HC Deb 07 July 1881 vol 263 cc261-87

Miscellaneous.

Clause 14 (Limited administration for purposes of sale).

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 14, after the word "may," insert "on such terms and conditions, if any, as they may think fit."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. P. MARTIN

wished to remind Members of the Committee who were not there yesterday of the circumstances under which this Amendment was moved. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had moved an Amendment which made it imperative upon the Court, in every case in which a limited Administrator was appointed, to require such Administrator to give security for the due performance of the duties imposed upon him by the Act. The Attorney General for Ireland, in contesting that Amendment, showed clearly and plainly how unnecessary it was, and pointed out that a limited Administrator would have very few duties to discharge. Under those circumstances he had thought that the noble Lord would not further oppose the clause; but, with the perseverance which distinguished the noble Lord, he pressed the matter still further, and at length induced the Attorney General for Ireland to introduce an Amendment which he (Mr. Martin) must characterise as, at the best, unnecessary, but which, in his judgment, would be mischievous and injurious to the interests of the tenants, and likely to give rise to considerable litigation. Turning to the 42nd clause of the Bill, it would be found that the fullest powers were given to the Court in regard to the making of rules, and giving directions of every kind for carrying the Act into effect. In point of fact, the Court had as full powers as he could conceive to be necessary. In this 14th section, which dealt with the appointment of a limited Administrator for the purposes of the Act, Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland now introduced words which must be taken by the Court as an indication upon the part of the Legislature that security must be given. The words of the Amendment were—"On such terms and conditions, if any, as they may think fit." He thought it would not unfairly be contended that these words meant that in every case some security must be given, and that the terms and conditions on which that security was to be taken alone was left to the discretion of the Court. What reasons existed for calling on the limited Administrator to be appointed for the purposes of this clause, as a general rule, to give security? According to the general principles of law, when a limited Administrator was appointed in reference to large estates—for instance, under the Court of Probate, he was not required to give security. Now, in like manner, under this clause, the limited Administrator was the agent to transfer a tenant's estate; and though it was true he received the purchase money, yet the provisions of the Bill did not permit him to retain that money, but directed specially what he had to do—namely— Such limited administrator may pay to the landlord, out of the purchase money, any sums due to the landlord in respect to his tenancy, and may pay the residue of the purchase money to a general administrator (if any) or into Court. The 1st section of the Bill directed that in case of sale— Where a tenant sells his tenancy to any person other than the landlord, the landlord may at any time within the prescribed period give notice both to the outgoing tenant and the purchaser of any sums which he may claim from the outgoing tenant for arrears of rent or other-wise, and in such case the purchaser to whom notice was given paid the amount to the landlord, unless he received notice that the tenant disputed the landlord's claim, in which case he was bound to pay the amount disputed into Court. Thus the duty of paying money into Court was a nominal duty, imposed without any real significance. It was a statutory duty imposed on the purchaser to see that the amount of rent mentioned in the notice should be paid to the landlord. No doubt, Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland was anxious to protect the landlord; but he did not understand that the limited Administrator was to retain the money in his hands for any length of time before he distributed it. What were the express directions of the section? He was to pay the landlord any sums due to the landlord by the deceased tenant; and he was to pay the residue of the purchase money either to the general Administrator or into Court. He felt bound to protest against the costly system of procedure enforced by the Bill in respect of the unfortunate small tenants. They were not dealing in this instance with the case of a large tenant with large interests, but with the ease of some 400,000 small tenants in Ireland, whose entire interest in the farm would, in the gross, not exceed £100. Then, why should the Committee force upon these poor tenants unnecessary costs? First of all, there was the cost of serving the notice on the landlord; then of ascertaining the amount due to the landlord; then of the payment of the sum in dispute into Court; then there was to be the appointment of a limited Administrator, who was to give security. Was this security to be given upon a cumbrous form with a stamp, with two sureties brought in from a distance? and was all this additional cost to be imposed upon the tenant simply for the purpose of warding off the temporary opposition of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock to the passing of this clause? They had further to provide for the additional cost of a general Administrator, and the costs of the proceedings necessary under the Act for giving security in the case of the appointment of a limited Administrator would amount, at the very lowest, to £9, or a deduction of about 15 per cent on the proceeds of the sale which would find their way into the pocket of the tenant. Under these circumstances, he would most certainly enter his protest against the Amendment.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) should consider it necessary, upon so very small a point, to make so very long a speech. If the same course were pursued in regard to every Amendment they would never get through the Bill at all. He only wished to point out to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that if he thought the matter likely to lead to a prolonged discussion, or to occasion any serious difficulty, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not press the Amendment in its entirety, but would be content with part of it. When he proposed the Amendment yesterday, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) said it was not necessary, because the Administrator had to pay the money into Court. But, under the clause as it stood, the Administrator had not to do anything of the kind. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would insert the word "shall" instead of "may," in line 21, leaving out all the rest, in order that the clause might read— Shall pay within the prescribed period the purchase money into Court, and the same shall be subject to such order as the Court shall make, having regard to the claims of the landlord to the purchase money, that would be in accordance with sub-section 9 of Clause 1, which gave the same direction. This would be an order to the Court to proceed as the Court of Chancery would proceed. There would not be a limited Administrator holding the money; but the Act would require it to be paid into Court within a week or a month, as the case might be. The sum of money to be handed over might be large, and if the Government would accept this Amendment, and say that the limited Administrator should pay the money into Court, he would withdraw the previous proposal.

