HC Deb 24 March 1890 vol 342 cc1798-9

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(12.10.) MR. SEXTON

I think we are entitled to ask for some explanation of the Bill which, as it stands, is a miracle of incompetent draughtsmanship. The second clause says the sum to be remitted shall be a sum equivalent to the sum which the terms of occupancy bears to the full year's rent. I imagine it should be a sum which bears the same relation to a full year's rent as the term of occupancy bears to a full year. Another clause provides that the sum shall be refunded to the person who has received, not the parson who paid, it, and another clause is altogether without meaning. The objects of the Bill may be meritorious; but if it is to find favour with the House it will have to be entirely re-cast.

(12.17.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FAR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University

So far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, and that is I think the only matter which really concerns the House on the Second Reading, it appears to be a fair enough attempt to secure an equitable apportionment of the charges dealt with according to the period of occupation. I see no reason for opposing the principle of the Bill on behalf of the Government; but I am far from saying that the matters to which the hon. Member called attention are not worthy attention in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.