§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 7 (Determination of Cottage Holdings).
§ MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to this clause, the object of which was to convert the tenancies of persons employed by the owner of a cottage, either as agricultural labourers, or hired servants or artisans, into tenancies which might be determined by a monthly notice.
§ MR. KEOGHsaid, he must support the clause as it stood, because he thought it would be holding out a bonus for the construction of cottages.
§ VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, it appeared to him that the clause was intended to provide for the exclusive benefit of the cottier class.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he also should support the clause as it stood, considering that it was emphatically a clause for the benefit of the cottier tenantry.
§ MR. KENNEDYsaid, he objected to the clause on the ground that it tended to convert the cottier class into a gipsy population.
§ MR. KIRKbelieved, that the object of the clause was to encourage landlords in the neighbourhood of manufactories to build a better class of cottages for those employed in the manufactories.
§ MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was opposed to the clause, inasmuch as it would subject the poor cottier tenantry to monthly notices.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he considered this clause to be unnecessary. The common law was, in his opinion, quite sufficient to provide a remedy for any grievance that could occur; and he should move that the clause be expunged.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 13: Majority 38.
§ Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 8.
§ Clause 9.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, that he entertained the same objection to this clause as to Clause 7—that it was quite unnecesary; and he should therefore move that it be expunged.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he considered that legislation on the subject was necessary, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had adopted, in the clause under consideration, the wisest form of legislation. He should certainly vote that the clause should not be expunged; and he hoped that the Committee would pass it as it at present stood.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHEEthought, that the clause would prove to be satisfactory in its operation.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Dispute as to con-acre to be summarily determined).
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he must express a wish that there should be a power of appeal from the justice of the peace, in cases of dispute as to the value of conacre.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, that if it were the wish of the Committee that a power of appeal should be given, he would have no objection to frame a clause to that effect.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must protest against introducing a principle in Ireland that was not recognised in any other part of the kingdom—namely, that one justice of the peace should have the power of deciding upon these matters.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he could explain that this power was granted under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851, owing to the difficulty of procuring the attendance of two justices in many parts of Ireland.
§ MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he concurred very much with the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell); but he thought the objection might be removed 1369 by omitting the words "one of the," and thus leave the decision to the magistrates assembled in petty sessions.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the presence of a second magistrate could not always be obtained in many parts of Ireland, and, consequently, if the suggestion just made were adopted, parties would often be left without redress.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the conduct of the magistrates of Ireland was so closely scrutinised in matters of this kind, that there was no great likelihood of their acting with impropriety, particularly as it was understood that there would be a power of appeal granted.
§ MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he wished to move that the words of the clause should be "before two or more justices of the peace," instead of "before one;" with a view of rendering the decision as to the value of con-acre more satisfactory to all parties.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 7, to leave out the words "any one or more than one Justice," in order to insert the words "two or more Justices."
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he could not consent to this proposition.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLwould suggest in reply to an observation of the deficient number of magistrates, that others should be placed in the commission.
§ MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he was able, from personal observation, to confirm the statement as to the difficulty of finding two magistrates to act in some parts of Ireland. In the part of the country with which he was connected, the county of Kerry, there was a district twenty-five miles long in which there was only one magistrate. It might be said, "Appoint others;" but where were they to come from? It was necessary to appoint a poor-law guardian in this district not long since, and not a man could be found fit for the office, because nobody there could speak English. At length an auctioneer, who lived in a town twenty miles off, and could speak English enough to make himself understood, was seized as he was travelling in his gig through the country, and made poor-law guardian. Upon another occasion a postmaster was wanted, and after much consideration it was determined to appoint to the office a man who was what was called in Ireland "sense bearer" to the district—a person whose business it was to carry information from one person to another. The man was duly installed 1370 in his office, when an insuperable objection to the appointment appeared in the fact of his being unable to read or write.
§ MR. V. SCULLYsaid, it certainly was his intention to divide the Committee on this Amendment, on the ground that no such power should be entrusted to a single magistrate. He had no idea that the whole of Ireland should be legislated for in deference to the particular circumstances of a wild, outlandish place, such as that described by the hon. Member for Kerry.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 32: Majority 23.
§ MR. R. FOXsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment which he thought was necessary in order to render the clause more clear and satisfactory.
§ Amendment proposed in line 18, after the words "not being," to insert the words "landlord or agent of the estate or."
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 61: Majority 34.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 11 to 19 inclusive.
§ Clause 20 (Letting by con-acre evidence of sub-letting).