MR. GIBSON

, in expressing a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn, said, the proposal now made by the noble Lord was well worthy of consideration and adoption. It was ren- dered more necessary by the insertion of the words proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend, which, after all, were innocent words, leaving full discretion to the Court; and he could not yet understand why this should be opposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. P. Martin).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he was accused of having accepted, in the spirit, the Amendment of the noble Lord, and then of having made it worse. He had thought the noble Lord was right in the suggestion he had made. It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) said, that the money was directed to be paid to the general Administrator or to the Court; but it was obvious that before payment to either one or the other could be made the limited Administrator must get the money. And if the limited Administrator got the money which belonged to the family of the deceased tenant, he did not see that any damage would be done if the Court had power to require proper and sufficient security to be given by the man who thus got possession of it. It ought, however, to be a simple obligation, and ought not to be costly. The clause provided for a case where the tenant of any holding within the jurisdiction of the Court died, and the Court was satisfied that the tenancy ought to be sold. There was a corresponding clause in the Land Act, which provided that the Court might appoint a proper person to act as limited Administrator, and when the limited Administrator paid the landlord his rent he might dispose of the residue either by paying it to the general Administrator, if there happened to be one, or into Court. A limited Administrator was to be appointed by the Court for the purpose of aiding the work of the Court; but, in the meantime, the family might proceed to have a regular administration taken out, and then the necessity for a limited Administrator would be at an end, and his only duty would be to hand over the money to the general Administrator, who would, no doubt, have given security for the property.

COLONEL BARNE

certainly thought that the Administrator ought to give security; and he considered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had, to a certain extent, broken faith with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). ["No!"] It certainly appeared to him (Colonel Barne) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had. He was present at the discussion when the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock brought on his Amendment requiring the limited Administrator to give adequate security; and the Attorney General said that if the noble Lord would withdraw that Amendment he would bring in another in the same sense. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): In an enlarged sense.] There was not a word in the Amendment about security at all; and there was no reason, according to this Amendment, why the Administrator should be called upon to give security at all. He maintained that the Court ought to insist upon the limited Administrator giving security; and he should like to add, after the words "any person," these words—"other than a lawyer." This was a Bill that would give a great deal of work to the lawyers of Ireland, and they all know what dangerous work it was to have any communication with the lawyers. The Court would probably appoint some lawyer as Administrator, who would run up a long bill which would have to be paid either by the landlord or by the tenant, or by both. He did not know whether the Committee would support the Amendment he suggested—namely, the addition of the words "other than a lawyer;" but if he thought it would meet with support he would certainly move it. He wished to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say with regard to leaving out from the Amendment any obligation to take security.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had inserted words which were larger than those suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, and would provide better terms of security.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word "any," to insert the word "proper."

Amendment agreed to

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 11, line 14, to leave out the words "Whom they think fit."

Amendment agreed to.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved, in page 11, line 21, to leave out the word "may," and insert "shall." The object of this Amendment was to compel the Administrator to pay the money into Court within a prescribed period. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not want to force the tenant to go into Court, but the whole thing was already under the jurisdiction of the Court; and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, it was possible that the Administrator might have to hold the residue for some time. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not believe there was any precedent for such an arrangement. In all money transactions under the Court of Chancery, the money was always lodged in Court, and the Court gave a guarantee to the parties interested. The Administrator might hold the money for some time, perhaps six or 12 months, until it was ordered by the Court to be given up; but it would be much better that the Administrator should be compelled to pay the money into Court within a prescribed period. He therefore proposed to insert the word "shall," instead of "may."

