§ Where an ejectment is brought for the nonpayment of the rent of a holding to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, and the rent in arrear exceeds two years' rent, the tenant may pay, tender, deposit, or lodge, under sections sixty to seventy-one of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland) 18G0, the sum of two years' rent instead of the sums therein respectively required to be paid, tendered, deposited, or lodged, and upon such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment the tenant shall be in the same position under those sections as if two years' rent were the sum claimed: and the balance of the rent then due shall remain a debt due by the tenant to the landlord, but shall not be recovered by ejectment for nonpayment of rent or distress.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the words "Where an," and to 320 insert instead thereof the words "in the case of any."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in the same line, to leave out the word "is."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the word "and" before the words "the rent in arrear," and to insert instead thereof the word "where."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.) moved to leave out all the words after the words "the sum claimed." He said that his object was to make the payment of a two-years' rent a final discharge of the landlord's claim up to that date. He thought two years' payment was a good payment in the landlord's interest on two grounds—(1) that the tenants in arrear were generally too highly rented, and he held that two years' payment of a high rent was equal to three years' payment of a fair rent, and probably a great deal more; and (2) because the landlord would get the bulk sum of two years' high or rack rent in his hands at once, instead of in driblets of half-yearly payments. He contended that it would be cruelty to a tenant to weight him still further by hanging this millstone of the balance of debt round his neck.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had to suggest to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment that he should withdraw it for the present, in order that the principle it involved might be more conveniently discussed on a subsequent Amendment. If the present Amendment were adopted, the landlord, after receiving the two years' arrears of rent, would be still able to bring a civil action against the tenant for the purpose of recovering the balance of the arrears of rent.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment on the ground put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ MR. JORDANsaid that, after the appeal that had been made to him by 321 the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and by his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): moved an Amendment which would have the effect of relieving the tenant in arrear from all liability on payment of two years' rent.
§ MR DILLONsaid that the object of the clause was to deal with the evil, that it was admitted existed in Ireland, which arose out of the landlords allowing large arrears of rent to accumulate and hang over the heads of their tenants. The fact was that the landlords never expected the rents they nominally exacted to he paid. In good seasons they compelled the tenants to pay the rack rents, but in had seasons they allowed the rents to fall into arrear, and they kept these arrears hanging over the heads of the tenants so as to keep them completely in their power. If this clause had any object at all which he somewhat doubted, it was to free the tenants from this millstone round their necks. He wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the clause as it stood would have no effect whatever in favour of the tenants, in fact it would prove a trap to the smaller tenants. He himself knew cases in which the landlord had allowed 13 years' rent in arrear to accumulate.
§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)No, no.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that he held the proof in his hands. The object of the clause was to enable the tenant to free himself from the load of debt that hung over him cm his paying two years' rack rent, which was equivalent to three years' fair rent. It would be most unfair to the tenant to allow the land lord to receive two years' arrears of rent and then to take civil proceedings that would enable him to adopt the cruel and unjust course of selling up the tenant's interest in the holding. ["Hear, hear!"] The landlords constantly resorted to that method of recovering the arrears of rent. [Cries of "No."]
§ COLONEL WARINGIt is not the landlord who sells the tenant's interest in his holding, it is the tradesman.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that the course was pursued much more frequently by the landlords than by the tradesmen. The tradesman lived among the people and by the people, and therefore it was most unlikely that he would sell out the tenant's interest in his holding. If the clause remained as it stood, the landlord, after having received two years' arrears of rent, might take civil proceedings against the unhappy tenant, and sell out his interest in his holding. [cries of "No."] He did not know what was done in the north of Ireland, but he knew what was done in the south. The course which the landlords took in the south of Ireland was more cruel even than bringing actions of ejectment against their tenants for the non-payment of rent.
§ COLONEL WARINGsaid the hon. Member's knowledge of Ireland was confined to one part of the country. He confessed that he did not know what happened in the North, but he himself knew that there the landlords did not resort to the measures he had spoken of.
§ MR. DILLONI know a great deal more about Ireland generally than the hon. and gallant Gentleman does.
§ COLONEL WARINGBy your own admission you do not know much about the North.
§ MR. DILLONsaid no more cruel or oppressive method of recovering rent could be adopted than that of civil bill process or a writ for ejectment. But it was nothing less than a mockery to put into the Bill a clause dealing with the evil of arrears when relief was simply given from recovery by civil bill process and not from the process of recovery by writ or decree for the amount due.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONsubmitted that the Amendment was in the interests of landlord and tenant alike. Nothing was more calculated to bring odium upon his class than for the landlord to sue for a long series of arrears. These arrears also caused soreness to fester between the landlords and their tenants. By the adoption of the Amendment all landlords would get ample notice that two years' arrears only would be recoverable, and a service would be done to the indolent, negligent, and spendthrift, who would not be allowed to be more than 323 two years in arrear. The sale of the tenant's interest was quite common in three provinces of Ireland, and prevailed largely in the fourth. The six months for equity of redemption was done away with, the landlord went into court as an ordinary creditor, and sued for the amount of rent due as an ordinary debt, he put the farm up for sale, and it was sold for the amount of rent due and perhaps a little more.
