HC Deb 13 July 1855 vol 139 cc858-69

[Progress, 12th July.] Order for Committee read; House in Committee.

Clause 15 (In any case in which a defendant in any ejectment proceeding on the determination of the tenancy by effluxion of time or otherwise shall establish, by affidavit or other evidence, to the satisfaction of the court in which such proceedings shall be pending, that he has, as against the party proceeding to evict his interest in the lands in his possession, and in respect of such lands a valid claim for compensation duly registered under this Act, and unsatisfied, it shall be lawful for the court to stay the execution of any writ of habere facias possessionem, or decree for possession, for a reasonable time, to enable such defendant to establish his claim, upon such terms nevertheless as to giving security or otherwise, as to the court shall seem proper and just).

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of Clause 15; but in case it should be adopted, he would move to add the proviso of which he had given notice. The clause was in the Bill when it went before the Select Committee, and the noble Lord himself (Lord Palmerston), then a Member of the Committee, moved the rejection of such clause, and the cogent reasons which he gave for such rejection were held to be so good that the clause was struck out by the Committee. Now, he asked the noble Lord, upon the ground of that consistency which he said last night would induce him to support the reintroduction of the 14th clause into the Bill, to support him in his Motion for the rejection of the 15th clause. The clause in effect gave power to the tenant to hold possession of the land after his tenancy had expired, in spite of his landlord, until his claim for compensation was satisfied. Now that, he submitted, was the first step to fixity of tenure in favour of the tenant. If the noble Lord did not consent to the omission of the clause he would move the following proviso— Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for any such defendant, during the time for which the execution of any such writ shall have been so stayed, to commence, execute, or complete any improvements under the provisions of this Act: provided further, that no such writ shall in anywise be stayed or suspended if the plaintiff shall give such reasonable security for the satisfaction of the said claim to compensation as to the Court shall seem proper and just.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not quite correct in his statement with regard to the clause, for it had never been before the Select Committee at all. It was introduced into the Bill by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in consequence of a proviso which that right hon. and learned Gentleman had made, and by means of which proviso he had succeeded in defeating a Motion which he (Mr. Scully) had brought forward for the express purpose of placing the tenant in certain cases in the position of a species of mortgagee.

MR. NAPIER

said, he had heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, something which he did not know before. There certainly was a clause of the same kind as the present introduced by him (Mr. Napier) into the Leasing Powers Bill, which was struck out by the Select Committee at the instance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Napier) concurred in the view taken of it by the noble Lord, and he consented to its omission. There was some such clause in the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which, for the same reasons, was struck out. He would support the Motion for the omission of the clause.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he had not a good recollection of what had passed when the Bill was before the Select Committee. It was possible that he might have taken the course attributed to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But if he did so, he felt that his better judgment urged him to think row that that was a proper arrangement which the clause proposed. He thought it would not be fair or just, if the tenant were to obtain compensation, that he should be turned out of occupation before he obtained such compensation for his improvements. He thought that the tenant should be allowed to remain in occupation until that compensation was given to him. As well as he recollected, the objection he took to the clause referred to before the Select Committee was, that that clause proposed to give extended occupation in lieu of his claim for compensation.

MR. NAPIER

said, that the clause rejected by the Select Committee at the instance of the noble Lord, was in words precisely the same as the present.

MR. KEOGH

said, it was in his power to prove the incorrectness of the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had the identical clause before him which had been originally framed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it exactly bore out the statement of the noble Lord—namely, that the noble Lord's objection to it was that it provided that the tenant was to remain in occupation for what was termed a compensating period of occupation. [Mr. NAPIER: But there were two clauses.] He was talking of the clause in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Tenants' Compensation Bill, as it had been originally introduced by him. The original clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman bore the construction which the noble Lord had put upon it.

MR. NAPIER

said, that his Tenants' Compensation Bill was rejected in the gross. It was afterwards refashioned when it came again before the House. The Leasing Powers Bill, however, was considered by the Select Committee clause by clause; and it contained a similar clause to that now under consideration, which was rejected.

MR. H. HERBERT

said, he would submit that the Committee had better discuss the merits of the proviso before them, rather than to consider what had passed before the Select Committee upon another Bill.