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 21, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

remarked, that if there was a general Administrator, giving security in the ordinary way to the Court, and who was competent to receive the custody of the estate of the deceased, he saw no reason why it should not be handed over. He quite admitted that there ought to be an obligation upon the man who received the money to pay it into Court or to the person entitled to it; and if the noble Lord would slightly modify the Amendment, so as to bring in the general Administrator, that would obviate his objection.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked if the Attorney General for Ireland would take it in this way—that the limited Administrator should pay the money to the landlord within a prescribed period, and should pay the residue to the general Administrator within a prescribed period? He took it that that would protect both the interests of the landlord and the tenant.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Court might impound the grant of administration, so that no one else would be able to do anything with it, just as the Court of Probate at the present often impounded letters of general administration.

MR. LEAMY

said, the 1st clause of the Bill gave power to sell, and he presumed that any sale would take place subject to the conditions prescribed in the 1st clause. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes.] The condition under the 1st clause was that the purchaser should pay the sum due, not to any Administrator, but into Court. How could they compel the purchaser to pay it to an Administrator and also to pay it into Court? Who was to pay the landlord, who might get nothing at all?

COLONEL BARNE

pointed out that if "shall" were not inserted the Administrator might or might not pay the money. It would be purely a permissive clause, by which, if the Administrator did not choose to pay the money, there would be no legal power to compel him to pay the landlord his share, or the other people their share. He considered that the Amendment was absolutely necessary.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought they were wasting a great deal of time about a very small matter of this kind. He thought they might safely trust, in legal matters, to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was always inclined to defer to any legal opinion that might be expressed by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but he declined to accept the rebuke of the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who, because hon. Members on that side of the House thought they had discovered a legal flaw in the Bill, charged them with disrespect to the Attorney General. He had seen the hon. Member frequently take up a much longer time with a speech of his own, and it would better become him in future if he would confine his attention to making his own remarks as concise as he could without interfering with hon. Members on that side. For the present he (Lord Randolph Churchill) withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Provision in case of title paramount).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he proposed to move, in line 25, after the word "holding," to omit the words "in respect of which," and insert "the estate of;" also to leave out the words from "being" to "otherwise;" and then, in line 27, after "tenancy," to insert "from year to year, whether subject or not subject to statutory conditions." The clause would then stand thus— If in the case of any holding the estate of the immediate landlord for the time being is determined during the continuance of any tenancy from year to year, whether subject or not subject to statutory conditions, the next superior landlord for the time being shall, for the purposes of this Act, during the continuance of such tenancy, stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant of the tenancy, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 25, after the word "holding," to insert the words "in respect of which."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

could not say that, as far as he had followed them, he objected to the words of the first Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he must really protest strongly against the way in which Amendments were placed suddenly in manuscript before the Committee. His right hon. and learned Friend would remember that very early, in fact upon the first night of the debate upon the Bill, he (Mr. Gibson) had drawn particular attention to this clause, and had pointed out its obvious and grotesque effects which rendered it unreadable and unworkable. In this case, Amendments had been put down in regard to the clause by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Sir John Holker). The Government knew all the points raised by those Amendments, yet, nevertheless, they waited until they came to the clause, and now proposed to re-cast it by means of manuscript Amendments across the Table. He protested strongly against such a course. Something very like it occurred yesterday. An important modification was proposed, which called upon them to consider at once the bearing of important legal changes. It was most unusual to require the Committee to decide upon Amendments of this nature without an opportunity being afforded for considering their real effect. They were now asked to consider the withdrawal of certain proposals contained in the clause, and the substitution of what practically amounted to a new clause, introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend. The proper course to take was to postpone the consideration of the clause, which would not take up much time when they came to it at the end of the Bill. He had no desire to protract or delay the progress of the Bill; but he should like to have time to consider what the effect of the words proposed to be substituted would be. He had no desire to question in a captious spirit any of the Amendments submitted by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he certainly would like to understand what they meant.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he would at once accept the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend and postpone the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause postponed.

Clause 16 (Provision as to certain small tenancies).

