HC Deb 18 July 1887 vol 317 cc1154-5
SIR CHARLES LEWIS (Antrim, N.)

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Chairman of Sub-Commissioners at Ballymoney, in deciding the case as to sub-letting to cottiers, on the 11th instant, made the following remarks:— Following the decisions, we must yield to the landlord's objections. The law is now perfectly settled upon the subject, and it has been held, in the case of 'M'Kee v. Massereene,' that where the tenant sub-lets a cottier house and a small portion of land which is part of the holding, without the consent of the landlord, he is not in occupation of the holding within the meaning of Sections 8 and 57 of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' Such a strict interpretation of the Statute may deprive many tenants in Ulster of the benefit of its remedial provisions, as there are few farms on which cottiers who work occasionally for their landlords were not to be found; but with the consequences that flow from the decision we have nothing whatever to do. I am bound to administer the law as it exists, and this application must be dismissed; and, whether the Government will assent to a proper Amendment being inserted in the Irish Land. Law Bill, to obviate the injury to both tenants and labourers by this decision, as applied by the Courts?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

I believe the quotation in the Question is correct; but, as I have not the facts of the ease before me, I am unable to express any opinion upon the remarks of the Sub-Commissioners. It is impossible to undertake to accept an Amendment without seeing its terms; but the Government will carefully consider any Amendment having for its object the removal of any hardship arising from judicial decisions, with regard to sub-letting to labourers, not covered by Section 18 of the Act of 1881, consistently, however, with the principle that the number of labourers and size of their holdings must be regulated by the size and character of the holding as in Section 18 of the Act of 1881, and that the Court should have power as in that section to prescribe the rent and terms of letting, so as to insure that the benefits should be enjoyed by and restricted to labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding.

SIR CHARLES LEWIS

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, having regard to the numerous decisions read and the suggested Amendments referred to, it would not be better for the Government themselves to draft a proper Amendment?

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought not. It was impossible for the Government to give an undertaking in a matter of that kind. If an Amendment was brought forward it would be very fairly considered.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N)

asked, if the Government approved of the principle laid down in the decision as to the effect of sub-letting, and intended to allow it to remain in force?

MR. GIBSON

said, the proper way to deal with a decision of the Court was by an Amendment of the Bill now before the House.