment Auence of the landlords, on whichever would come in better at the end of the side of the House they sat, yet they could 10th clause.
make apparent the effect of this AmendMR. CHAPLIN said, he would post- ment, which was nothing more than conpone it accordingly.
fiscation. The Amendment had refer
ence to permanent improvements under Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Class I, upon which the tenant with the
MR. MELDON moved, in page 4, consent of his landlord might have spent lines 7 and 8, to leave out from un | hundreds of pounds, and yet if the less” to “ landlord " inclusive, and valuer at the expiration of the tenancy insert
should determine that the buildings were
not in substantial repair, the tenant's prohibited in writing by the landlord, or made in contravention of a contract in writing property in them was confiscated. ["No, not to make such improvement.”
no!”] The effect of the Amendment Sir William Harcourt
would be that if the tiles were off a THE ATTORNEY GENERAL thought building it would become the property it would be most unfair to take those of the landlord without any compensa - vouchers out of the hands of the tenant, tion being paid to the tenant.
and expressed a hope that the AmendSIR WALTER BARTTELOT said, ment would be withdrawn. that if the valuers knew anything about Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. their business they would not because a
MR. F. MONCKTON proposed to add few pounds' worth of tiles were off confiscate the tenant's property in the im- the following words at the end of the
clause :provement. He thought, however, that the words of the Amendment were a
“Nor unless, within six months after a comlittle too strong, and suggested the sub- pletion thereof, he has given to the landlord a
written statement of the amount expended in stitution of "tenantable” for “substan- the execution of the said improvement.” tial," and the omission of “condition of
MR. GOLDSMID considered that the growth.” He would propose an Amend words were unfair and unnecessary. The ment to the proposed Amendment to that landlord would have no difficulty in aseffect.
certaining how much money had been , impression that the words proposed by spent, and would make his agreement
. his hon. Friend the Member for Mid
MR. ČLARE READ hoped the hon. Cheshire were unnecessary, and there- Member would not press the Amendfore objectionable, because in the case ment, because the landlord could stipuof improvements for which the written late what kind of agreement he would consent of the landlord was necessary, have. the latter would guard himself by making all the proposed stipulations for him
Amendment negatived. self. The term “substantial repair" was Clause agreed to. rather too strong, and he would suggest Clause 10 (Notice to landlord for to his hon. Friend that he should with second class). draw his Amendment, and leave it to the MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN Government, with the assistance of their moved to substitute "three months" for legal Advisers, to see whether other “21 days," as one of the limits within Fords might not be introduced later which a tenant might give notice that he on which would effect the object he had intended to execute improvements of in view.
the second class.
MR. Amendment to said proposed Amend
GOLDSMID supported the ment and proposed Amendment, by Amendment, as he was in favour of leave, withdrawn.
reasonable time being given for such a
purpose, and 21 days would often be MR. CUST moved, in page 4, line 8, totally inadequate. at the end of the clause, to add
MR. GREENE, in opposing the
Amendment, said, he could not see any “And unless he has within one year of the completion of the improvement deposited with necessity for the existence of the clause the landlord or his agent vouchers of the various itself. items of the outlay which he has incurred.” MR. HUNT said, that the object was
that the landlord might have notice of MR. MARK STEWART thought that what was going to be done, and might the adoption of the words would be pro- not be kept long in suspense. He thought ductive of very little good, as it would six weeks on the one hand, and a fortbe difficult to prove the claims.
night on the other might be substituted ME. D. DAŅIES was against raising for 21 and seven days respectively, as difficulties in the way of effecting per proposed in the clause, and would promanent improvements to be executed with the consent of the landlord. He pose an Amendment accordingly. considered that it would be for the in
Amendment (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugesterest of the landlord to leave as much sen), by leave, withdrawn. liberty as possible to the tenant.
Amendment (Mr. Hunt) agreed to. MR. CAWLEY thought that the in- On Motion of Mr. Hunt, clause furtroduction of the words proposed would ther amended by the addition of the lead to uncertainty.