MR. GIBSON

said, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) it was necessary that he should move the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend had placed upon the Paper. It was a very short one on a very short clause, although it dealt with a very important principle. The clause consisted of two paragraphs, each dealing with an entirely distinct and independent topic. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham dealt with the first paragraph, which was to the following effect:— A tenancy for a year certain shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a tenancy from year to year. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend proposed to strike out this section altogether. He ventured to think that it would have been wiser not to have complicated the Bill with all the various considerations and difficulties that must arise by putting this clause in at all. Neither of the paragraphs dealt with a very wide class of tenants; but the principle involved in both of them was large, and might lead to substantial difficulties, especially in regard to this paragraph, which proposed to give the benefit of the statutory term and all the other equities of the Bill to a class even more narrow than tenancies from year to year—namely, to a man who went into possession for a year certain with the exact term indicated—namely, that it was only to last for a year. Was it not unreasonable, under such circumstances, to say that a man who was allowed to take possession of a farm for 12 months certain, the tenancy commencing perhaps last year, and from the very necessity of the case expiring this year—was it not unreasonable to say that in dealing with an existing tenancy for a year certain, they were to find at the middle of the year certain that, by the operation of this Bill, the year certain was turned into 15 years' certain, with the certainty of a renewal at the end of those 15 years? Was such a provision reasonable or necessary? Tenancies from year to year implied by the very term duration and continuance, and the history of this country showed that that was the principle taken. But, on the other hand, the Government now proposed, practically, to place on the same basis the tenant who might have been in the occupation of his farm for 100 years with the tenant whose tenancy implied not duration, but an absolute certainty of termination. Was that reasonable? He ventured to think, whatever they might do with regard to the poorer tenants, that they ought not, at all events, to break the contracts deliberately entered into for 12 months, which were now current, and say to the tenant that he was to be subject to ex post facto legislation now, which would deprive him of the status and conditions in which he entered upon the farm. He might give an instance. Suppose a man desired to go on the Continent, and he let the tenancy of his farm for a year certain, was it not unjust and unreason- able to say to the landlord without warning, who had not before him the slightest idea that such a Bill as this was coming, that he must now accept the man he had taken for a year certain, as a tenant in perpetuity? It would be unjust to include in the Bill tenants in future for a year certain; but there could scarcely be two opinions as to the unfairness of thus dealing with the existing tenants for a year certain. It came to this—that such tenants whose terms were, according to arrangement and stipulation, to expire within a given time, would be able, when the time came, to apply to the Court for a statutory term. He ventured to hope that when his right hon. and learned Friend considered the matter he would see his way towards dealing with the question in a more reasonable manner.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 32, leave out from "A" to "to year" in line 33, both inclusive—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. BIGGAR

said, the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin showed the desirability of leaving the clause as it stood. The word "certain" was a purely technical term. If he took a farm for one year certain he should imagine it meant that the tenancy would not be less than a year, and that it would be impossible to put an end to it in the course of six months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had scarcely stated the case fairly when he said that the tenant who took a farm now would be converted into a present tenant, and would have the same privileges as another tenant who had been in the occupation of his farm for 50 years. [Mr. GIBSON: He would become a present tenant.] He (Mr. Biggar) did not see how that could be so after the passing of the Act; and he thought that the interpretation put upon the clause by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether fallacious. It proved very clearly the difficulty of understanding the legal phraseology of an Act of Parliament when it was declared by a very high authority that the words of a clause meant something very different from the construc- tion an ordinary layman would place upon them. Certainly, in any other place than an Act of Parliament they would mean something very different.

MR. GIVAN

said, the 69th section of the Land Act provided that any tenant, after the passing of the Act, should be entitled to compensation if the landlord resumed the holding. He presumed that the two lines which constituted the first paragraph' of the clause were introduced in order to prevent the landlord from evading the Act by making an agreement to let the farm for a year certain. It would be easy to evade the Act by making the tenancy a tenacy for a year certain; and yet it was a curious fact that if a tenant executed an agreement making his tenancy less than a tenancy from year to year, he would not thereby be excluded from the benefit of the Act of 1870. As he understood the words now under consideration, their object was to prevent an evasion of the Act.

MR. GIBSON

wished to point out that Section 69 of the Act of 1870, referred to by the hon. Member, only related to tenancies created after the passing of that Act.

