HC Deb 11 June 1860 vol 159 cc280-2

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. WHITESIDE moved, that the Bill be now read the second time, and explained that the Bill was based on a mass of evidence taken by a Commission which sat some years ago to inquire into the subject. Seven or eight years ago an attempt was made by the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Napier) and himself to legislate on this subject by consolidating or repealing every existing law in reference to the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland; but in consequence of the large number of statutes—for when the Irish Parliament had nothing else to do they appeared to have passed a law on the subject of landlord and tenant—this was found a very laborious and troublesome affair. A number of Irish Members also objected to the Bill which was prepared, though he never could clearly understand why; because, as he had said, the Bill simply consolidated the law. However, another Bill miscalled the Tenant Right Bill having been introduced, the very simple Bill for consolidating the existing law he had brought forward was rejected. The result, therefore, was that the Bill continued in abeyance for about six years. The late Government having been called upon by certain Irish Members to deal with the matter reproduced the Bill after having subjected it to revision and improvement. The Bill was called "No. 2," because the present Attorney General for Ireland also had a measure on the same subject. He ought to say that his Bill dealt with two matters, the law of fixtures and the law of distress, which matters were both omitted from the Bill of his right hon. Friend. The Bill of his right hon. Friend simply proposed that there should be no distress for more than a year's rent; whilst he (Mr. Whiteside) proposed to adopt the Scotch law, reserving to the landlord the right to distrain, but securing the tenant from a hasty sale of his property if he gave security for the rent. As to fixtures, he proposed to make what was put upon the land by the tenant his property, even though the consent of the landlord had not been obtained for putting them there; but he would not have the right to remove them without the assent of the landlord. The landlord was to have the right of pre-emption; but if neither he nor the incoming tenant chose to buy them, the outgoing tenant would then have the right to remove them, which was simply justice to the tenant. If they were placed on the land contrary to covenant, the tenant would have no right to remove, but if there was no agreement there would be power to remove. This clause would probably lead to the making of agreements between landlord and tenant, or to incoming tenants buying the fixtures. These two branches of the law were, he believed, by his Bill, placed on a more satisfactory footing than by that of his right hon. Friend. He suggested to the Government the propriety of adopting this as the groundwork of any measure on the subject.

MR. DEASY

said, he had not the least objection to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposed, however, to proceed with the Bill which he had himself introduced, though he did not claim any merit for it, but was free to admit that the merit belonged to the right hon. Gentleman and the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Napier). He should be glad to receive any suggestions for the improvement of his Bill, whether from the right hon. Gentleman, or any Gentleman opposite, as his sole object was to carry through a measure of beneficial legislation.

MR. M'MAHON

said, that the Bill was one for the consolidation of all the laws relating to landlord and tenant; but then the right hon. Gentleman had told them that Acts were passed by the Irish Parliaments when they had nothing else to do, and it was well known those Acts were all made in behalf of the landlord and against the tenant. Except the provision relating to fixtures he found nothing in the Bill beneficia to the tenant. By the 108th sec, any farmer who availed himself of nature's provision of the harvest moon would be guilty of misdemeanour. That section declared any one guilty of misdemeanour who was found cutting corn after sunset and before sunrise with an intent to evade payment of rent. With a packed or prejudiced jury any man who availed himself of nature's provision of the harvest moon might be found guilty of such an intent.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, the clause referred to was simply to prevent a man availing himself of the moonlight to de fraud the landlord of his just rights.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, the question relating to fixtures had always given rise to great uneasiness and agitation in Ireland. Some law was necessary on the subject. A short time ago an Act wes passed for England on that very subject, and the provision was that the tenant should be allowed to remove or sell to the landlord such fixtures as had been erected with the landlord's consent. He objected to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deasy), because it did not follow the example of that Act. There was such a thing as improving a person out of his estate.

Bill read 2° and committed for Thursday.