MR. MALINS

said, he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman. This should not be regarded as an historical question, but they should consider it as a question of principle. He could only say, if such a clause had been introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), or any other hon. Gentleman, they had been making themselves parties to a proposed infringement of the rights of property in a most unprecedented way. The present clause proposed an entirely new principle—namely, that if the tenant at the expiration of his lease, notwithstanding his landlord had recovered by ejectment, and had obtained judgment, though not execution, made any claim for compensation, he might still retain possession until his claim was settled. Under the clause there might be further proceedings carried on in the shape of conflicting affidavits between the landlord and tenant. Now if the new principle were to be admitted, what, he asked, became of the certainty of the tenure of land? Who was to know when his lease expired or ended when such a principle was introduced? As to the menace of the noble Lord to reintroduce the 14th clause, he (Mr. Malins) took it that that question was finally settled, and it could not be done. He contended that the clause involved an abominable interference with the rights of property. After what the noble Lord had just stated about his better judgment in respect to the clause now under consideration, he (Mr. Malins) could not help thinking that the noble Lord did not improve in wisdom as he advanced in years, but that he was a much wiser man some two or three years ago when he rejected such a principle as that which was sought to be introduced. He wanted to know what compensation the landlords were to receive for being kept out of possession of their property under the clause? He warned English landlords that if they acceded to the principle involved in the 15th clause they must be prepared to consent to the same principle as regards every tenant in the country.

MR. CAIRNS

said he wished to call attention to the absurdity of assenting to the clause now before the Committee. By the 10th clause the tenant was not allowed to establish his claim until he was put out of possession; but by the 15th clause it appeared that he was not to be put out of possession until he established his claim. There was another inconsistency in the Bill—namely, a landlord proceeds to evict his tenant; the tenant says he has a money claim against him for improvements. The claim is a personal one. Well, the landlord dies; and his son comes into possession of the property. By such a measure they were going to keep the son out of his own estate, in order to give the tenant security for a debt which was not due from the son or heir but from another. Now, that was the most monstrous proposition he had ever heard made in or out of Parliament.

MR. I. BUTT

said, he was afraid that they were discussing a question which did not then properly arise, instead of the proviso proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald). He must avow himself to be in favour of the clause, but he did not think it convenient that it should be then discussed. He was also in favour of the proviso pro- posed by the hon. and learned Member, because he thought it perfectly reasonable that the landlord should get possession of his property, if he gave security for the payment of the tenant's claim against him.

MR. KEOGH

said, he was not aware of any opposition to the proviso. If he were to offer an opinion, he would say he thought it wholly unnecessary. If, however, the proviso tended to make the meaning of the clause clearer, he had no objection to it.

Proviso agreed to.

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 83; Noes 84; Majority 1.

Clause 16 (Tenant, on giving up possession, entitled to remuneration).

MR. I. BUTT

said, the clause proposed to give compensation to the outgoing tenant, but required the tenant to bring his action within two years after the expiration of his tenancy. He therefore begged to propose as an Amendment, that the tenant should bring his action within one year instead of two; and he intended further to propose that the tenant, on giving up possession, should fairly state to the landlord any claim that he might have to make.

MR. MACMAHON

said, the hon. and learned Member must be well aware that under the existing law the tenant had six years to make a claim against the landlord for crops he had left standing. There was no reason, he considered, for limiting that right under the present Bill.

Mr. KEOGH

said, that the Government did not intend to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He understood him to assent to the principle of the clause, and if the right of the tenant was once admitted he did not see any good grounds for limiting the time for making the claim.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, he was surprised that Irish landlords should be found to object to the clause. The intention of the clause was, that the outgoing tenant should not exhaust the land before he quitted it, and the clause was, in fact, as much a landlord's as a tenant's clause.

MR. I. BUTT

said, he did not think the difference between one and two years a matter of such importance as to justify him in dividing the Committee upon it.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he considered the clause one of the most complicated and impracticable pieces of legislation that could be conceived. It would be the means of giving rise to every possible objection that was now urged against tenant-right in this country. It went to adopt the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex, which was generally admitted to be injurious, instead of that of Lincolnshire, which was universally acknowledged to be beneficial alike to the owner and occupier of the land, and was so described in their Report by the Agricultural Committee which sat in the year 1847. If the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex were introduced into Ireland, it would be the curse of that country, by bringing half-dressings and half-fallows into consideration.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, the hon. Baronet was mistaken as to the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex. The English teuant-right was a custom established by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant; and no such custom would have existed had not its benefit been the result of experience. The existence of that custom was a proof of its advantage. Such a custom never had existed in Ireland.

MR. CORRY

said, he would propose to omit in line 27, the words "two years" and substitute "one year," which, he thought, was a sufficient period during which the tenant should be entitled to claim remuneration for the preparation of the land.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he considered that the tenant should only be allowed to make his claim for one year. Under the clause, as it at present stood, for the outgoing tenant would have the power of claiming of the tenant in possession compensation for two years' preparation of the land, which was most unjust, and it was impossible that such a claim could be rightly tested.