MR. GIVAN

said, he thought there might be some force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if it were not for the 69th section of the Act of 1870, which turned all tenancies at will, and tenancies less than tenancies from year to year, into tenancies from year to year. It was hardly possible that there could now be any tenancies existing for a year certain; and, therefore, the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no application, and were wholly unnecessary. So far as the retrospective action of the clause was concerned, it was highly improbable that there were any tenancies existing at this moment to which it could apply; but the effect would be that, in regard to all future tenancies, the landlord would insist upon making them for a year certain.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that under the Act of 1870 landlords had been able to make contracts with their tenants for a year certain, and then to keep such tenants under an indefinite series of contracts of the same nature. It had, therefore, been deemed advisable to insert the present clause, which would prevent the continuance of this practice, adopted to defeat the Land Act. The question of what was the precise character of a tenancy for a year certain arose in a curious form a few years ago. The question raised was, whether a tenancy for a year certain was less than a tenancy from year to year? It was regarded as a very knotty point, and the Court to which it was submitted—the Court of Common Pleas—was divided in opinion upon it; but the majority held that it was not less than a tenancy from year to year. Eventually, the case went to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and there five Judges against three again held that a tenancy for a year certain was not less than a tenancy from year to year. This decision drew attention to the operation of the Land Act, and it was found that tenancies for a year certain were thus withdrawn from the operation of the 69th clause of that Act, although tenancies for nine months or for two months, or three months, or any other definite portion of time, would fall within it. A tenancy of six or nine months was less than a tenancy from year to year, and, therefore, came under the purposes of the Act; but a tenancy for a year certain was not less than a year by tenancy, and, therefore, was not under the Act. That was a very anomalous state of things, and it was desirable to remedy it. In deference to what had been urged by his right hon. and learned Friend, he did not think it would be reasonable to extend the retrospective operation of the Bill to tenancies for a year certain, because there could be no existing tenancies for a year certain before the present year. Such tenancies would now be covered, and he thought the Committee might adopt the phraseology of the Act of 1870. He was not opposed, therefore, to the spirit of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he thought the object would be better effected by introducing, after "certain," in line 32, the words "created after the passing of this Act." Such an alteration would provide that tenancies for a year certain for the purposes of the Act would be tenancies from year to year, and by that means all difficulty would be obviated.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would frankly confess that he preferred his own Amendment; but he would, nevertheless, withdraw it in favour of the propo- sition of his right hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, after the word "shall," in line 32, to insert the words "be created after the passing of this Act."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the second paragraph of the clause, said, the discussion which had just taken place rendered it unnecessary that he should press the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. GIVAN

said, he had an Amendment to propose.

THE CHAIRMAN

The words of the clause have now been gone through, and the hon. Member is too late.

Question put, and agreed to.

Extent of Power to Contract out of Act.

Clause 17 (Contracts inconsistent with Act, how far void).

MR. GIVAN

said, the first Amendment stood in his name; but he would not move it.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he desired to amend the clause, which limited or rather stated the amount at which it might be possible for a poor tenant to contract himself out of the Act. His object was to make the words of the clause correspond with those of Clause 12 of the Act of 1870. As the clause stood at present it read, "A tenant of a holding or holdings." He desired to change those words into "a tenant whose holding or the aggregate of whose holdings."

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 39, leave out "of a," and insert "whose."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'of a' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he would not object to the Amendment, as the words proposed to be substituted were those which appeared in the Act of 1870.

Question put, and negatived.

The word "whose" inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 39, after "or," insert "the aggregate of whose."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 11, line 39, after the word "holdings," to insert the word "is."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved, in page 11, line 41, to leave out the words "one hundred and." He said the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper was one of considerable importance, and he confessed that he had some hesitation in moving it. At one time he had withdrawn it, and he had only restored it when he found that the Attorney General for Ireland said that there would still be the power to tenants of £50 and upwards to contract out of the right to compensation given by the Act of 1870. He thought it would be inconvenient to fix two limits—one as regarded compensation for disturbance, and the other to the provisions of this Act. The Act of 1870 had fixed the limit of £50, and the people of Ireland had now become used to that limit, many contracts having been entered into under it. It would be perhaps preferable, therefore, to retain that limit for the future, though he would not object to a compromise at £100. As regarded the provisions of the present Bill, any tenant above £50 and under £150 who contracted himself out of the provisions of the Act of 1870 remained subject to certain conditions, although he waived the right of compensation for disturbance. By this Bill a present tenant was placed in a very strong position, and was given a durable tenancy, which would render him very independent. It might be necessary to protect very small tenants; but as regarded tenants of £50 and upwards, aided by the provisions of this Bill, they would be pretty independent people, and quite as likely to coerce the landlord as the landlord was to coerce them. Therefore, this provision in regard to present tenants was really of very little importance; but, as regarded future tenants, they would hold under the provisions of the Act of 1870, somewhat amended by the provisions of this Bill; and it was very important to them to know under what limit they would be able to contract themselves out of the Bill. As regarded the right of compensation for disturbance, it was regulated by the Act of 1870, which fixed the limit of contract at £50; but as he understood the position of future tenants under this Bill—although he would admit that he found a good many of his hon. Friends near him did not agree with him—if the landlords desired to evict them they would have no protection or security except under the compensation for disturbance clauses. He took it that the landlord, the day after the passing of the Bill, might give a future £100 tenant notice to quit, and such future tenant would be obliged to leave the farm, subject only to a claim to compensation for disturbance. It was quite true that if the landlord, instead of desiring to get rid of him, retained him, he would have protection under the Bill; but, without increasing his rent, it would be in the power of the landlord to turn him out the moment the Act passed. With regard to future tenants, he wished the greatest freedom of contract to prevail; but he wanted to know what would be the position of such tenants, or what security they would have if they contracted themselves out of the compensation for disturbance clauses? Therefore it seemed to him, as regarded future tenants, this clause would really afford no protection to them. He would like to see some arrangement under which there would be but one limit. As the Bill stood, and as he understood the matter, future tenants, if their landlord evicted them, would be entitled to compensation for improvements, and also to compensation for disturbance. He wished to draw the broadest distinction possible between present and future tenants, and he desired to see the position of the present tenant modified, so that, after being converted into copyholders, they might some day become proprietors. There was no reason why the English system should not be applied in the case of future tenancies, where the landlord had bought up the tenant right. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 41, leave out the words "one hundred and."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'one hundred and' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SYNAN