§ * SIR J. COLOMBreminded the Committee that under the law as it now stood, if the landlord sued for ejectment and more than two years' rent was due, the County Court Judge could say to the landlord—"You should not have allowed this to accumulate. It is too hard on the tenant that he should pay this lump sum altogether. I can enable you to recover only by instalments." Payment by instalments was a great advantage to the tenant. He agreed in preventing as far as possible that over-credit which was the curse and ruin of Ireland, but he was not in favour of dealing with only one class of debts. What was proposed to be applied to landlords' debts should be applied all round.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they could not import into the Bill of the kind affecting rent a question affecting creditors as a whole, who had a remedy that the landlords had not. That, he contended, was a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Member as regarded the ordinary tenant. The Amendment would do the landlord no injustice, and go a long way towards quieting the position of the tenant. It would leave the landlord in possession of all his arrears intact for all purposes except when the similar remedy of ejectment was attempted. The hon. Member for North Down had said that it was not the practice of landlords in Ulster to proceed against their tenants by civil bill decree. Protestant tenants under Protestant landlords got more fair play than Catholic tenants under Protestant landlords, and therefore he accepted the hon. and gallant Gentleman's protest that it was not the practice of his class to proceed against their Protestant tenants as Protestant landlords proceeded against Catholic tenants. But the Amendment was really of a very attenuated character, and might be accepted by the Government 324 without doing any injustice to the landlord.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that the practice of allowing arrears of rents to grow was a misfortune to both landlord and tenant. But, at the same time it would be a serious thing if Parliament were to take a wet sponge and wipe out debts that were legally due. He therefore adopted an intermediary procedure, and proposed in the clause that while a landlord might recover two years' arrears of rent by an ejectment for non-payment of rent, if he attempted to recover arrears beyond two years he must resort to the methods that were open to the ordinary creditor. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo thought the clause would be a trap for the tenant—that the tenant would be placed by the clause in a worse position than his position at present. He did not think that would be the case, and the hon. and learned Member for Louth, if he understood the hon. and learned Member aright, seemed to be of the same opinion.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURBut if it is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the position of the tenant would not be improved by the clause, I will withdraw it.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe hon. Member did not say so, but I understood the hon. Member for Mayo to say so.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member for Mayo's description of the clause as "a trap for the tenant" could only mean that the clause would put the tenant into a worse position. Under the clause, if the tenant at any time paid two years' arrears he could not be proceeded against for any other arrears by the process open to landlords only, and it would not be possible for the landlords to carry the arrears continually forward. The arrears beyond two years would, under this clause, merely be a debt which was recoverable in the same way as any ordinary debt. The Government were not prepared to accept any Amendment 325 which would place the landlord, with regard to those arrears, in a superior or in an inferior position to other creditors.
§ MR. DILLONcontended that the words "where an ejectment is brought" governed the whole clause. Unless an ejectment was brought, the provisions of the clause did not apply. It simply provided that if the landlord proceeded for the whole debt by ejectment, the tenant could escape by paying two years' arrears. But the landlord had power immediately afterwards, even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon were accepted, to recover the remainder of the debt by the ordinary law. He did not say (hat he would not rather have the clause: but he believed that it would be a trap to many small tenants. They would pay two years' arrears to escape ejectment, and then find themselves face to face with fresh proceedings.
§ MR. J. A. RENTOUL (Down, E.)thought that the construction placed on the clause by the hon. Member for East Mayo was perfectly correct. The very day after the tenant had paid two years' arrears to stay ejectment, the landlord might proceed for the rest by County Court summons.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYhad thought that this was a point on which even the representatives of the landlords might have urged a compromise. A tenant recently came to him and produced a receipt for a half-year's rent which he had just paid. The receipt had been given for the half-year's rent due March 1884. All that time the tenant had been paying rent and had simply kept this old debt alive. The position was absolutely hopeless. This question of arrears ought to have been dealt with as in the Scottish Crofters Act. The Crofters Commission, when they fixed a fair rent, inquired what arrears were due, and decided how much should be extinguished. He did not think the clause would act as a trap to the tenant, because there was no bait attractive enough to bring him into the trap. The hon. Member had spoken of his experience in the North of Ireland. In the South his own experience was that latterly the process of ejectment for non-payment of rent had largely gone into disuse; this was in consequence of an excellent clause in the Act of 1887 326 of the Tory Government, by which the costs receivable by the landlord were cut down to the costs which he would get if he proceeded in the ordinary way. He feared that the clause as it was would be of very limited operation, and that it would not confer on the tenants the advantages which he believed the Chief Secretary himself desired.
§ COLONEL WARINGsaid he had been entirely misrepresented by the hon. Member. In the first place he had not the slightest idea of supporting any process by which any unfair exaction of rent should be taken from the tenant. So far as he could recollect, he had only two tenants at present who were two years in arrears, and the clause would not affect him in the least. When he spoke previously he had in his mind other landlords who appeared to be unfairly-treated by the proposals which were made. He believed most landlords would be only too proud to get two years down.
