CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 17 May 1886)

§ MR. GILHOOLY (Cork, W.)
I beg to move that the House disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, for the reason that there is no reason why a tenant holding under a statutory term should not have the same privileges as a tenant holding under a lease.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I beg to move that the House disagree with the Lords Amendment. It appears, at first sight, hardly more than a verbal Amendment; but two different kinds of machinery were provided for registering trees, and as the Bill stood originally the most simple was adopted, but by the insertion of these words, "second section of the," you revert to the old discarded machinery.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
I beg to move that the House do agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Amendment. The reasons for disagreeing are practically the same as those advanced for moving to disagree with the first of the Amendments. The Lords Amendment, in this case, is practically a consequential Amendment, arising out of the first; therefore, having disagreed with the one, it is necessary to be consistent that we should disagree with the other.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I beg to move that we disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. I really do not understand it. It provides— 1258 That no claim may be made under the provisions of this sub-section or the preceding subsection exceeding in amount the value of the trees at the time of the claim. I believe it is an ordinary principle of law that a man may claim what he likes, however unreasonable it may be. It is one thing to make a claim, and another thing to get that which is claimed. On the other hand, if this merely says a man is not to get more than he is entitled to, that is an elementary principle of law, and does not require the wisdom of the House of Lords to support it.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
I think if the Amendment were altered so as to read, "exceeding in amount the value of the improvements at the time of the claim"—leaving out the word "trees," and substituting "improvements"—I think we might agree to it. We should in that way limit the meaning of the word "improvements" to that in the Act of 1870. The hon. Member's proposal was made in the House of Lords; but it was found that if accepted it would have an operation that was not contemplated. In the Act of 1870 it is provided that not only shall the tree be taken into account, but also the planting and subsequent labour upon it, the idea being to give the tenant the benefit resulting from such improvement to the letting value of the laud. I think the objection may be met by substituting "improvements" for "trees."

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
The Bill, as originally passed by this House, precisely accords with the right hon. Gentleman's idea.

§ MR. JOHN MORLEY
The proper method of dealing with this would be to accept my Amendment, and substitute the word "improvements" for "trees."

§ MR. CHANCE
I withdraw my Motion to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. JOHN MORLEY
I beg to move to insert the word "improvements," in I place of the word "trees" in line 4 of the Amendment.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
I beg to move that the House agree to the Lords Amendment, subject to the Amendment I have put upon the Paper—namely, line 7 of Amendment to page 2, line 4, after "Act," to insert— But such claim may be made notwithstanding that the tenant has been evicted for non-payment of rent.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The course for the hon. Member to take would be to move to amend the said Amendment.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
Then I propose to amend the Lords' Amendment by adding at the end of it— But such claim may be made notwithstanding that the tenant has been evicted for non-payment of rent.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I beg to move to disagree with this Amendment. Clause 4 is intended to remedy a very serious defect in Section 10 of the old Act. That section is very carelessly drafted; and it is almost unintelligible, as many of the sections of the old Act are. It might be urged that if a tenant, who had registered a certain number of trees, cut down a single tree the section would come into operation, and the landlord would be entitled to come in and take the property from him. That would be a great hardship. A man might have a large number of trees—500 perhaps—and if he cut down one miserable old trunk his right to the rest 1260 of the 500 would be gone. That is the reason why this clause should be left in the Bill, to clear up the doubt which might exist. It provides that so long as the tenant remains on his holding he shall have the real benefit of the Act, and that it shall only be on his quitting the holding that the landlord may say, "You must not take the trees."