said, he was opposed, not only to the Amendment, but to the limit of £150 set down in the clause itself. As far as present tenants were concerned, he thought the provision perfectly nugatory, because, if the present tenant had power to go to the Court to revise his title, he was not bound to contract himself out of this Act. The limit, therefore, as far as the £150 was concerned, would only apply to future tenants. But this would result in great inconsistency. With respect to the present Bill, it required a £150 limit to contract, so far as the future tenant was concerned, out of the beneficial operation and provisions of the Bill. Of course, as far as the Bill was concerned, the future tenant could only apply the power of sale. But, taking the case of a tenant under the provision for compensation for disturbance in the Act of 1870, it would be found that a tenant at £50 could be contracted out of the benefit of' compensation for disturbance, even upon the enlarged scale in this Bill. Whatever, therefore, the compensation for disturbance might be under this Bill, a £50 tenant could be compelled to contract himself out of the benefit of that compensation. He could understand the Government proposing to apply the £150 limit to the Act of 1870, as well as to this Bill, so that no tenant would be obliged to contract himself out of compensation for disturbance upon the enlarged scale in this Bill who was not rated at £150; and unless the limit of £150 was applied both to this Bill and the Act of 1870 a great injustice would be done to the tenants of Ireland, who might seek for compensation for disturbance.

MR. HEALY

said, it would be a great inconsistency to place the limit of £150 in this Act, while the limit of £50 was left in the Act of 1870. He hoped that the Government would see their way to extend the limit contained in the Act of 1870.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government looked upon the limit of £150 as being the fairest limit. The limit of £50 in the Act of 1870 they regarded as materially too low, considerable pressure having been brought to bear upon small tenants to cause them to contract themselves out of that Act. He was bound to confess, having regard to the working of the limit of the Act of 1870, that the Government had been guilty of a mistake in the preparation of the words of the clause.

MR. PLUNKET

submitted that some ground should be stated for departing from the limit of £50 contained in the Act of 1870. As far as he could see there was no reason for extending that limit. He would like to know whether there was any evidence upon the subject in the Report of the Royal Commission.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Report of the Bessborough Commission did not enter into details in connection with this subject.

MR. W. H. SMITH

understood the Prime Minister to say that it was proposed to rescind the provision of the 12th clause of the Act of 1870, which enabled a tenant at £50 to contract himself out of that Act. He must say that the proposed change, together with the provisions introduced into this Bill in favour of the tenant, would make freedom of contract almost impossible. Unless freedom of contract was to be regarded as something that ought to be discouraged in every possible way; unless a man's independence was a thing that ought to be taken away from him, it did scorn that the old limitation was one which it was desirable to maintain. It appeared to him that the extension of the limit contained in the Act of 1870 was entirely unnecessary if there was ever to be freedom of contract in Ireland.

MR. SHAW

regarded the limit of £150, contained in the clause, as of great use. There was no doubt that the greatest pressure had been brought to bear upon tenants to get them to contract themselves out of the Act of 1870. It would be a decided advantage to take away from the landlord everything like an inducement to get tenants to contract themselves out of this Act.

COLONEL BARNE

understood the Prime Minister to quote the Bessborough Commission as an authority for the £150 limit. He should have thought that it was hardly worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman to quote this Report, after time way in which it had been handled by one of his late Colleagues.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had been rather too cautious in his reference to the Bessborough Commission, which recommended nothing of this kind. The Commissioners recommended that certain descriptions of holdings should be excluded from the operation of the Act; but they did not recommend the introduction of any provision whatever for enabling parties to contract themselves out of the Act.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

regretted that the Government had not taken a middle course between the Act of 1870 and the present proposal—that was to say, to admit a limit of £100. He did not, however, attach much importance to these contract clauses one way or the other. He believed that the Irish tenants were acute enough to calculate what advantages they could get under the Bill. They would see they were placed in a strong position, and would naturally ask themselves why they should contract themselves out of the Bill at all. The landlord had hardly anything left that he could offer to the tenant as a valuable consideration to induce him to contract himself out of the Bill. Assuming, as he did, that it was desirable that free contract tenures should exist, the only way in which these could be created was by leaving the larger tenants out of the Bill. He did not, however, wish to reopen that question, which had been discussed at length on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage); but he wished to point out that, unless he had misread the paragraph in the Report of the Bessborough Commission, the Prime Minister was possibly mistaken. He thought the plain English of the paragraph, although ho admitted it was not quite clear, was that grazing farms, and also farms which were above £50 rental, whether grazing farms or not, should be left to free contract.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 99: Majority 103—(Div. List, No. 293.)