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLquite agreed that the landlords would be very well off if they were secured in two years arrears of rent, and, in fact, the acceptance of the Amendment would, in his opinion, be a boon not only to the tenant, but to the landlord. It was a very common practice to carry on from one half-year to another old arrears. When ejectments were brought for non-payment of rent, it was a common practice to endorse the ejectment summons with all the arrears due, which might be 12 years in the case of a lease, and six years in the case of an ordinary tenancy. The Court had no jurisdiction to cut down the arrears, and decree for possession must be given. The effect of that heavy burden on the tenant was that the benefit which the law always contemplated—and even before the Statute a Court of Equity always gave the tenant in ejectment for non-payment the right to redeem by paying up arrears and costs—was completely frustrated, because no tenant could possibly pay up 12, 6, or even four years' arrears of rent. Now, the object of the section was to obviate that, and to say that an ejectment should only be brought in respect of two years' arrears, and the tenant could redeem by the payment of two years' rent. Some wise sages of the law in Ireland had often stated that the best landlord was 327 the landlord who did not allow any heavy arrears of rent to become due; because it hung like a millstone round the tenant's neck. If this Amendment were accepted, that mischief would be obviated, and the tenant would start with a tabula rasa—a clean bill between himself and the landlord, than which nothing could conduce more to the happiness and good feeling between the parties.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that there was another objection to the Amendment in addition to that which had been previously stated. It was that if the Amendment was accepted the landlord would be tempted to do exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would be prevented from doing by the Amendment—namely, seek to recover the rent by an act of ejectment on title. It would not be desirable to give that amount of encouragement to a procedure of that kind; and he was, therefore afraid that while the particular objection to the Amendment was not so strong as he previously believed it to be when he spoke, yet there was an objection equally strong against its acceptance.
MR. T. M. HEALYargued that in this matter Ireland was entitled to the same treatment as Scotland. He quoted Section 6 of the Crofters Act, and contended that in a limited sense the same change of remedy and incidence of harshness of the existing law should be applied to Ireland.
§ * SIR J. COLOMBsaid that there was no analogy between the Crofters Act and the present Bill. The Crofters Act was limited in its operation to a very small area of Scotland, and only to a limited and poor class of the community. This Bill, on the other hand, applied to the whole of Ireland, and to all sections of the community paying and able to pay high rents.
§ MR. M. McCARTAN (Down, S.)asked for a promise that at a future stage of the Bill a provision would be inserted making two years' rent irrecoverable. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to the suggestion that words should be inserted in the clause which should deal with the matter. He thought he might appeal to the Member for North Down. Before sitting down he thought it only fair to say that knowing something of 328 the business there was no question of cruelty or harshness on the part of the rich landlords. [Cheers.] It was not of that class of landlords that they complained.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONdisclaimed any idea of preventing landlords asserting their rights, but he wished to call attention to the special cruelty of such a case as this: If a tenant owed a year's rent, say £50, the landlord could come in and seize property worth £500. The tenant in that case was completely at the mercy of the landlord. He contended that they were in this clause leaving open the door to the imposition of great cruelty. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remedy this defect in the Bill.
§ MR. RENTOULthought the Amendment might be accepted. If the proposal would not affect good landlords, why not apply it to those who would not do their duty? There seemed to be a general agreement on both sides of the House.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not accept the Amendment. He believed it would be injurious to the tenant.
§ MR. HAYDENappealed to the right hon. Gentleman, from a long experience to accept the Amendment. Only recently he had known of the case of the imprisonment of a whole family. He knew of cases where the arrears accumulated since the famine years, but where the landlord accepted one year's rent there was no trouble afterwards. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his favourable consideration.
§ MR. DILLON, who was received with protests, said this was an important matter, and he agreed with the Member for North Roscommon. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive future tenants of all their rights under the Land Act. He therefore joined in the appeal to the Chief Secretary.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the privilege the landlord had had hitherto of using ejectment for any number of years' rent would be destroyed by the clause. That was a large concession to the tenants. The point raised would be carefully considered, but he could not promise that it should be dealt with on Report.
§ MR. HAYDENsaid he was satisfied with this statement, and would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYproposed to omit the words "shall remain a debt due by the tenant to the landlord, but," so as to provide that when the tenant had paid two years' rent in respect of arrears the balance of the rent then due should not be recovered by ejectment for non-payment of rent or distress. The hon. Member said this would give the landlord a personal action for rent against a person against whom he had no action before.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDagreed to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. SMITH BARRYintimated that he would not proceed with his intention to move the addition to the clause of the following words:—
This section shall not apply to any rent due before the passing of this Act until the expiration of two years from such passing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to add to the clause the following words:—
Nor shall the holding be sold or affected by or under any judgment, execution, or proceeding taken in respect of such balance of rent.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURremarked that the Government had already considered the general question, and if the right hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, it should be considered at the same time.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 13,—