MR. MACMAHON

said, he hoped that the Government would not accede to the Amendment. It was very desirable that the system of three or four course husbandry should be introduced more largely into Ireland, and the Bill as it stood would tend to promote that system, while the proposed Amendment would have the contrary effect.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that as the periods varied very much in which the full value of manuring the land could be derived, it was considered fair that the period of two years should be fixed, and he trusted that the right hon. Member would therefore not press his Amendment. Under the Bill only reasonable compensation would be given, and if any difference arose between the landlord and tenant, the question would be decided by the assistant barrister.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, if compensation were given for two years, the landlord would be laughed at for a fool by the tenant. The tenant ought to make the land, not the landlord, pay him.

MR. HORSMAN

explained that reasonable compensation was only to be given, and that if any differences occurred the tenant would have the right of appeal to the sessions.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he must point out the absurdity of sending the tenant of a three acre field first to the assistant barrister, and next to the quarter sessions, in case he could not agree as to the compensation he was to receive from his landlord. Really for a statesman in the position of the right hon. Gentleman to display so much ignorance of Ireland and Irish questions, made him quite ashamed of the connection the right hon. Gentleman had with Irish affairs.

Question put, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 70; Noes 33; Majority, 37.

MR. I. BUTT

said, he wished now to propose the addition of the following proviso:—"Provided always that no such tenant shall be entitled so to recover, unless at or before the time of giving up possession, or within one week afterwards, he shall have served the landlord with a notice containing the particulars of his claim for such remuneration, unless it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Court before which such claim shall be heard that the landlord has waived the necessity of such notice." It appeared to him that unless the proviso which he wished to introduce were adopted, the landlord would be exposed to the greatest hardship. On the other hand, there would be no hardship on the tenant, as this was not a case in which he could be taken by surprise, and he was entitled to six months' notice. The best way of settling those matters was by equitable adjustment, one person coming on behalf of the landlord, and another on behalf of the tenant, but this could not be done if a period of two years were allowed to elapse. He was only anxious that the Bill should pass for the happiness and peace of Ireland, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen to adopt the Amendment in justice to the landlord.

MR. J. FITZGERALD

said, he thought that the proviso was unreasonable, because it required the tenant, who might be suddenly called upon to give up his possession, to know the law, and to serve the landlord with the "particulars of his claim" within a week. If the period proposed were within six months, instead of one week, he should not object to it. He was ready to consent to any reasonable term of notice, and would take care that nothing contained in the Bill should interfere with any agreement between the parties.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he would suggest that the period of notice should be three weeks or a month, so as to enable both parties to ascertain the correct value of the improvements.

Mr. H. HERBERT

said, he thought the fairest period would be three months.

MR. I. BUTT

said, he would rather withdraw his Amendment than adopt three months, in the course of which time the entire condition and aspect of the farm might be changed. But taking a short period, such as a week, would admit of an immediate survey being made, ensuring accurate ascertainment and adjustment. He was ready to accede to one month, but the great object was to prevent dishonest and vexatious claims being brought.

LORD NAAS

said, he was inclined to think that the best mode of settlement would be by having two arbitrators to act for the landlord and tenant, or the outgoing and incoming tenant, whose decision should be binding. He would, therefore, propose a clause to that effect, providing that the survey of two arbitrators should be held, and their decision, or that of their umpire, given within a month.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 86: Majority 36.

MR. HORSMAN

said, it was the opinion of the Government that a notice should be served within some limited period, and on the bringing up the Report he would propose a clause limiting the period to two months.

LORD NAAS

said, he thought that, in order to prevent litigation, not only should a notice be served, but also the amount claimed should be specified at the time when the tenant terminated his occupation. He would, therefore, propose to add to the clause a proviso enacting that a proper valuation of the several matters for which remuneration was claimed should be settled by arbitrators, one on the part of the tenant, and another on the part of the landlord, within one month after the tenant gave up possession.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause to add the words— Provided always, That a proper valuation of the several matters as aforesaid shall be made by two arbitrators, or their umpire, one to be appointed by the tenant and the other by the landlord, within one month after the tenant has given up possession; and the tenant shall be entitled to recover from his landlord the sum awarded by said arbitrators, and no more, in respect of the several matters aforesaid.

MR. KEOGH

said, he objected to the proposed arbitration as likely to lead to inconvenience, in the event of the arbitrators disagreeing, and conceived that the clause just given notice of on the part of the Government would meet the object which hon. Gentlemen had in view.

