, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to empower the Court of Chancery to afford relief, where it thought proper, against forfeiture of leases in cases of non-performance of covenants, and of certain other obligations not being pecuniary obligations. The existing state of the law on the subject occasioned serious hardships to tenants. The ordinary form of a proviso for re-entry in a lease was that in the event of the tenant failing to pay the rent, or to perform the covenants of the lease, the landlord was entitled to re-enter and avoid the lease. The Courts of Equity, from the earliest times, had viewed a proviso for re-entry on account of non-payment of rent rather as in the nature of a security than as a penalty to be specifically enforced, and had, consequently, relieved tenants against any forfeiture attempted to be asserted on the ground of the failure to pay the rent reserved. In the same way they had also been in the habit of relieving against forfeiture for non-payment of damages, or in respect to any pecuniary obligation which the tenant was under. But, unfortunately, when the question arose whether they would adopt the same principle in regard to covenants of repair, and the like, as in the case of pecuniary defaults, the Courts of Equity held that they were powerless to grant such relief. By an Act passed in 1859, however, relief could be granted in the case of failure to insure according to covenant, provided that no damage had ensued, and that the covenant of insurance was also thenceforward carried out. But the Act required that when the relief was granted a memorandum of it should be made on the lease, and also provided that the relief should not be granted twice. Now, this Bill proposed that the Court should be invested with power, in any action or proceeding in which it was asked to give effect to any proviso for re-entry, or other stipulation by way of forfeiture for any breach of any covenant, to inquire into the case, and to refuse to give effect to such proviso or stipulation and to relieve against the forfeiture. Such refusal and relief might be either absolute or on terms as to making good any defect of repair or other defect, paying costs or damages, or preventing a future breach, or as to any other matter, according to what should, appear to the Court to be just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Bill also proposed that there should be no forfeiture for the breach of any covenant that any assignment or under-lease should be prepared by the lessor's solicitor, or any particular solicitor or person. It likewise contained a clause securing the mutual rights of several tenants holding under the same lease. In each of the Sessions of 1876 and 1877 the House had sanctioned the principle of his Bill by passing the Forfeiture Relief Bill, which he had had the honour to introduce, and which received a general acceptance on both sides of the House, but which had failed to pass the other House. That Bill, in 1876, failed in the other House on account of the late period of the Session when it stood for consideration there. Lord Cairns had expressed on that occasion the opinion that it was a good measure, and one that would not be productive of injury to lessors. In 1877 the Bill was sent up to the other House early in the Session, but was not proceeded with then. For himself, he believed the present Bill would prove beneficial to lessors by increasing the value of their property. He would, with the permission of the House, refer to instances of great hardship under the existing law to illustrate the necessity for the remedy which he now suggested. One of them was that of a barrister, whose letter he held in his hand, and who, in 1871, purchased a lease of four houses worth about £5,000. In 1873, his clerk, who received his monies, had instructions to pay the premiums for fire insurance; but, as he unintentionally omitted to do so, the lessor threatened to bring an action of ejectment, although, on receiving an explanatory letter, the lessor did not persevere. Subsequently, however, the clerk made a similar slip, when the lessor brought five actions of ejectment against the lessee and his tenants. Relief was thereupon sought under the existing Statute, but was strenuously opposed under the allegation that what took place in 1873 amounted to a waiver out of Court. When there was a waiver out of Court, it was, by the Act of 1859, equivalent to the grant of relief by the Court, and under the Act there could be only one relief, so that a second relief was put out of the power of the Court. The Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench Division held that the lessor's contention was correct, and the result was that an accidental slip in the non-payment of £1 16s.for fire insurance involved the loss, probably, of £5,000 by the forfeiture of the lease. In another case, the particulars of which were furnished by a highly respectable London solicitor, there were 40 houses held under various under-leases, but all comprised in the same superior lease. About five of these houses were allowed to get out of repair, and were not repaired by the under-lessee of them after notice served upon him to do so. Thereupon the landlord on the superior lease brought ejectment for the whole 40houses, on the ground that they were all forfeited by reason of the neglect to repair the few. There being no defence, judgment of ejectment was obtained, and the unfortunate tenants—themselves perfectly innocent—who had kept their own houses in repair, were compelled to throw themselves upon the mercy of the superior landlords. The landlords exacted a fine equivalent to about 10 years' purchase of the ground rents, besides heavy costs. The third case was that of a mortgage of leaseholds. The particulars of this case were also furnished by the solicitor already referred to. There the mortgagor com- mitted a breach of covenant, for which the landlord brought ejectment. The writ was served upon the mortgagor, who allowed judgment to go by default. The effect was that the mortgagees found themselves completely in the power of the landlord, who, after the payment of heavy expenses, consented to the granting of a new lease. Another instance, mentioned in a letter addressed toThe Times,on January 19th, by Messrs. Hunters, Gwatkin, and Haynes, well-known solicitors, was thus described—

