DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 18 June 1856)

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the object of which was to dispense with notices to quit.

§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE
said, that the Committee, on a former occasion, struck out the process for the recovery of the rent due from an outgoing tenant, which he wanted the Committee to reinsert as follows— The justices shall, by a distinct order, fix such sum (if any) as they shall think a fair compensation to him for the loss of such crop; and no warrant shall be issued to execute the order for possession until the landlord shall have paid or tendered to the tenant (or allowed him credit for) the sum so fixed by the order for compensation.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, he would now beg to move the insertion of a clause to the effect that every landlord of any tenement within the Act shall be bound to keep and maintain the said dwelling-house or place of abode in good and tenantable condition and repair; and in case it shall be proved that such dwelling-house or place of abode was, by the landlord's default, unfit for occupation by reason of the want of such repairs, it shall not be lawful for such landlord to recover any rent or compensation for the use and occupation of the said premises during the period of time they were in such state and condition.

§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE
said, the clause could not be properly included in the Bill, as the Bill was of limited application, and there being no process in the Bill by which the proposition embodied in the clause could be enforced. If the hon. and gallant Member would bring in a Bill to make his clause of general application, he would support it.

§ MR. G. H. MOORE
said, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman was only technical. Surely the premises ought to be kept in tenantable repair, when the landlord possessed such extraordinary and summary powers to enforce his rent.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, he would now beg to move the insertion of another clause to the following effect— In case any person shall feel aggrieved by any order, decree, or adjudication, to be made by any justices under this Act, it shall be lawful for such person to appeal against the same, and such appeal shall be to the like Court, and subject to the same incidents, and be heard and dealt with in the same manner as an appeal under the twenty-fourth Section of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, save that in lieu of the seven days' notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute his appeal required by said Act, the appellant shall give notice in writing of his intention to prosecute his appeal to the opposite party five days at least before the commencement of the sessions to which the appeal shall be made, and save that the recognisance to be entered into shall be in the form (B) in the Schedule to this Act annexed, or to the like effect, and that such appeal shall not be dismissed on any point of form.

§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE
said, he must oppose the clause, which would go a great way to defeat the object of the Bill. The effect of the clause would be that the landlord would avail himself of the law as it at present stood, where there was no appeal.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, he should support the clause. The Committee ought to consider the course of legislation the House was carrying by large majorities. The proposed Bill was, in point of fact, a short measure for the eviction of Irish tenantry. On the one side would be two justices (landlords), and on the other the unfortunate cottier tenant. Why should not the poor man have the right of appeal? A house and home was everything to the poor man. If the Committee did not allow this clause to pass, it showed the determination of the House of Commons to favour the eviction of the unfortunate Irish tenantry.

§ MR. KENNEDY
said, he felt called upon to stand up for the poor man's right of appeal, equally with the right enjoyed by the rich man. He hoped the Committee would sustain the reasonable request of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he should vote for the clause of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville), as he wished to avoid the slightest appearance of unfairness towards the poorer tenants. But he must protest against the tone assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) on all occasions, as if he were the advocate of the Irish tenants, whenever questions affecting land-land and tenant were mooted.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he should give his support to the clause. The dwelling-house of the poor man might be humble, but it was as much to him as the mansion to the nobleman. The Bill would supersede the necessity of the notice to quit, and the matter would go before Justices at petty sessions, who might mistake the law, and which mistake carried with it consequences the most disastrous to the unfortunate tenant. There could be no mischief resulting from the appeal. If the said appeal would neutralise the effects of the Bill, all he could say was, sooner than there should be unjust decisions he would not press the Bill. Every security in the clause was taken that there should not be frivolous appeals. The principle of appeal was guaranteed to the English law wherever the power of summary jurisdiction was conferred.

MR. BUNBURY
said, that it was his intention to support the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. As a magistrate sitting in petty sessions and called upon to decide in a matter relating to the occupation of a tenement, possibly of a brother magistrate, it would afford him consolation to know that his decision could be appealed against. In all such cases the decisions of magistrates should be above suspicion. He should, therefore, vote for the clause.

MR. NAPIER
said, if the clause was adopted, his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) might as well give up his Bill. The main object of the Bill was to give summary power, which could not be done if the right of appeal was conceded.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHEE
said, one of the strongest feelings in the Irish mind was that they could not get justice done to them, and that was the reason why they so often attempted to do themselves justice, and why this country was occasionally shocked by deeds of violence, which were, however, confined to a comparatively small 1664 portion of the population. He was, for this reason, in favour of the clause.

CAPTAIN J.O'CONNELL
said, he thought that it was essential to have an appeal. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) whether the decided opinion of the first Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland ought not to induce him to pause before opposing the insertion of the clause.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, if the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue) had contented himself with supporting the clause instead of also attacking him, he should not have risen, but the hon. Member had attacked him and charged him unfairly with holding himself out on all occasions as the advocate of the tenants of Ireland. He did no such thing, although he represented as large a body of tenants as any Member in that House, and was interested in seeing that no injustice was done to them.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, he would now beg to move the insertion of the following clause:— The landlord of any tenement, or his agent, if justices of the peace, shall not as such take any part in the hearing of any complaint, or in the making of any order, decree, or adjudication under this Act, in relation to such tenement.

§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE
said, that his only objection to the clause was, that it was unnecessary. The magistrate who could be guilty of anything so unfair and indecent as to sit in judgment on his own case was unworthy of holding Her Majesty's Commission.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, he approved the principle of the clause, but he must express a hope that English Members would not suppose that it was the practice of magistrates in Ireland to take part in the hearing of their own complaints. He had never heard of such a case.