HC Deb 05 February 1840 vol 51 cc1272-3
Mr. E. Tennent

moved the second reading of the Ejectment and Replevin (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. D. R. Pigot

had certainly expected, that the hon. Gentleman would have postponed the second reading of this bill also, for the purpose of giving those hon. Members who were acquainted with the practical working of the law, both in England and Ireland, an opportunity of judging whether it were a measure that was likely to be beneficial to the United Kingdom. His opinion was, that the bill in its present shape would be an injury to Ireland, rather than a benefit, inasmuch as it would interfere with and very much disturb the existing tenures and contracts in Ireland. It would be unwise and unjust to alter the settled law of property in that country, and to make it different from the law affecting similar property in England. By unsettling old analogies and introducing new ones, they would lay the foundation for a greater variance between the laws of the two countries, whereas they ought to do everything to assimilate them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought this a good bill, why did he not put in a clause to extend it to England? At all events, there ought to be some previous inquiry instituted before such an alteration was made in the law as this measure would effect. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman should press the second reading, he should move, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he would second the amendment. He wished the House to understand distinctly, that the bill in its present shape would give an advantage to the landlords of Ireland which they had not at present, while it would take away from the tenants those advantages which they possessed. It would alter the legal tenures of existing contracts, which had been in existence for centuries. The estate of the Powys family in the county of Kerry had been held under leases of life, renewable forever, by the Crown, for 200 years, at a fee-farm rent of 1,800l. a-year. The value of that property was so great, that some of the members of the families, six in number, holding those leases, had arrived at the Peerage, and others were persons of great wealth. Yet if one of those tenants omitted to pay the rent for a single year, the whole of these families might be evicted under this bill. He did not know, that any landlords in Ireland were calling for this measure, and he was sure that no Irish tenants were.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

said, the law in this respect was not yet settled in Ireland, and that very good reasons existed why it should be settled. The absence of legislation upon it in England was to be accounted for by the fact, that the same kind of tenure which existed in Ireland was but rare in England—namely, that of letting lands on leases for life renewable for ever. If a person would not pay his rent, whether he were a great and powerful man or not, he ought to be liable to ejectment. For his own part, he could not see why such a law should not be extended to England, and on that ground he quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that the law of the two countries should be assimilated. He would not object to a postponement of the second reading of the bill for a short period.

Second reading postponed.