"An action of ejectment is now pending in which one of the London hospitals seeks to destroy a lease of property in the City of London, valued at many thousand pounds, on the ground of a breach by the lessee of the covenant to repair. The action was commenced without any previous notice. The lease is in mortgage, and the mortgagees have offered at once to do whatever repairs the lessors require; hut the hospital have declined this offer, and state that their right to recover possession is perfectly clear, and that they intend to continue the action."

A graphic account of another grievous case was given by Lord Justice James in "Hodgkinsonv.Crowe" in the 10th volume ofThe Law Reports Chancery Appeals.The Lord Justice said—

"A case in which I was counsel, many years ago, produced a strong effect upon my mind—a case where a forfeiture was enforced, in which there was no legal defence, and no equitable relief could be obtained. Extensive copper works were forfeited by reason of a broach of covenant in not keeping up a fence which had become perfectly useless, and the not keeping it up did not do one shilling's worth of damage to anybody. Cases of that kind showed how oppressively such a power may be used."

The only other case with which he would trouble the House was one in which a leasehold house was mortgaged to a building society. This house was kept in excellent repair, and no complaint respecting it was suggested by the landlord. Unfortunately, the lease under which it was held comprised another house; and this being out of repair the landlord brought ejectment for both houses. Judgment was obtained, and the property was given up, the only terms on which a new house was offered being prohibitory. These six examples of the mischief and injustice which might be done under the present state of the law were enough, he submitted, to show the necessity for the interference of the Legislature. They could be multi- plied indefinitely by cases drawn from the experience of those who were concerned, either professionally or otherwise, in transactions relating to leaseholds. It was in order to remedy such cases of hardship that the Bill was now introduced. He, however, disclaimed any intention to interfere unduly with freedom of contract, and contended that his Bill was in conformity with the principle recognized by the Court of Chancery that covenants were to be construed in a reasonable manner, and according to their proper interpretation. An eminent conveyancer had written to him that the landlord generally reserved to himself the power to evict, with the view of using it only in flagrant instances; but it was sometimes exercised oppressively, and the present Bill was likely to give fair relief against that grievance. If those covenants of re-entry were intended when they were entered into to be dealt with in an unreasonable way, they would be in the nature of gambling eon-tracts, which ought not to be enforced. Was it to be said that a property worth, it might be, £100,000, merely because some fence or road of no importance to anybody was not made, or some other trumpery covenant in the lease had been infringed, was on that account to be subject to forfeiture? That would be perfectly monstrous. Belying on the precedent afforded by the Chancery Amendment Act of 1858, he proposed, in this Bill, to vest in the Court a discretion as to enforcing forfeiture, just as under the Act of 1858, in the case of breaches of covenant, the Court had now an absolute discretion to substitute the giving of damages for an injunction. He did not propose to deal with those cases in which the renewal of leases was made dependent on the performance of certain covenants, or in which the lessee had a power to determine the lease contingent upon his performance of the covenants, or with building agreements which provided that unless the ground was covered with buildings before a certain time the landlord should not be bound to grant a lease. Nor did he deal with cases of an option to purchase, where the option was only to arise on the performance of some condition precedent, such as the payment of the purchase money before a certain time. The Bill was, moreover, limited to covenants or engagements in the lease; and it was, consequently, obvious that it did not affect the determination of the lease from bankruptcy, or any other cause, independent of covenants in the lease. He had been anxious, in framing the Bill, to confine it to well-known and notorious cases of hardship; and he proposed to give a discretionary power to grant relief from forfeiture in cases of non-fulfilment of covenants, so that the Court might be able to do justice in the classes of cases to which the Bill related. When the Court was asked to give effect to a provision for re-entry by way of forfeiture for breach of covenants and engagements the Court might inquire into the case, and it might grant relief against forfeiture absolutely, or upon terms which it might think fit to impose. The object of another clause of the Bill was to give tenants under the same lease mutual rights, and the effect of it would be that one tenant might require other tenants under the same lease to perform, as regarded their respective tenements, all the covenants which ought to be performed, so as to prevent forfeiture. He did not propose to interfere with the making of covenants, nor with damages for breach of covenant, or with injunctions against breach of covenant; but he desired to save the leaseholder in certain cases from the absolute forfeiture of the lease. He repudiated the least intention, in bringing forward this measure, to cast any imputation on the great body of landlords generally. The Corporation of the City of London was one of the best landlords, and if all other landlords were like it his Bill would not have been necessary. London, too, was, for the most part, parcelled out among great proprietors, most of whom would never think of enforcing these forfeitures; but even under these great proprietors there were many intermediate and smaller landlords, who might be needy, and who sometimes might not scruple to act oppressively. The rights of any landlord acting fairly would not be in the slightest degree impaired by that Bill; but, on the contrary, the value of leasehold estates would be greatly increased by the security the measure would give against the capricious enforcement of covenants of reentry. The Bill had received the approval of, among many others, Mr. Lawrence, the President of the Incorporated Law Society, and the Master of the Rolls. The former had written of it as follows:—

