[BILL 149.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 June 1880)

§ MR. ERRINGTON,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was happy to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to the principles of it, although they might desire to amend some of the details at a later stage. Opposition was threatened to the measure from the other side of the House, but he did not think it was of a very serious character. The Bill accomplished two great objects, 1546 and it remedied a grievance under which Irish tenants had suffered for many years. It was true it was a Bill of a technical nature, and not one likely to excite very great interest in the House; but, at the same time, he thought hon. Members would approve of it, because it in no way interfered with the rights which the landlords at present possessed. It merely extended to the Irish tenants the benefits and the advantages of cheap and inexpensive litigation. As the law at present stood, the plaintiff, even in a small case, was obliged to proceed in a superior Court, and he had not the opportunity of going to an inferior Court in order to settle a minor grievance. This was considered to be a great hardship by the tenants; because, if a landlord succeeded in obtaining judgment in a superior Court which he might as well have done in an inferior Court, it amounted simply to a gratuitous fine upon the tenant. He did not desire to prevent the landlord from proceeding in a superior Court, although he considered there was no necessity for such a process in most cases. Ho, therefore, proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the inferior Courts; and he would avoid any difficulties which might arise by making a provision that if the landlord desired to go to a superior Court to obtain what he considered to be his right, he should do so at his own cost. That was to say, the defendant should not be called upon to pay higher costs than would be imposed upon him in an inferior Court, unless the landlord was able to show that he could not obtain redress without appeal to a superior Court. In order to show the effect of this arrangement, he would state what the fees in the two Courts were. In the superior Court the preliminary fee was £1 10s., as against 10s. in the County Court. A judgment by default cost £6 7s. in the superior Court, as against £2 10s. 10d. in the County Court. A Sheriff's execution, £2 6s. 2d., as against £1 10s.; and where there was a title to redemption, £7, as against £4. The second part of the Bill dealt with the right of the tenant, at various stages of the proceedings against him for non-payment of rent, to stop the proceedings by payment of costs and arrears; and in certain circumstances, on payment made within six months from eviction, to be reinstated in his holding. The object of the 1547 Bill was to provide that a tenant sued for arrears of rent should not be mulcted in excessive costs. He hoped that the House would consent to redress the grievance he had described. He should be willing to consider any Amendments that might be proposed, and he trusted the House would not object to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, he was most happy to be able to support the Bill. There was, however, one provision which he would in Committee propose to amend, and he trusted the hon. Gentlemen opposite would have no difficulty in accepting what he would propose. The 4th clause provided that the tenant should be enabled, at the end of six calendar months, to apply to the Court for the purpose of being restored on a farm from which he might have been ejected, It would be most objectionable that a vexatious proceeding of that kind should be allowed unless the rent due and the costs incurred were secured to the landlord, and the Amendment which he meant to propose would provide that the money should be lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the Peace of the county prior to the tenant being re-instated. Such an Amendment was a very fair one, and would, no doubt, meet with approval.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he approved of the principle of the Bill, which he understood to be that if a landlord chose to proceed against his tenant in a superior Court he might do so, but should not be entitled to recover more costs than he would have been awarded in a inferior Court, unless he could show that he could not have got adequate redress in such inferior Court. That was a sound principle, and he could not see any valid objection to it. The course adopted by some landlords practically precluded a tenant from making any defence. A poor man, for instance, in Connaught or Munster knew little of the employment of a solicitor away in Dublin. The principle, indeed, had been acted upon in other matters, and he thought it might be applied with equal propriety in the way proposed by the Bill. It was most important that the Courts, dealing with small cases of arrears 1548 of rent, should not be expensive in their procedure; and, as the tendency of the Bill seemed to him to be to render justice cheaper than it now was, he was able to support it. There were, indeed, some matters of detail which required amendment, but with the principle of the Bill he entirely agreed.