§ Order for Consideration read.
§ Bill Considered as amended.
§ Amendments made.
§ MR. WHITESIDEproposed a clause to the effect, that persons having power to grant a lease should also be enabled to enter into a binding preliminary contract. His object was to do away with the preliminary inquiry proposed in such cases, and which seemed to him, to have been based on a distrust of the gentry of Ireland. He had no distrust of the landowners of Ireland, and therefore he wished to give the 1848 power to enter into such arrangements as were included in his clause.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. DEASYopposed the clause. The real question involved in it was whether a limited owner was to be at liberty to make of his own accord a building lease, involving any amount of land and any amount of rent, affecting materially the interests of the reversioner, without his consent; or whether he was to be placed under the limitations proposed in other parts of the Bill. The House had already resolved that previous inquiry before the Chairman of quarter sessions was in all cases necessary. This was done from no distrust of the landed gentry of Ireland, but from a conviction that such inquiry would be in the highest degree beneficial to all parties; and he hoped the House would not depart from the principles of its previous decision.
MR. HENLEYstated that he could not give his consent to the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), which would enable a person having a life interest only to dispose of property belonging to the reversioner for a period of, perhaps, eighty or ninety years.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought that the power in question might safely be granted to the limited owner under the restrictions which his right hon. and learned Friend would impose by other provisions which he meant to introduce.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the object of the Government was to give as much facility as possible, but they must do that within reasonable limits, and within such limits as would allow them to obtain the general concurrence of the Legislature. They were now asked to enable a limited owner to alienate the whole of his estate, if he pleased, upon building leases in perpetuity, without a preliminary sanction of a court of law being required. That was a proposal which, he ventured to say, had never vet received the sanction of Parliament. He certainly could not think of agreeing to a proposal of the kind; and, however desirous he might be to sanction any proposal coming from a quarter which he should have expected to be very tender of vested interests—he nevertheless felt driven to the necessity of opposing the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 86: Majority 67.
1849§ MR. WHITESIDEproposed the introduction of a clause, granting an appeal from the decision of the Chairman upon any application for a charging order, in the same manner as an appeal by a plaintiff in a civil bill proceeding from a dismiss by such Chairman.
§ MR. CARDWELLobjected to the clause as likely to complicate proceedings and increase the expense, and as in his opinion wholly unnecessary.
§ MR. BUTTsupported the clause, and stated that the process of appeal was both simple and inexpensive.
§ MR. CARDWELLwithdrew his objection, and the cluase was added to the Bill.
§ MR. BUTTproposed the introduction of a clause to the effect that if, before the expiration of twenty years from the date of the completion of an improvement, the landlord should evict the tenant for any cause except non-payment of rent or breach of covenant, the tenant might proceed against the landlord to recover compensation for his bonâ fide expenditure and its unexhausted value.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
§ MR. LANIGANsupported the clause.
§ MR. WHITESIDEopposed the clause, on the ground that it proposed to re-open a question which had been already settled, and on the faith of which many millions of property had been purchased under the title given by the Landed Estates Court.
§ MR. MONSELLsupported the clause.
MR. DEASYsaid, he had always advocated a clause similar to that proposed, and his opinions had undergone no change whatever; but he yielded to the change of circumstances and the current of events in opposing the clause. He did not believe it would be possible to carry any retrospective measure. The Government had introduced the present Bill on the general understanding that no such principle would be recognized in it, and to agree to the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would be a breach of that understanding. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his clause to a division.
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would go as far as any man in the prospective alteration of the law, but he could not agree to the proposition for retrospective compensation.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYintimated that he should vote with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, but would propose that the clause should not apply 1850 to any improvements made on the land conveyed to a purchaser for valuable consideration, or to any other case where injustice might arise from the creation of a new charge on the land.
THE O'DONOGHUEsupported the clause, and stated that there was no change of opinion upon this question among the people of Ireland.
§ LORD FERMOYsaid, the Bill was a delusion, and would not settle the question of tenant-right in Ireland. It was unworthy of Members of the Government to declare their adhesion to the principle involved in the clause now before them, and then to go into the lobby and vote against it. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his clause to a division.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought it was a most unworthy position for a Government to be in to approve certain provisions, and yet not to vote for them because they believe they could not be carried. He was prepared to go as far as any one in favour of prospective compensation for improvements, but would be no party to retrospective compensation, which, he believed, would only lead to confusion.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) that he and his friends were parties to the overthrow of the Derby Government at a time when that Government was pledged to carry a good Tenant Right Bill. It was all very well for those hon. Members who then threw out the Derby Government to argue now for tenant-right, but they ought to have considered the consequences of their act on that occasion.
§ COLONEL GREVILLEregretted that so much time should be lost in the discussion of a question which could lead to no result. He would, however, support the clause, because it was just, and because he had always acted upon the principle embodied in it on his own property; but he felt it was impracticable.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 102: Majority 76.
§ Further proceeding on consideration of Bill, as amended, Adjourned till this day.