§ MR. DUFFYsaid, he objected to the clause because it provided that con-acre should be treated as sub-letting. Con-acre, it was very well known, was only let for a few months in the year; and, therefore, could not be properly considered in the character of sub letting. If this clause were passed, no man would be entitled to let con-acre but the landlord. He should, therefore, move that the words "by way of con-acre or otherwise," be omitted from the clause.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, that the object of the clause was to discourage as much as possible the con-acre system in Ireland, which, it was generally admitted, had produced mischievous consequences. He, however, would have no objection to reconsider the clause with a view of meeting the objections that were urged against it.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 21 to 23.
§ Clause 24 (Subdivision by Will).
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, by this clause if an occupier happened to die intestate, after taking a lease, the property was given in his land not to his children, but 1371 to some individual among his next of kin whom the land lord might nominate. He considered that a great and unparalleled innovation tin the existing law of the land, and he! should move an Amendment with the View of taking away that power of appointment from the landlord.
§ Amendment proposed, in p. 8, 1. 10, to leave out the words "be void" to the end Of the clause.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, the object of the clause was to get at the proper assignee on the death of a lessee, so as to prevent any unnecessary subdivision' of the land. He was, however, willing to reconsider it.
§ MR. KEOGHsaid, lid was favourable to the Amendment, for he was opposed to the principle sought to be established in the part of the clause to Which exception had been taken.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHEEcontended that the Statute of Distributions would settle this matter in Ireland, as it did in any similar case in England, without the intervention of such a clause as this at all.
§ MR. MACARTNEYwould suggest that the power of appointment given in the clause should only be conferred on the landlord in the event of a lessee dying without issue.
§ MR. LUCASsaid, he must express a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) would press his Amendment to d division.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must urge upon the Committee the expediency of agreeing to the clause, after the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) that he would reconsider the matter with a view to amend the clause, if necessary at a future stage of the Bill.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, according to the law of Scotland, the lease, in such a case as was Contemplated in the Clause, would descend to the eldest son as the heir-at-law of the lessee, and if there was he son then it would go to his daughters, if there were any, jointly. A landlord in Scotland had no such power of appointment as Was given by this clause; and he (Mr. Dunlop) was strongly opposed to the introduction of such a principle into the relationship between landlord and tenant.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he would either consent to take the eldest son, or defer the Consideration of the clause.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should certainly divide the Committee, because he considered the clause was unnecessary and 1372 unparalleled, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) consented to withdraw it, with a view to its reconsideration.
§ Question put, "That the Words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayds 63; Noes 48: Majority 15.
§ On the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should divide the Committee on that clause generally. Unless he received a pledge that it would he reconsidered before the third reading, so as to meet the objections which had been urged against its hardships.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he Would urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) the propriety of re-Considering the clause, as a great many Members, he believed, had voted for the clause with that understanding.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he was most anxious to make the Bill as perfect as possible. He had certainly offered to reconsider the clause, upon the understanding that there would be he division upon it. Although then, he thought that those who supported the Amendment had no right to ask him to reconsider the clause, he Would, nevertheless, consent to do so.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 25 to 31 agreed to.
§ Clause 32.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to propose the emission from the clause of the following Words: "Under any lease or grant made after the 1st day of January, 1S54;"his object being to make the Clause retrospective as well as) prospective.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he could not con-sent to the Amendment. The clause as it stood settled the question as to mines and wastes from a given day. It would, how-ever, raise many difficulties to make the clause retrospective.
§ MR. MACARTNEYthought that if the Amendment Were agreed to, it would have the effect of Unsettling all the property in the country.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, what the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) appeared to desire Would have the effect of confiscation.
§ MR. V. SCULLYsaid, anxious as he Was to secure the interest of the tenant, he could hot Consent to hand over to him the landlord's property in mines and royalties. He was cognisant of cases in which 1373 land leased for lives renewable for ever had been sold for thirty or forty years' purchase more than it would have done in consequence of the existence of mines.
§ MR. CONOLLYsaid, he must maintain that the clause amounted to a sentence of confiscation against the property of landlords in mines.
§ MR. E. BALLhoped the clause would be amended as suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow (Sir D. Norreys) and further, that it would reserve all royalties and rights to the landlord in cases where those rights had been exercised.
SIR D. NORREYSsaid, he must deny that the Amendment would, as alleged, amount to a confiscation. It gave the fullest power to tenants over the lands they occupied, except in those cases where reservations had been made.
§ Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to.
§ House resumed; Committee report progress.