§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
MR. T. M. FIEALY (Longford, N.)said, he was not present during the discussion in Committee; but ho understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had inserted, at the instance of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), an Amendment, the effect of which would be, in his opinion, most injurious, and instead of conferring any rights, would take away a great number that existed. The Amendment gave the right to renew applications; but it excluded all holders of town parks who, now that the law was changed, might now desire to go into Court. That might not be the intention; but, in his view, it would be the effect. The declaration that—
Disqualification before the passing of the Act on the grounds aforesaid shall not be a bar to another application by the person claiming to be lessee,so far as it had any effect, would be mischievous; and, therefore, he proposed to insert the new clause to provide that an application dismissed before the passing of the Act, but renewed and allowed subsequently, should, in the decision of the Court, date from the day when that decision would have come into operation under the original application. Of course, it was inconvenient to discuss the matter on the present stage; and, perhaps, the better course would be to formally move the re-committal of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
1321§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) would not persist in that Motion. The matter was discussed at some length in Committee; and the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was accepted by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan), who moved an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). The Amendment of which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had given Notice raised a new question altogether, and one outside the scope of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Government had declined, unless the Bill were confined to the matter of assignment, to assent to the Bill at all; and he feared that, in an attempt to achieve too much, the hon. and learned Member would accomplish nothing at all.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)said, the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) dealt with two points. The first related to the fixing of a judicial rent in cases where an unsuccessful application had been made before the passing of the Act, and then a subsequent application had been granted after the passing of the Act; and the hon. and learned Member proposed that in such a state of facts the judicial rent should not relate to the application which had been rendered successful by the passing of the Act, but to the previous application, which the law did not then allow to be entertained. That did not appear to him to be a reasonable suggestion, and he could not advise the House to accept it. This Act liberated the tenant from the consequences of his own default in taking an assignment the landlord was willing to grant, without taking the precaution to have his consent endorsed on the lease in compliance with the Act. From the consequences of that neglect the Bill would liberate him; but to put him in the same position as if he had been careful and diligent all through, the Government could not agree. The other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member was rather one of form, arising out of what occurred in the last discussion. The Bill provided that no application by the lessee should fail on 1322 the ground of certain informality in the assignment, and the Committee had before it the fact that there might have been previous applications which had failed on that ground, and it was thought right that the tenant should come into Court notwithstanding. When the Act passed, the fact of an application not being tenable under the Act of 1887 should not be a bar to a second application; and, so far as he had ascertained the practice of the Land Commission, it would not be a bar. He would, therefore, agree to strike out the words introduced on the previous occasion, for he quite appreciated what the hon. and learned Member said-that they might suggest that in other cases the failure of an application might be a bar to a subsequent tenable application. He could not, however, go the length of accepting the new Amendment, which would amount to a radical alteration of the Acts of 1881 and 1887. There would not be the slightest danger of a tenant who had made an application before the passing of this Act and failed, being on that account debarred from making another; and, therefore, quite appreciating what the hon. and learned Member said, he would meet him half-way, for the Act would be better without the words introduced on a previous occasion.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it would have been better had the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) considered the full effect of what was proposed. However, it was the Bill of the hon. Member; and his duty was to protect one set of tenants from any mischievous result. At the request of the hon. Member, he would not press the Motion for re-committal. He was obliged to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for offering to meet him on the other point, as to which he would reserve his remarks.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it would be only reasonable for the Government to accept the Amendment he now would propose. The Act of 1887 enabled the tenant to get certain advantages in Court, and these advantages were also designed by the framers of the Act of 1881, but given up at the instance of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. When the Crofters' Act came to be passed, making the judicial rent date 1323 from the time of application, then, in the Act of 1887, Parliament reverted to the original design of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). It was said by the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the tenant was placed in the position of having his application rejected by his own act and default, but it was nothing of the sort. The tenant might have taken out an assignment at a cost of £10. On large estates the landlord would say—"If you want this done, my solicitor is Mr. So-and-So." And then Mr. So-and-So would say—"My charge for preparing an assignment is £10." Then the tenant, who up to 1881 had no status, thought—"So long as the landlord does not turn me out I do not care for a bit of parchment." But the moment he got into Court he was met by the fact that he was not a real tenant. Grave injustice had resulted to men who had been recognized as tenants year after year, and nobody disputed their tenancy until the landlord on a technical point sought to deprive the tenant of the reduction on the rent of a-year or a-year and a-half. Only ungenerous landlords were guilty of this, and he noticed they were generally lords who took the advantage. His Amendment might very reasonably be accepted.
§
New Clause—
(Land Commissioners to decide date of commencement of judicial rent.)
Where any application has been dismissed prior to the passing of this Act, and is renewed and allowed after passing of this Act, the judicial rent shall date as from the gale day when it would have come into operation had the original application not been dismissed, and the order of the Land Commission fixing the date for the commencement of such judicial rent under this section shall be conclusive in all legal proceedings,"—[Mr. T. M. healy,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was quite true that the judicial rent in ordinary cases dated from the service of the original notice, not from the date of the judgment given; but there was something in what the hon. and learned Solicitor General said, that it did not follow that the tenant who committed the mistake should be put exactly in the same position as the tenant who had not. 1324 However, if the Government accepted the Amendment, he would not object; but if the Government refused, he was bound by the arrangement that the Bill should be confined simply to matters of assignment, to vote with the Government.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, if the Question when put was contested, the discussion under the Rule must stop.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "such."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYasked, what was the advantage of this?
§ MR. MADDENsaid, after the word "any" was inserted in Committee, it occurred to him, reading the clause carefully, that it was not only not the best word, but that it might lead to serious misunderstanding. It might be so construed that where there were several successive assignments, and the landlord had consented to any one of them that consent validated them all. That was not the intention of the framers of the Bill, and could not be sanctioned if it were. No assignment which had been consented to practically by the landlord in the manner pointed out by the Bill could be invalidated before the Land Commission on the ground of the informality with which. the Bill dealt, and the word "such" made that meaning perfectly clear.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 10, after the word "assignment," leave out the words "of such lease."
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, be understood the hon. and learned Solicitor General agreed to the principle he laid down in the remarks he made earlier, and in his opinion it would ho preferable to accept his Amendment instead of striking out the clause as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. In the case of town parks a radical change was made in their position by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in the Act of last 1325 year, and it was very much debated at the time. There was now no question in dispute, and the Amendments he proposed would, he thought, make no change in the law, and surely could do no harm. He had heard it contested, though it had never been judicially decided, and he had a very strong opinion to the contrary, that once an application was dismissed it could not be renewed. Certainly, he should prefer to have the clause omitted, rather than have a doubt thrown on the applications as to town parks, but he hoped the hon. Member would see the blot on his Bill, and accept the Amendments to the 2nd clause, the first of which he moved, the omission of the words "on the ground aforesaid "in lines 3 and 4.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERI understood that the hon. and learned Member suggested to the clause being struck out altogether. If that is his desire, he should make that Motion first.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that placed him in a difficulty, for he would prefer to have his Amendments inserted. Could he not move the omission of the clause after the Amendments.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 be omitted."—(Mr. T. M. Healy).
§ MR. MADDENsaid, he quite appreciated the substance of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), but he feared that the Amendments would bring up a number of subjects connected with the Act of 1881 not contemplated by the Bill. It would be better to omit the Clause, and he did not think there would be the slightest danger to leaseholders thereby.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause omitted.
§ On the Motion of Mr. T. M. HEALY, the following Amendment made:—In Clause 3, line 8, to leave out the word "leaseholders."
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.