The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-04-30 00:00:00

LOB DON LEASAS.

Before a Parliamentary Committee appointed to
inquire into the policy of converting leaseholds into
freeholds Mr. Justice Platt was examined on Tues-
day. He gave evidence as to the policy pursued on
the estates of the Duke of; Norfolk, the Duke of
Westminster, and the Duke of Portland when leases
fall in. He considered that the rent and premium
asked were nuite arbitrary, and as leases were now re-
fused on the ground that the property was wanted for
estate improvement purposes, these were to be paid
on the basis cf a yearly tenant arrangement merely.
without the protecion of a lease. The cases which he
laid before the committee in connection with each of
the estates in question were cases of tenants from whom
a large increase was demanded, with the result
that if the terms were not agreed to the tenant
whose lease had expired was turned out of possession.
The effect of this in connection with the sale of
tradesmen's business was that a goodwill was scarcely
a saleable article now, so that men who had spent a
good deal of money in building up a goodwill might
be ruined if he refused the arbitrare terms offered by
the agents of the dukes, while if he accepted them he
was compelled to conduct his business under the
burden of a starvation rent. In Piccadilly, for ex-
ample, a tradesman whose premises had been let on a
21 years' lease in 1867 at £l5O a year and £5OO pre-
mium, found, on applying for a renewal near the
expiry of his term, that the rent was to be raised from
£1 50 to £5OO a year, and a premium of £l4OO was
demanded. There was no outlay by the landlord during
the running of the 1867 lease to justify such an in-
crease, as the landlord had not spent a penny on
these premises. On the Duke of Norfolk's estate, a
tenant in Norfolk-street,who had paid £l5OO five years
ago for the goodwill of a business, including the lease
of the premises, the rent being £l9 a year, was called
upon to pay £260 a year as a yearly tenant. In
the case of other houses belonging to the same person,
in the same street, his rents had been raised from
£270 to £685, and he was turned into a yearly tenant.
In the cases of hardship cut arbitrary dealing which
he cited from the Duke of Westminster's estate, the
tenants had generally been turned out where they had
not accepted the terms.
In answer to Mr. Lawson, the witness said that a
tenant, at the expiry of his lease, was not a free
agent, because of the monopoly of the landlords. He
claimed for the leaseholder the right to be compen-
sated for his improvements just as much as the Irish
tenant. He thought the Legislature was bound to
secare him compensation, and the leaseholders should
combine to protect themselves. Mr. Conybeare : You
think there should be a Plan of Campaign against the
landlords? The witness replied that something would
have to be done in a constitutional manner; they
would be compelled to do it; but the tenants whose
cases he had laid before the committee would not
allow their names to be published; He did not think
the English were such cowards; they were afraid of
losing a single customer. (Laughter.)