HC Deb 23 May 1870 vol 201 cc1255-62

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. BRUEN

said, he rose to move the insertion of new clauses for facilita- ting the ascertainment of the amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord, in the event of a claim being made for it by the tenant, any dispute on the point to be decided by the Court. He begged to move, after Clause 13, to insert the following clause:— (Court to give judgment as to liability of landlord.) Every landlord liable to a claim of a tenant for compensation in respect of improvements under Clause four of this Act may make a requisition in writing, in the prescribed form, on his tenant, for a declaration of the sums (if any) which such tenant, if he was then quitting his holding, might claim by way of such compensation. Clause (Court to give judgment as to liability of landlord,)—(Mr. Bruen,)—brought up, and read the first time.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the point urged by his hon. Friend was not new to the Government. It had been carefully considered by them when framing the Bill; but it had not been adopted, from the conviction that its adoption would result in a vast amount of unnecessary litigation throughout Ireland. He believed that in the vast majority of cases of improvement no occasion would arise for appealing to the Court.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN

said, he believed that much of the discontent which existed in Ireland arose from the absence of some such means of registration as that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the opinion that the adoption of the proposed clause would lead to the speedy commencement of innumerable law suits. For this reason, if for no other, he should oppose the clause. The operation of the Bill would be gradual. The clause would set on foot at once a number of contentious suits.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, nobody could deal in Irish property with liabilities hanging over him which could not be ascertained, and which might arise at any moment, and to any amount, unless some such thing as the clause contemplated were done.

DR. BALL

said, he thought some such machinery as that suggested in the clause was absolutely necessary. There would be great difficulty if a loan were to be raised, or a property to be sold in the Landed Estates Court, in ascertaining what were the charges to which the estate was liable under the Bill.

Mr. BRUEN

said, the clause had been drawn up with the express intention to prevent litigation.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 207: Majority 104.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

proposed, after Clause 17, to insert a new clause— (Application of Act to tenancies created prior to passing of this Act.) Where a person shall be in possession of a holding at the time of the passing of this Act, to which he or the person from whom he derived had been tenant from year to year, and whose tenancy had been determined on the twenty-fifth day of March or first day of May last by notice to quit served by his landlord, he may claim compensation under this Act as if he was a tenant about to quit his holding, and the Court may, in its discretion, hear and determine the claim accordingly.

Clause brought up and read a first time.

On Motion, "That the Clause be now read a second time,"

Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, no sufficient case had been made out for a provision of this kind, and he could not agree to the proposal.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he should support the clause.

MR. MURPHY

said, it was desirable some modification, with reference to notices to quit, should be introduced into the Bill. It was well known that notices to quit had been served in anticipation of the passing of this Bill.

DR. BALL

said, the clause could not be of any use, except in an exceedingly few cases; and he held that such retrospective legislation was to be deprecated.

Clause negatived.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

proposed, after Clause 26, to insert a new clause—(Leases pending sale, &c).

Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, this clause dealt with leasing powers, a subject which required to be carefully considered, with a view to the introduction of a Leasing Bill next Session. There was no urgent necessity for such a clause.

MR. BRYAN

moved, after Clause 53, to insert a new clause—(Notices to quit served by officers of Civil Bill Court). The Bill, as it stood, would neither suppress agrarian outrages nor bring about conciliation or the pacification of Ireland; but if his clause were carried it would accomplish both. The Bill, if submitted in its present form to a vote such as had recently been taken in France, would be rejected, by a large majority. He was sure that the Judges of the Civil Bill Court would exercise the powers with discretion and moderation, and he hoped that the Committee would assent to it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he could not assent to the clause proposed by the hon. Member. The hon. Member proposed that no notice to quit should be given until the Court had determined all the equities in the case. That would interfere with almost every provision in the Bill.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he thought that when the Solicitor General for Ireland opposed a clause he had better not give his reasons for doing so, because in the present case they were all in favour of the clause. The Court ought to have power to prevent capricious evictions. The Bill was becoming better understood in Ireland every day, even better than it was understood in England, and English thoughts were becoming understood. He warned the Government, however, against rejecting every Amendment to the Bill that came from Ireland. He trusted that the hon. Member would press his clause to a Division.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the hon. Member had stated that the Government had acted throughout on the system of rejecting every Amendment that came from Ireland. The charge contained in that statement he entirely repudiated. At the same time, he must admit that he could not always identify Ireland with every hon. Member who happened to represent an Irish constituency. He ventured to say, without fear of contradiction, that the result of the Amendments upon the Bill that had been accepted or made by the Government had been to render the measure more liberal and more in the interest of the Irish tenant than it originally was. Did the hon. Member, however, expect either that or the other House of Parliament to accept such a proposal as that now made? The clause, if inserted, would introduce a completely new Bill at the tail of the original measure, and was a substitute in five lines for the Bill with which the House of Commons had taken such great pains.

