[BILL 52.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 April 1864)

§ MR. LONGFIELD
, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it was purely permissive in its nature, and its object was to facilitate redemption of chief rents by enabling tenants to make arrangements for that purpose. There were several provisions in the Bill which would effectually secure the interests of the remainder-man, and guard him against fraud. The mea sure was passed last Session by the House of Lords, but it was found to be too late in the Session to proceed with it in that 1398 House. He (Mr. Longfield) introduced the Bill in that House immediately at the commencement of the present Session; but the Earl of Donoughmore, having happily recovered from his recent illness he (Mr. Longfield) thought it better that that noble Earl should introduce it first in the House of Lords. He therefore obtained leave to withdraw the Bill, and under the auspices of the noble Earl it was re-introduced into the House of Lords, by whom it had been passed and sent down. Having gone through all its stages in the other House, and received its approbation on two successive years, he trusted that the House of Commons, feeling satisfied that the Upper House had carefully considered all its de tails, would assent to its second reading.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he should be sorry to oppose any measure introduced by his hon. and learned Friend; but it appeared to him that the provisions of the present Bill were not reasonable, and if adopted without considerable alteration might result in grave consequences. According to this Bill the limited owner of an estate—that was, a tenant for life—would be at liberty to effect an arrangement with the owner of the rent by which the rights of the incumbrancer might be ousted for ever. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) could well conceive the existence of a collusive under standing between those two parties to effect an arrangement of that kind, with the object of destroying the rights of all other parties interested in the property. His hon. and learned Friend, in asking the as sent of that House to this measure, thought it was a strong argument in its favour that it had been approved of by the House of Lords; no doubt a decision of the House of Lords was entitled to great respect, but he (Mr. Whiteside) submitted that the Members of the House of Commons were as capable of looking after the rights of property as their Lordships' House. The only safeguard in the Bill against fraud was that the assent of a Judge of the Landed Estates Court was required before the purchase was completed. But the learned Judge would not be compelled to look into the title in case the two contracting parties declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the arrangement. That, in effect, was no protection against a collusive sale and purchase to defraud 1399 incumbrancers. The principle was a novel one, and the Bill itself an important one. It occurred to him (Mr. Whiteside), in reference to such a measure as this, that it was most desirable to have the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. Indeed, he thought that all Bills dealing with property ought to be introduced under the sanction of the Government. He would suggest that the learned Attorney and Solicitor General and the Attorney General for Ireland should look carefully into the provisions of this Bill, and should tell the House whether they thought that property of this kind ought to be disposed of in the way proposed. He should not like to oppose the measure of his hon. and learned Friend; nevertheless, he thought that it ought to stand over for further consideration.

§ MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)
said, it appeared to him that the principle of the Bill was not open to objection. The details of the measure, however, he thought, required the most careful consideration. He was of opinion that much more protection against fraud than that contained in the Bill was necessary. It would be absolutely necessary to provide that if the title for rent should fail the land should cease to be burdened —that if there be a failure on the one side there should be also a failure on the other. He would not oppose the second reading; but he thought the provisions required a great deal of careful deliberation in Committee before the measure was made law.

§ MR. GEORGE
said, he observed that the Bill was confined altogether to Ireland. He thought that if it were good for one part of the United Kingdom it ought to be good for another, and should therefore be extended to England. He saw no pro vision in the Bill for giving notice to the incumbrancer, which was in his mind a great defect in the measure. He was unwilling to vote against the second reading, but it appeared to him to be open to many objections in its details, and he thought it should he referred to a Select Committee, to see if any further safeguard could be provided for the interests of third parties. He thought the Bill an extremely unsafe one, and he doubted if they read it a second time whether they would be able to effectually amend it in Committee.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
considered the Bill unnecessary, save in very exceptional cases. The present law provided 1400 ample means for the sale of all settled estates where such sales were considered advisable. The principle of the Bill was both dangerous and mischievous, and ought not to be further proceeded with. He objected to the Bill being confined to Ire land, because if it was good for Ireland it was good also for England. He moved the second reading of the Bill that day six months.

COLONEL DUNNE
seconded the Motion. If the Bill was read a second time he should move in Committee that its pro visions be extended to England; by that means they would obtain a sure test of the value of the Bill, and if approved for England he thought Irish Members might assent to it.

MR. HAS SARD
said, there was a very analogous measure for England—the Enfranchisement of Land Act. He did not think the Bill was perfect in its details, or that its scope was hardly large enough. It should be extended to corporate bodies. There were plenty of materials in it to be moulded into a good and useful measure, and he hoped, therefore, it would not be thrown out on the second reading.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he approved of the principle of the Bill, though no doubt it was open to some objections in detail, which might easily be remedied in Committee.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
suggested, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, on the understanding that the Law Officers would consider the machinery proposed and the propriety of extending the Bill to England.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, he should be happy to accept any Amendment the Committee might think proper to adopt. His only object was to make the Bill useful and efficient.