Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from James O'Donnell and William Reynolds, of Dublin, complaining of the operation of the Subletting Act, by which they (as executors of a person deceased) were prevented from re-letting a house of which the deceased had taken a long lease, only a small term of which had expired at his death. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that persons should be subject to one law in England, and to another in Ireland, with respect to property. He hoped to see the whole Act repealed.
Lord Killeentrusted Ministers would turn their attention to this very important subject, with a view to repeal the whole Act, for nothing less would be satisfactory. He thought it would be best to allow landlords to manage their own property as they thought fit, and not interfere with them by laws of this kind. He hoped the noble Lord would give some assurance that the matter would be attended to.
§ Mr. James Grattanhoped, that the attention of Government might be directed to this subject.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the subject had been under the consideration of Government, and that a measure would have been introduced respecting it before now, but for the delay of the all-absorbing question of Reform. It would be quite absurd to introduce the measure at present, when they could have no opportunity to discuss it. He did not think the Act should be altogether abolished, but it ought to be modified. Many of the grievances ascribed to it had their source, not in the enactments of the Statute, but in the ignorance or carelessness of parties in drawing up leases. The case brought before them, in the petition, was an example. The tenant might have alienated by obtaining the consent of the landlord to do so.
§ Mr. Ruthvenrecommended the entire repeal of the Act. It was odious to the Irish people, and had produced much mischief; they attributed all the evils they felt to its operation.
§ Mr. Northsaid, it would be better to go back to the common-law on the subject. He was against any modification of the Act whatever.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the Act was tried as an experiment, and having totally failed, it ought to be repealed. It had the voice of millions against it. He hoped to see some measure immediately brought forward, to which he could agree.
§ Sir Henry Parnellsaid, on the proper occasion, he should be able to prove that the experiment had not failed; and, that much of the prejudice existing against it owed its origin to misrepresentation. It was a measure of almost vital necessity to Ireland, but some of its provisions required farther consideration. The main object of the Bill, to enable the landlord to enforce the covenants made by the tenant, ought to be supported. The common-law would not do this, and, therefore, the measure was necessary.
Sir Robert Batesonexpressed a hope, as the Bill was most unpopular in Ireland, that it would be materially modified. It was said to be in contemplation last session to bring in a bill free from the defects of the present Act. If the Government were not very remiss, it would do something in this and other measures necessary for the relief of Ireland. Much had been promised, but nothing had yet been done, by the present Government.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, that no time could be found for any measures until the Reform Bill was passed; but the long speeches of the hon. Baronet, and his friends, at that (the Opposition) side of the House, delayed the progress of the Bill.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that he had never once opened his lips on the Reform Bill this Session.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the greatest misery had accrued to many individuals by the operation of the Sub-letting Act, which had been carried beyond what the Legislature intended. The right hon. member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell) had said, that it had not failed: certainly it had not; for the utmost distress had been caused by it to many hundred families, who had been thrust from their homes by their landlords, without any place to lay their heads.
§ Sir Henry Parnellmust beg to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Sub-letting Act gave no power to a landlord 828 to dispossess his tenant; that was done under the operation of other laws.
Mr. O'Connellhad not said it did enable the landlord to do this, but he did say, that it prevented any man, when turned out of his holding, from getting in elsewhere.
§ Sir Henry Parnellwas glad to hear it admitted, that they were not thrust out under this Act.
§ Mr. James Grattansaid, a tenant was required to turn out his under tenants, unless the landlord gave permission to keep them in.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, the operation of the Act was such, that a man, turned out from one place, could get into no other.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.