§ MR. GIBSONI beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland the following Questions, of which I have given him private Notice, relating to the Land Bill:—(1.) Whether the Land Bill distributed this morning and the Land Bill of 1870 are to be read together, except where they are inconsistent? (2.) Is the Bill confined to holdings agricultural or pastural in character, or partly agricultural or pastural? (3.) Can a tenant, compelled to quit his holding for nonpayment of rent, claim full compensation for disturbance and improvements?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)In answer to the first Question of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to say that, according to the ordinary rule of interpretation, statutes dealing with the same subject-matter are always to be construed together, and the present case forms no exception to that rule. Besides this, the Bill proposes specifically to amend the Land Act of 1870 in at least two material points—one, being an alteration in the scale of compensation for disturbance; and the other, the providing of greatly increased facilities for tenants purchasing the fee-simple of their respective holdings. My reply to the second Question is that the Bill is confined, by its 46th section, to holdings agricultural or 1028 pastural, or partly one and partly the other.
§ MR. GIBSONWould the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the exception to that clause?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The Bill proposes to give a tenant under ejectment for non-payment of rent the power to sell his tenant right at the best price he can get; and, if he does so, he has no claim on his landlord for disturbance or improvements, the value of both of which are obviously included in the purchase money of his tenant right. If, however, the tenant chooses to let himself be absolutely evicted without realizing the value of his tenant right, he remains, as at present, entitled to claim for improvements only.
§ MR. GIBSONAm I to understand, as I wish it to be perfectly clear, that the Land Act of 1870 and all its clauses and provisions in reference to the Bill distributed this morning can be relied on except where they are inconsistent? Secondly, am I to understand that a tenant who is evicted for non-payment of rent cannot claim compensation for disturbance? In other words, is Clause 9 of the Act of 1870 affected, or not affected, by the Bill distributed this morning?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The two Bills must be read together, and the old Act will prevail so far as it is not inconsistent with the latter one. As to the second Question, a tenant who is evicted for non-payment of rent, if he does not choose to sell and thus avail himself of the power of realizing the value of his tenant right, will not get compensation for disturbance, although he will be entitled to compensation for improvements.
§ MR. TOTTENHAM, amid cries of "Notice!" asked, Whether at the expiration of the judicial lease settled by the Court in lieu of the 31 years' lease the parties would be again free to contract; and, if so, whether the tenant would still be able to claim any and what tenant right in the event of his not to coming to terms with his landlord?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.
§ MR. CALLANrose to Order. He wished to know whether it was in accordance with the Rules of the House that the discussion on the second reading of the Land Bill should be anticipated in the guise of Questions put without Notice?
[No reply was given to the Question.]