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 2, after "Act," insert "or of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

reminded the Committee that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had withdrawn an Amendment relating to cases in which tenancies under the Ulster Custom had been bought up by the landlord prior to the passing of this Act. The hon. Member having pointed out that it would be very hard upon the landlord, having such holdings in his hand, that they should be subject, when let, to the 1st section of the Bill, had withdrawn his Amendment on the understanding that a clause should be brought up to enable the parties to contract themselves out of that section. He therefore begged to move the Amendment now standing on the Paper in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 2, after "Act," leave out "but," and insert—"Where the tenancy in a holding subject to the Ulster tenant right custom or to any corresponding usage, has been purchased by the landlord from the tenant by voluntary purchase before the passing of this Act, then, if at the date of the passing of this Act the owner of any such holding is in actual occupation thereof, it shall be lawful, in the case of the first tenancy created in the holding after the passing of this Act, for the parties to the contract creating the same, by writing under their hands, to provide that such tenancy shall be exempt from the provisions of section one of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he accepted the Amendment as far as it went; but he was bound to say that it interfered with the Government definition of a tenancy. Because how could a landlord be prevented buying up the tenant right in a present tenancy, entering into occupation, and re-letting the farm subject to no tenant right? The Government contention had been that the tenant had the right of assignment in law fortified by the Act of 1870; that this right adhered to the tenancy and could not be got rid of. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had never entirely admitted that; but if the proposed clause were added, that definition with regard to tenant right would be destroyed. He did not see how they could draw a distinction between the case where the landlord, before the passing of the Act, bought up the tenant right, occupied the holding, and re-let it, and therefore cleared the land of the tenant right, and the case where the landlord who, after the passing of this Act, bought up the tenant right, entered into occupation, and re-let the holding.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that one object of the provision was to liberate land for the purpose of being let, which otherwise might remain in the hands of the owner.

MR. BIGGAR

considered the Amendment mischievous in character, because, although the number of cases to which it would apply was small, it really had the effect of putting a certain number of persons outside the provisions of the Bill. He was quite unable to see why a tenant who took land from a landlord in occupation of it at the time of the passing this Bill should not, at the end of 5, 10, or 20 years, get compensation for disturbance. No doubt, the number of cases to which the Amendment would apply was extremely small; but he could not regard it as in logical sequence with other parts of the Bill.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

pointed out that the Amendment only applied to cases where the tenant contracted with the landlord that the tenancy should be excluded from the operation of the 1st section of the Act. It left the right to compensation for disturbance untouched.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that made very little difference, because the right of compensation only arose when the tenant was turned out. The point was that the tenant could not sell. He did not assume that his interest would be very great; but there was no reason why he should be placed in a different position to other tenants, because the landlord happened to have bought up the tenant right. The sale might have been more or less compulsory, or not bonâ fide at all.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked whether a tenant, in the circumstances defined in the Amendment, would have anything to sell when he went out?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Amendment was intended to meet the case where a landlord had bought the tenant right, and would not let the holding except on certain conditions. A tenant could not be prevented taking the farm on these conditions, and if he chose to contract that he was not to sell, of course he could not do so. He would, however, have the right to compensation for disturbance.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked whether the Government would also except holdings reclaimed and occupied by the owner himself, which had never, in consequence, been subject to the Ulster tenant right?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked if the tenant might sell that security in his occupation which was given by the Act of 1870?

