HC Deb 11 August 1881 vol 264 cc1635-9

The Commons disagree to the Amendments n page 1, lines 26 and 28, for the following Reason:

Because the failure to give the notice as prescribed may be accidental, and in no way prejudice the landlord, and it would be unjust to enable the landlord in such a case to require the court to declare the sale void.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 2, line 16:

Because the insertion of these words is unnecessary.

The Commons disagree to the Amendments in page 2, lines 28 and 34, for the following Reasons:

  1. (1.) Because the landlord has got value for his purchase in the increased rent which he must be assumed to have charged for the holding, or which in any case he may fairly charge in respect of the improvements, &c. thus acquired by him.
  2. (2.) Because the tenant, out of whose purchase money the landlord would be reimbursed what he is supposed to have paid the previous tenant, received no benefit for and was in no way party to the transaction, and is as much entitled to retain his purchase money (which may represent little more than the value of improvements made by himself) as any other tenant who sells his tenancy.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 4, line 25, for the following Reason:

Because it is unnecessary, the object being already provided for in the first clause of the Bill.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, line 10, for the following Reasons:

  1. (1.) Because it is desirable to define with precision the "persistent waste" which is to be a breach of the statutory condition.
  2. (2.) Because it would be unjust to allow a landlord who, whilst the tenant is committing "waste," knowingly stands by without objecting to it, afterwards to insist on it as a breach of the statutory conditions, and proceed to compel the tenant to quit his holding accordingly.
  3. (3.) Because the landlord will still retain all his other remedies for preventing any act of waste, and for recovering damages for it, if committed.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, line 32, for the following Reason:

Because as such a tenant cannot register, and therefore cannot lawfully cut or remove any timber, though planted by himself or his predecessors, the addition of the Amendment nullifies the exception.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, line 34, for the following Reason:

Because the language of the Bill better describes the right to which the tenant is entitled by Statute (in affirmance of the common law in that respect).

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, lines 38 and 41, for the following Reasons:

  1. (1.) Because the definition in the Statute referred to is objectionable, as including some and excluding other subjects of sport which ought not to be so included and excluded respectively.
  2. (2.) Because it is desirable that the Statute should state expressly, and not by reference to another Statute, what subjects of sport are exclusively reserved to the landlord.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 6, line 1, for the following Reason:

Because it would be unreasonable to make a trifling act of obstruction the breach of a statutory condition.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 6, lines 3 and 4, for the following Reasons:

  1. (1.) Because it is entirely superfluous; the landlord's property in the mines and other things there specified being wholly unaffected by the Bill.
  2. (2.) Because the Amendment, in several respects, contradicts the previous part of the clause, and would prejudice the rights thereby secured to or recognised as vested in the tenant.
  3. (3.) Because the Amendment, by providing that mines, &c. shall be deemed to be reserved to the landlord "during the continuance of a statutory term," would suggest doubts as to the landlord's property in them in cases where there was no such term.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 6, line 8, for the following Reason:

Because the words are necessary for explaining the reference thereto in Clause 7. The Commons disagree to the Amendments in page 6, lines 27 and 37, for the following Reason:

Because the existing provisions as to compensation for disturbance have been found to be insufficient.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 8, line 15, for the following Reason:

Because the landlord can enforce an increase of rent without going to the court, and it is desirable that the tenant should have an opportunity of accepting the proposed increase, and thus getting a statutory term without the intervention of the court.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 8, line 20, for the following Reason:

Because the words omitted recognise alike the rights of both landlord and tenant, and it is expedient to retain them as assuring the Irish tenant that his just interests will be respected.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 8, line 23, for the following Reasons:

  1. (1.) Because its object is fully provided by Clause 8 (Equities Clause).
  2. (2.) Because it would be manifestly unjust that the tenant's application to fix a fair rent for his holding should be refused because one of his predecessors had committed some act of waste long since repaired.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 8, line 35, for the following Reason:

Because it is desirable that the tenant should feel assured that during the first statutory term obtained through the court after the passing of the Act, he cannot be dispossessed except for breach of duty or for some public purpose; but the Commons propose to insert words excluding from this provision the case of present tenancies arising at the expiration of judicial leases and current leases respectively.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 9, line 14, for the following Reason:

