HC Deb 05 May 1884 vol 287 cc1318-9
MR. MACFARLANE

asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the issue of notices of removal being served upon tenants in the Highlands and Islands, whose holdings are yearly tenancies; if such notices have been served upon the old practice of forty days since the 1st of January 1884, in contravention of the following Clause in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883:—Clause 21, sub-section (b)— In the case of leases from year to year, or for any period less than three years, not less than six months before the termination of the lease; and if such notices of forty days are now legal?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

I understand it is the fact that since 1st January, 1884, certain, notices of removal have been served upon tenants in the Highlands and Islands, who hold as yearly tenants upon 40 days' warning prior to Whit Sunday. It is not usual, in answer to Questions in this House, to give legal opinions in regard to matters in difference between private persons; but as the point raised in the Question is of general interest, I have no objection to state my view with respect to it. In the case of a yearly lease which expires at Whit Sunday next, I do not think that a 40 days' notice is in contravention of Clause 28, sub-section 6, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883. That Act only came into force on January 1, 1884, so that the six months' notice required by it in the case of yearly leases could not possibly be given between January 1 and Whit Sunday, and the Act is not declared to be retrospective. It therefore appears to me that until the Act has been at least six months in operation, so as to make a six months' notice under it possible, the former law as to notice must remain in force. Any other construction would involve the startling result that the Act would constitute a statutory and compulsory renewal for a year, against landlords and tenants alike, of all leases expiring at Whit Sunday next—a thing which was certainly never intended, and was not even suggested, when the Bill was before Parliament.

MR. MACFARLANE

With reference to the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish to ask this further Question—If his attention has been called to the wording of the clause, as quoted in my Question, requiring six months' notice, not after the passing of the Act, but before the termination of the lease? Is there anything in this Act passed in August last year which would prevent a landlord from giving six months' notice last October? This Act is merely to prevent eviction, and not to prevent giving notice. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not answer the Question, I will put it on the Paper.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

I have answered it already. I am familiar with the Act irrespective of the Question; and I have already stated that, in my judgment, the Act is in no degree retrospective.

MR. MACFARLANE

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say it would have been unlawful to have given notice in October last?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

That would not have been, in my judgment, a notice under the statute at all, because the statute had not come into operation.