"The Bill is an excellent measure, and will, if it passes, effect a great improvement in the law."

The Master of the Rolls had said—

"I fully agree with the principle of the Bill, and I have long considered a measure of this Kind to be highly desirable. With regard to the terms on which relief should be granted, I think the Court should have as wide a discretion as possible."

The wide discretionary power thus recommended by the Master of the Rolls formed the basis of the present measure, and he hoped the House would read it a second time.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that his object in doing this was that more time might be given for the consideration of it, as it had come suddenly before the House, and the Corporation of London and other bodies and persons had not had sufficient time to look carefully into its merits or demerits. The Bill would, if passed, affect all existing leases as well as all future leases, and it would interfere with very important and serious interests. Besides, Clause 2 contained very objectionable matter—it was a thin crust between what was proposed and tenant right. It refused a lessor the right of re-entry and obliged him to go to a Court of Law. He thought this involved considerable injustice. If any right of re-entry was interfered with it should be with the landlord's consent, and not by the Court of Chancery absolutely. Clause 3, with some slight improvements, would have his heartiest sympathy. It was only last night that his attention had been called to the Bill. The matter would be brought before the Corporation of the City of London tomorrow, when it would be carefully considered. It was possible that the Bill might be made a very good one; and if the hon. and learned Member would allow it to be referred to a Select Committee he would withdraw his opposition. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

supported the Bill, which introduced no new principle, but merely extended one that had been adopted many years ago by Lord St. Leonards. He denied that the Bill unduly interfered with the freedom of contract, and said that questions of forfeiture, so far as the landlord was concerned, might safely be left to the Courts, which would not be over-indulgent to tenants. The Bill would, he believed, not only do justice to the tenants, but be an actual benefit to the landlords. Delay would be fatal to the measure, the principles of which had already been fully discussed; and he should, therefore, be much surprised if the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the measure consented to the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee.

cordially supported the Bill, which would give satisfaction to thousands of lessees. He was also quite sure that no landlord would object to it.

thought the measure hardly corresponded with the observations which had been made in its favour. It was evident that the Bill was drawn a great deal too widely. They had to remember that it referred to every sort of lease issued in England. No doubt cases of hardship might be quoted, and he did not dispute their existenoe; but there was an old maxim which set forth that "hard cases made bad law." In his opinion, the Bill would interfere unduly with the rights of property. Clause 2, which was the most important part of the Bill, in the most sweeping manner gave power to the Court of Equity to interfere in every case in which the landlord endeavoured to enforce his rights, whereas the Bill known as Lord St. Leonards' measure only interfered in cases of accident or mistake. The power of interference with the contract was at present limited to cases in which the landlord could be put in the same position as if no breach of covenant had been committed. The present measure would extend this power of interference to cases in which such re-instatement would be impossible. He admitted that there might be some cases in which it would be desirable to protect tenants from arbitrary conduct on the part of landlords; but the Bill would permit interference where no such conduct could be complained of. If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee it might come back in a shape more generally acceptable to the House; but at present the scope of the Bill was too wide.

thought there were hardly sufficient grounds for referring so short and simple a Bill to a Select Committee. It had been argued that it would be hard that a man should be compelled to have recourse to a Court of Law in order to enforce his remedy by forfeiture. But, as a matter of fact, the position of the party, as regarded the necessity of having recourse to law after a breach of covenant, was not altered by the present Bill. He thought the jurisdiction of the Court of Equity might very safely be extended in the manner contemplated in the Bill, which he characterized as a just remedial measure and one well fitted to meet cases in which a breach of covenant was taken advantage of for enforcing hard terms on the lessee.

