HC Deb 30 June 1893 vol 14 cc634-5

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, he wished to move the Second Reading of the Bill, the object of which was to enable a very small number of long leaseholders to obtain the benefits of the Act.

COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)

I object.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the Bill had become necessary owing to a decision of the Court of Appeal. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his objection, and so frustrate the intentions of the late Government.

COLONEL WAKING

thought the Bill was one which should be explained.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the Bill did not involve a new principle, or even an extension of the principle sanctioned by Parliament. Long leaseholders had been for a long time excluded from the benefit of the Land Act. They were admitted to its benefit by the late Government; but a small number of them had unintentionally been left out, as was discovered in a recent decision of the Court of Appeal. The Bill was intended to cover those left out by a technical mistake.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said, it would be unfortunate that a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, which was to benefit the tenant farmers, should be blocked by the Conservative friends of the hon. Member. This would expose the hon. Member to great obloquy, and he therefore appealed to the hon. and gallant Member not to persist in his objection.

COLONEL WARING

said, the real object of the Bill had not been explained. They had not been told why these long leaseholders had been excluded.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that long leases made before 1860 had been excluded from the Act by a mere mistake in the drafting, although long leases made since 1860 were included. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was in favour of the Bill. The number of long leaseholders to whom the Bill would apply was a mere handful, and he thought it would be very unjust that they should be excluded from the benefits of the Act by reason of a purely technical mistake.

COLONEL WARING

said, that after this explanation he would not persist in his objection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Motion agreed to.

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