Mr. WHITWELL

said, the clause would make the Court the actual author of future evictions. He hoped it would be withdrawn.

Mr. AGAR-ELLIS

said, that the whole of the Bill might be dispensed with if this clause followed the Preamble. The word "popularity" had been the curse of Ireland, and he would urge the Government to do what was right by his country, in the assurance that Irishmen were not such donkeys but that they would acknowledge that the right and proper thing would in the end be most popular.

Mr. BRADY

said, the alacrity with which the Opposition had accepted the Bill had created distrust among the Irish people; but the measure had now become popular. He did not, however, think the Amendment of his hon. Friend, would add to its good qualities.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

also objected to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he proposed after Clause 55, to insert a new clause— (Repeal of section of "Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, I860.") The following section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1860, fifty-two,' is hereby repealed. The object was to re-assimilate the law of England to that of Ireland.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the section worked well in Ireland, and the Government could not assent to its repeal. In any case this Bill was not the place to repeal the clause.

Clause negatived.

MR. W. ORMSBY GORE

said, he would now propose the first of a series of clauses providing for the stamping, issuing, and registration of notices to quit, and further that the surplus moneys received from this source should be applied to the purposes of the borough or county in which such notices should have been issued. His contention was that all moneys arising from Irish sources should be applied exclusively to Irish objects.

Clause (Stamps on notices to quit,)—(Mr. William Ormsby Gore,)—brought up, and read the first time.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he could not admit this principle, which was not carried out in other parts of the kingdom.

Mr. W. ORMSBY GORE

said, that the clauses were taken from the Dogs Regulation Act, which was passed some five years ago.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 210: Majority 133.

Mr. G. B. GREGORY

said, he would propose, after Clause 55, to insert a new clause—(Regulations prescribed for notices to quit).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thought the publicity would be excessive. He must oppose the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

proposed, after Clause 62, to insert a new clause—(Non-liability for rent for land covered by public roads).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he was at last in the happy position of being able to accept an Amendment. It was not of vital importance; but it was a wise and useful suggestion.

Clause agreed to.

MR. PIM

said, he desired to insert clauses abolishing the right of distress for recovery of rent, and also the landlord's priority in the case of goods taken in execution.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the question raised was too wide to be entered upon that night. Four years ago he himself proposed that the power of distress should no longer subsist by mere operation of law, though it might be kept alive by contract; and the Government would consider whether a clause in that sense could safely be introduced on the Report; but the second part of the Amendment was altogether inadmissible.

DR. BALL

said, he thought the Amendment wholly foreign to the Bill, which was not one dealing with the various remedies for the recovery of rent. Under the terms of the Amendment, the hon. Member might find himself without the means of recovering the rent of his own house property in Dublin.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, there was an universal opinion in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress. He had letters from seven land agents who had written to him upon this subject.

MR. COGAN

said, he believed that-good results would follow the abolition of the Law of Distress. That law gave the landlord an improper advantage over other creditors.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the various modifications which the law had received in times comparatively recent in Ireland formed important elements of the land question in the present day, those modifications having strengthened—or, as some would call it, aggravated—the old law of the land. He could not, therefore, say that an Amendment in the sense suggested by his right hon. Friend would be either foreign to the Bill or unjust or inexpedient itself. Without giving any positive pledge, the Government would consider the question, and see what they could do with it upon the Report.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, he thought the change ought not to be confined to Ireland; but that important modifications in the Law of Distress in England, and in the Law of Hypothec in Scotland, ought also to be made.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he hoped that the Government would seriously consider this matter before making any change.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, unless care was taken in legislating on the subject the small tenants would be destroyed.

MR. MURPHY

said, he was of opinion that where leases existed the Law of Distress should apply; but it should be withheld where leases were not granted.

Clause negatived.

MR. BOWRING

proposed, page 1, line 2, in the Preamble, after "land," to insert "in Ireland."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that this was the last Amendment on the Paper, and he was glad to be able to assent to it.

MR. PELL

said, he wished to ask if the First Lord of the Treasury was prepared to give a distinct legal definition as to what was meant by the reclamation of waste lands?

Mr. GLADSTONE

said, that when the Bill was drawn it was the opinion of the Government that there would be no difference of opinion, on the whole, as to what was meant by the reclamation of land, and that no legal definition was necessary; but if any suggestion, with the view of improving the phrase, were suggested previously to the Report, the Government would be ready to consider it. He did not, however, think any great difficulty was likely to occur if no alteration should be made.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]