held that the Bill, in its present form, went too far. It should not be forgotten, he thought, that lessees were bound to know the contents of their leases, and that they generally did so. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member opposite, who seemed to think that deeds under hand and seal were to be treated as nullities. There were many reasons why landlords should insert special covenants in their leases. With regard to the covenants against under-lease and assignment, and the submission of mortgages and assignment to the landlord's solicitors, these provisions were neither unreasonable nor unnecessary, in many cases, from complications and special circumstances affecting the land. The Bill assumed that provisions of this nature were of no value, and accordingly did not give effect to them. As regarded the Bill generally, he thought the House should have had a little more Notice. He believed the Bill had not been in print until the previous day. He should, therefore, support the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, that no doubt cases of great hardship existed with respect sometimes to covenants in leases. At the same time, it was a wide proposition to say that it should be permitted to a Court to say, in every case, in what way covenants deliberately entered into should be carried out. The Bill offered no restriction, but simply the Court was to be at liberty at its discretion to break the bond between the parties. He was not surprised to learn that the lawyers, as a body, were in favour of the Bill; but it was because he thought that it would have a mischievous effect in rendering liable to litigation every transfer of real property that he considered the remedial portions ought to be guarded against. He reminded the House that the Lord Chancellor was about to make a proposal on the same subject; and in view of that, and the other circumstances of the case, if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, he should not oppose its Second Reading.

said, he would assent to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not intend to address the House at any length, as it was the fourth time the Bill had been before them, and on two former occasions he explained its provisions at considerable length. Besides, he should find himself in a considerable difficulty if he attempted to say anything new on the question, and he thought discussion was so completely exhausted on the 3rd of April, last year, that it would be trespassing on the patience of the House if he attempted to go into its merits again. But during the past year there had been many new facts cropping up, which strongly bore out his arguments in favour of the provisions of his Bill. He was much gratified to find that the Press of the country, whether Conservative or Liberal, were almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. Her Majesty's Government, he thought, made a mistake in not assenting to it when he moved the Second Reading last year, as they did when he introduced it in the year 1877; and there was little doubt that the Bill would have become law three years ago but for the action of a private Member, who, at the last stage, moved an Amendment against it.The Timesnewspaper, on the 3rd April, last year, said, in reference to his Bill, that although he had failed again to persuade the House to abolish property qualification, he could console himself with the thought that it was rejected by a very small majority. If he wanted any arguments, he might rely upon some of the speeches of hon. Members made on that occasion. One was made by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Butt), who made the remarkable boast that he had lived for about 14 years in the borough he then represented, and during the whole of that time he never resided in a house which gave him a qualification to sit as a member of a local board, and yet he was able to sit in that House and assist in Votes which now amounted to about £87,000,000 a-year. Another hon. Member also said he could point to a village in Northumberland where there were 2,000 inhabitants, and not more than 15 of them were eligible to serve on the local boards. The village was noted for its bad sanitary arrangements, and many of the houses were in the most wretched condition. During the last year some score or two of cases had been submitted to him showing the hardship of the present system, which was nowhere harder than in the Metropolis. The qualification for vestrymen varied in different districts. In Clerken well it was a rating of £25 some years ago; but now it had been raised to £40, because more than one-sixth of the houses of that district were rated at over £40 a-year. It was, therefore, a fluctuating qualification. One of the oldest and most popular members, who had served on the vestry from its foundation, was excluded because of the insufficiency of his property qualification. Another, who had served 10 years, was also disqualified, and a member of the select vestry was obliged to resign, and had to remain out for two years, until he was able to obtain a qualification of £40 a-year. Another case came under his notice the other day. A very respectable man in the Metropolis was asked to stand as a vestryman, but because he was only rated at £39 a-year, or £1 below the legal qualification, he was disqualified; but although he might not stand as a member of the select vestry, he was now standing for a large borough and for a Member of Parliament, with every probability of his being elected, at the next General Election. The present system, in his opinion, was absolutely absurd. At Liverpool, the other day, a man who was returned by many thousands of votes was disqualified, because of some defects in his qualification. He could scarcely believe that Her Majesty's Government were willing that this state of things should continue; and he looked forward with pleasure to an hon. Member of the Government getting up in his place and accepting the Second Reading. If he might point to any particular part of the Kingdom where municipal government was well conducted, and infinitely better conducted than in any other, he would refer the House to Scotland. There was, in his opinion, no part where municipal government was. so pure and above suspicion as in Scotland. The whole system was most admirable, and yet local self-government was there carried out without any qualification whatever. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman said he must apologize to the House for having spoken even to the length lie had, because he thought the case was no longer arguable. It was argued out, when it was said men might enter that House without any qualification, or become members of the school board, and vote away hundreds of thousands of pounds a-year without being electors. Even on Boards of Guardians men could be elected who were merely ratepayers, and property was left to take care of itself. They had a right to give electors a free choice of those who would serve them best; and his Bill would simply remove certain disqualifications which prevented the electors from getting the Best men to serve them upon their local boards. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