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, the hon. Member opposite was right in saying that the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland did not entirely meet the case which, on a former occasion, he had submitted to the Committee; but he had not understood at the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman committed himself to the extent of assenting to all that he had asked. When he moved the Amendment in question, he (Mr. Brand) pointed out to the Committee that there were three eases in which it was desirable to limit the right of free sale. First, where land was unlet at the time of the passing of this Act; secondly, where the landlord had bought up the tenant right previously to the passing of this Act and had it in his occupation at the time of the passing of this Act; and, thirdly, where the landlord had exercised his right of pre-emption and bought up the tenant right. He understood the Amendment to meet the case where the landlord had bought up the tenant right previous to the passing of the Act; and he believed, also, that the Attorney General was about to deal with the demesne lands in another clause. It therefore appeared that the only case which remained open was that mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the Government adopted such Protean forms of definition that one did not know where to catch them. A few days ago they were speaking of the interest in a tenancy as the value of the holding; and when he ventured to submit that these were two separate things, he was told that no distinction was to be drawn between the Common Law right and the tenant right of Ulster. In the case to which he now drew the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he understood that the land would be clear of any tenant right at all. But it appeared that the tenant in that case still possessed a valuable interest—that was to say, the interest recognized in the 1st clause of the Bill destroyed under its old name of tenant right, but revived under the new name of "reasonable expectation of continuance."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the proposal was to enable the tenant to contract himself out of the 1st section of the Act; but, so far as his Common Law right was concerned, it was not touched by the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the words "in actual occupation," a little too strong. The landlord might possibly have some person occupying the holding for him, but not as a tenant; and, therefore, he suggested that some words should be added to the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland to provide for such cases.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,

To leave out the word. "actual" in line 4, and insert after "thereof" in line 5, "either by himself or any other person on his behalf."—(Mr. Warton.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport were quite unnecessary, inasmuch as any person in occupation on behalf of the landlord would be in the position of servant.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland) agreed to

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, in the absence of the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), he begged to move the Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of that right hon. Member. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the clause applying in such a way as to violate existing leases which might be proved to be contrary to the provisions of this Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 3, after "any," insert "future."—(Lord John Manners.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'future' be there inserted,"

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

drew the attention of the noble Lord opposite to an Amendment on the Paper, which would provide for the case of existing leases perhaps a little more distinctly than the Amendment just moved by him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 4, after "contract," insert "made after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 5, after "Act," insert "or with any of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

said, he had understood the last Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, inasmuch as it was upon the Paper; but as it appeared he was now moving an Amendment from manuscript, he reserved to himself full liberty of considering the matter on Report. The statement that he wished to assimilate the restriction in the Act of 1870 to the restriction in this Bill was made for the first time by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Limited Owner.

Clause 18 (Powers of limited owners).

MR. LITTON

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to provide a larger definition of the term "limited owner" than was given in the 26th clause of the Act of 1870. According to that Act, the term "limited owner" meant any person entitled under any existing or future settlement at law or in equity, for his own benefit and for the term of his own life, to the possession or receipt of the rents and profits of land, and so on. His object was to include persons who held estates for the benefit and for the life of others.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 8, after "1870," insert "and this Act."—(Mr. Litton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 9, leave out "foregoing."—(Mr. Litton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'foregoing' stand part of the Clause."

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, he had been requested to ask the Government to enable trustees for collegiate institutions and other corporate bodies in Ireland to sell to the tenant in occupation under this Act as trustees.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. The word "foregoing" was applicable only to the clauses which had been passed; it had no application to the remaining clauses of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 11, after "Corporate," leave out "Commissioners," and insert "Public Commissioners, trustees for Charity Commissioners, or trustees for collegiate or other public purposes."—(Mr. Litton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he believed the clause as it stood had been framed to meet some special cases. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, and if there was no objection to the insertion of the words they could be added on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was about to move a technical Amendment to insure that the interest of those who claimed after the life of a limited owner should be protected.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 12, after "not," insert "grant a judicial lease or."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. VILLIERS STUART

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was the removal of all unnecessary obstacles in the way of creating fixed tenancies. The clause relating to fixed tenancies had been unanimously approved at meetings of tenant farmers in Ireland; but it appeared to him that the usefulness of the clause would be seriously curtailed by requiring the limited owner to obtain the sanction of the Court for the creation of a fixed tenancy. No doubt, the object of the provision was to protect the interest of the remainder men; but, in his opinion, that would be equally well protected by the simple giving of notice and the payment of the money into Court.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 13, leave out "the sanction of," and insert "notice to."—(Mr. Villiers Stuart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that for the purpose of the clause the giving of a notice would not be of the smallest value.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 17, at the end of the clause, add "Provided always, That the court may make any order by the said Act authorised to be made by any other court thereby empowered, with respect to the laying-out, investment, accumulation, and payment, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, of any such fines or principal moneys paid into the bank in manner by the said Acts prescribed, and for such purpose shall have and may exercise all and the like power, authority, and jurisdiction as such other court as aforesaid."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that the 40th section of the Act gave power to the Land Commission to refer any matter to the. Land Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court.

MR. GIBSON

said, as the matter was connected with the administration of the Act he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Back to
Forward to