MR. JOHN SADLEIR

said, he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine (Lord Naas) would not press his Motion. Independent of the proviso which the noble Lord proposed to insert, it would be competent by the Bill for the landlord and tenant to have recourse to arbitration for the settlement of any differences which might arise between them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 86: Majority 39.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (If landlord after the time when the tenant could commence improvements, and before the registration of the declaration, shall proceed to evict tenant, such tenant may proceed by civil bill process against such landlord for compensation).

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD moved as an Amendment the alteration of certain words, the effect of which, he stated, would be to prevent tenants getting compensation for improvements which they might have intended to make, but had not carried out.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, he should oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of inducing the landlord to evict a tenant the moment he heard that it was his intention to carry out any improvements.

Question put, "That the word 'has' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 36: Majority 93.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he would now move that, in line 6, the words "commence and execute" be omitted, and the words "commenced and executed" inserted in their place.

COLONEL GREVILLE

said, that in consequence of the adoption of the last Amendment, if a tenant complying with the provisions of the measure commenced improvements, and his landlord proceeded to evict him, should the words now under consideration remain in the clause the tenant would not be entitled to recover compensation for the improvements he might have effected. He considered that if the tenant had legally commenced improvements he should be entitled to recover their full value.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, that the object of the clause would be entirely defeated by the proposed Amendment, for if it were adopted the tenant would not be entitled to compensation, unless he had actually executed the improvements of which he had given notice.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

MR. WILKINSON moved that the Chairman report progress. The Committee had already occupied more than five hours over the Bill, and as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had promised that the Limited Liability Bill would come on that evening, he thought, in order to allow of the fulfilment of that engagement, they should accede to his proposal.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, for it seemed very likely that they would proceed smoothly with the remaining clauses.

MR. I. BUTT

said, when the hon. Member for Lambeth moved that the Chairman report progress, he (Mr. Butt) was about to make a Motion which would materially shorten discussion, namely, to omit the whole of the remaining clauses. He would do that on the ground that the whole of the remaining clauses related to the leasing powers, and those leasing powers were provided for by a separate Bill now before the House. If the Motion for reporting progress was not carried, he would move the omission of the clauses relating to leases.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he considered the whole of the discussion that evening as so much waste of time. The retrospective clause, which was a deliberate proposal to transfer a certain sum of money from the pockets of Irish landlords to the pockets of their tenants, had been thoroughly, and he hoped finally, disposed of. With respect to the prospective clauses, no Irish landlord with an atom of common sense would ever grant a lease without a covenant to make those clauses a dead letter. In the name of all that was impenetrable, what was the use of persisting in a Bill which led to nothing but discussion for the present and no good for the future?

MR. COGAN

said, that if hon. Members on the Opposition benches thought proper to persevere in their present course, it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill, and he should, therefore, advise the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to allow the Chairman to report progress.

MR. HORSMAN

said, he had not the least objection to accede to the proposition if hon. Gentlemen thought it right; but, having passed seventeen clauses which had particular reference to the interests of tenants, he hoped the Committee would not show an indisposition to address themselves to the remaining clauses, which were supposed to be rather in favour of the interests of the landlords. The Government having undertaken the Bill, and having passed it up to its present stage, he trusted the House would not now be disposed to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), and take the clauses which had already been passed and form them into a separate measure, but that they would proceed with the remaining portion of the Bill, without allowing any party considerations to interfere with it.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he had no desire to defeat the Bill, or to obstruct its progress; but as it was a very important legal measure it required care and accuracy; and he thought his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) ought to be furnished with the Amendments proposed to be inserted in it before the measure was allowed to pass through Committee.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that the Bill was exactly in the same shape in which it had passed through the House of Lords, and, having been approved and adopted by the eminent judicial authorities of that House, the objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged against it might be withdrawn.

MR. BENTINCK

said, the hon. Mem- bers on that side of the House could not be charged with unfairness when the clauses they wished to abandon were, as they had been told, exclusively favourable to the landlords. He did not wish to oppose the Bill, as he believed it would be a dead letter.

MR. MACMAHON

said, he thought the better way would be for the Government to accept the seventeen clauses and dispose of the remainder in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. If the Bill passed there would not in a few years be a lease in Ireland worth having. It would take away the power of granting leases for three lives, a very common kind of lease in Ireland, and it would even take away the power of the Crown to grant leases for more than twenty-one years.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he was not prepared to omit the latter part of the Bill, and should adhere to the whole of it; but it would be useless to persist in the Bill at present, if the Opposition were prepared to resist it. Therefore the Chairman had better report progress, and the Bill be resumed at the next morning sitting.

House resumed; Committee report progress.