said, he had no intention of opposing the Bill; in fact, he wished it every success in its main object; but, at the same time, he thought it right to give Notice that when the Bill should go into Committee he would endeavour to have Guardians excluded from its provisions, for a Guardian was a dispenser of the rates for the purpose of relieving destitution; and it would, consequently, be a great mistake, even if only a small portion of the members on Boards of Guardians came from a semi-pauper class.

said, he had received a letter from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was unavoidably absent in consequence of domestic affliction, desiring him to say that he would not raise any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, but that he wished to reserve the right of criticizing its details in Committee, more especially with respect to the qualification for Poor Law Guardians. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill would remember that, on a former occasion, he (Mr. Salt), on his own responsibility, opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, when it was rejected by a majority of eight. He (Mr. Salt) retained his own opinion and his own private right of action. On this occasion, however, speaking and acting on behalf of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he should offer no opposition to the Second Reading.

congratulated his hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) upon the success of his Bill. At the same time, he was sorry that the Government had not seen that there was no defence to the present law earlier. He trusted there would be some law on the subject this Session.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he hoped it would meet with the same good fortune as the one which had just been read a second time. It was not often that he troubled the House with Bills; but this Session he happened to have two, and they were both small and useful ones. The Bill he had now to lay before the House was a Bill that proposed to amend the Commons Act of 1876, in one particular only, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of the Commons that sat last year. Sheffield nearly lost one of its most beautiful open spaces through a defect in the Commons Act, and the Committee made a recommendation that the limit of the area should be extended. His Bill went to remove the defect in the Act, and proposed that the limit should be extended in the case of large manufacturing towns; and the 1st section of the Bill provided that the Act should apply to any common situate within 10 miles, instead of six, of any town with a population of 25,000, or within 15 miles of any town not having a population of less than 100,000, and that any such common should be considered a suburban common, within the meaning of the Act. London had had the power of bringing all the commons within 20 miles of the Metropolis into the suburban area; and he could not conceive that any provision was ever better conferred upon the Corporation of London, or had been exercised with a greater beneficence than that had by the Corporation of London. By the exercise of that provision the Corporation of London had saved to the people of the Metropolis many commons, and last year they had saved Burnham Beeches, one of the most sylvan scenes in the land. That was saved entirely to this country by the operation of that single clause. That clause had just brought Burnham Beeches within its area by half-a-mile. If it had been half-a-mile further out, Burnham Beeches would have been destroyed. When it was proposed to inclose Maltby Common, which was within 12 miles of Sheffield and six of Rotherham, the Mayor, Master Cutler, and others, several of whom were Conservatives, gave evidence against the enclosure, and nothing could have been stronger than the protest then made against the state of the law which would have deprived the inhabitants of the district of the common, and 31 naturalists' societies of Yorkshire petitioned against it; and the common was only saved by the exercise of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and his playing the part of an Obstructionist for three months. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

said, looking at the state of the House, he should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but reserved to himself the right of opposing it on going into Committee. He asked that it should be remembered that there were other interests besides those of the populations of large towns to be considered. The limits to be conceded must be carefully guarded, and he thought those proposed were far too extensive, especially with regard to towns of 25,000 inhabitants. The matter would be complicated in cases where there were minerals and such like things. He would also remark that, as a Member of the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, he had treated the evidence which had been brought before them entirely according to its worth, regardless of whether it was given by Conservative or Liberal witnesses, and that it was only a small portion of the common more immediately in question, on which scarcely a single person went in the course of the year, that it was sought to enclose.

said, he was not prepared, on the part of the Government, to object to the Second Reading of the Bill, though he reserved to himself the right of opposing it on its subsequent stages, inasmuch as the 3rd clause seemed to him to go beyond that which was the intention of the Committee to recommend.