Because it is expedient to leave the matter to the judgment of the court, as there may be some cases in which the conduct of the landlord may have been such as to make it inequitable to refuse the tenant's application for a judicial rent.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 9, line 39, for the following Reason:

Because by making the provision prospective, and only applicable to the second and subsequent revisions of rent, it suggests doubts as to whether the tenant's improvements may not be charged for in the first determination of fair rent; but the Commons propose to amend the words so reinstated, and as a consequential Amendment to add words to subsection 8 which will have the effect of securing the landlord against having his rent reduced in respect of improvements for which the tenant is no longer entitled to credit.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 9, line 42, for the following Reason:

Because there are many cases in which the money so paid by the incoming tenant ought to be considered in determining what is a fair rent; for example in Ulster, where such payments may represent the real value of the tenant-right, or in other parts of Ireland where it may to a great extent, if not exclusively, represent the value of improvements thus purchased from his predecessor, and to credit for which the tenant is fairly entitled in any such inquiry.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 11, line 12, for the Reason given for disagreeing to the Amendment in page 8, lines 20 and 21.

The Commons disagree to the Amendments in page 13, lines 31, 32, and 34, respectively, for the following Reason:

Because it would exclude from the benefit of the Act the occupying tenants of a mesne landlord holding by a terminable lease, which, being made without any restriction on the common law right of sub-letting, must be regarded as authorising the creation of the sub tenancies in question.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 14, line 13, for the following Reason:

Because it would prevent the building of any labourers' cottages, even with the sanction of the court, unless the tenant's holding contained the full extent of tillage land specified, and it is expedient to leave some discretion to the court in this matter.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 15, line 15, subsection 3, for the following Reason:

Because it is expedient to provide that for some time after the passing of the Act the right of pre-emption shall not be used to defeat the object of the Act by extinguishing present tenancies with the view of creating future tenancies in their stead.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 16, lines 9 to 14, for the following Reason:

Because leases in Ireland are regarded by both landlord and tenant as little more than a fixing of the rent for the specified period, and restoration of the holding to the landlord at their expiration is not originally contemplated by either party; but the Commons propose to amend the words so reinstated in the Bill by inserting words excluding cases where reversionary leases have been already granted, and also providing for "resumption" as under the fifth clause of the Bill, if the landlord requires the holding for his own occupation.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 16, lines 24 to 36, for the following Reason:

Because it is alleged that since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, leases containing unfair terms and provisions contrary to the meaning and spirit of that Act have been unfairly forced upon the tenants, and it is expedient that provision should be made to enable the court to set aside leases executed under such circumstances.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 19, line 12, for the following Reason:

Because there may be on an estate a great number of small tenants who would be unable to purchase their holdings, which would thus be left on the hands of the Commissioners, whilst two-thirds of the whole rent might be payable by a few large tenants; but the Commons propose by a consequential Amendment to the Bill to provide that, under certain special circumstances, the rule requiring that three-fourths of the whole number of tenants shall be able and willing to purchase may be relaxed.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 25, line 14, for the following Reason:

Because these subsections are required to ensure the proper administration of the public moneys placed at the disposal of the Commission.

The Commons disagree to the Amendments in page 31, lines 1 and 7, for the following Reason:

Because an appeal on any question of law is already provided for; and it is not expedient to permit an appeal on other questions, such as the amount of fair rent, the value of a holding, or the amount of damages awarded for breach of a statutory condition, or any matter left in the discretion of the court.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 37, line 31, for the following Reason:

Because it is expedient to postpone for a short time the creation of future tenancies.

The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 39, lines 22 to 30, for the following Reason:

Because it is expedient to provide that where a tenant is seeking to obtain a reduction of rent and statutory term through the intervention of the court, the sale of his tenancy at the suit of a creditor may, under special circumstances, be stayed for a short time, so that the true value of his tenancy may be realized; but the Commons propose to amend the words so reinstated by limiting the time for which the court can stay the process.

Reasons for disagreement to The Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.