§ The Land Law Acts shall apply and be deemed to have always applied in the case of tenancies created by a limited owner, or by a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, where no fine or premium was received, and the tenancies shall not be or be deemed to have been determined (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross undervalue) by the cesser of the interest or possession of such limited owner, mortgagor, or mortgagee, and the person 293 entitled on such cesser to receive the rent of the holding shall stand in the relation of landlord to the tenant of the holding, and have the lights and he subject to the obligations of landlord accordingly.
§
Another Amendment proposed (20th July) at the end of the clause to add the words—
(2) This section shall not apply to a tenancy in a holding which at the date of the letting was demesne land—where the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion-house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words he there added."
§
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the proposed Amendment the words—
where the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ Debate resumed:—
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)said that on Clause 2 he moved an Amendment, to which the Amendment of the Chief Secretary bore more or less of a resemblance, except that his right hon. Friend at the end of his Amendment added an utterly unnecessary qualification. The question at issue was only of trilling importance, but at the same time he could not see why his right hon. Friend should refuse to omit the words he, by his Amendment, asked to have struck out. All he asked was that if a limited owner chose to let, his demesne to tenants, and thereby undemesned his residence, the remainderman—the son, or whoever else he might be—should not be bound by a transaction which was fraudulent in its character. Therefore, he proposed to leave out words in his right hon. Friend's Amendment which would force the remainderman after he had inherited the estate to go to considerable trouble and expense in establishing his right to resume possession of the land as demesne.
§ MR. EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)said that when his hon. and gallant Friend moved his Amendment 294 on Clause 2, there was a general feeling that it should be accepted, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated he took no exception to it, but that he did not think the words proposed were quite apt. The, Attorney General for Ireland also said that it was only justice that some such Amendment should be accepted. The Amendment was then withdrawn, but it was only withdrawn because it was felt that it would be more appropriately moved to Clause 7 than to Clause 2. Under those circumstances, he could not see why the Chief Secretary should have neutralised the object of the Amendment by the words which the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend proposed to omit. A good deal had happened since the first night the Bill was in Committee, but, he did not think anything had happened that would justify his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in going back on his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment moved by his hon. and gallant Friend. But he hardly thought his right hon. Friend knew the effect of his own Amendment. If it passed in its present form the Amendment would only apply at all to cases where the residence was let with the demesne. In other words, if the limited owner let the residence and the demesne this proposed exception would not apply at all, and the remainderman would be deprived, not only of his demesne, but of his residence. If the residence as well as the demesne was included in the letting no question could arise as to the value of the residence to the remainderman. But why should demesne land be taken away for ever from the remainderman unless the remainderman was able to show the value of the demesne to the residence? If the remainderman were well oil", he might wish to have his demesne, though it might have no effect on the value of the residence. The very fact that a residence had less land with it might, in a country like Ireland, make it more valuable. Was it not a hardship that, in every case where demesne was let away by the tenant for life, the only way by which the remainderman could get it back was by instituting a suit before the Land Commission? A case under this section, as it was framed, coming before the Land Commission, would, in all probability, be a letting by 295 a limited owner in the life of the limited owner. He was aware that there were cases which had been held to be demesne, and which were not in any sense properly demesne. But he was putting the case of land which was incontestably demesne at the time of letting, and which ought to be preserved to the remainderman.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he should be sorry to do anything contrary to any pledge which he had given, but this Amendment of the Government was put down as a result of the discussion on Clause 2. There had been no change in the drafting of the Amendment. He should be perfectly ready to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which was on the Paper, excluding the case where the mansion house was let with the demesne; but he did not think that it was necessary. If the mansion house were let with the land, the holding would be a residential holding, which could not come within the Acts. The Amendment of the Government secured that the limited owner should not deprive the remainderman of the amenities which he might expect to enjoy with the mansion house. The reason why he would rather not accept the present Amendment was that there might be a piece of demesne which was quite out-lying, and which it would be perfectly proper for the limited owner to let, because the amenities of the residence would not be curtailed.
§ Question put:—The Committee divided:—Ayes, 310; Noes, 46.—(Division List, No. 341.)
§
MR. CARSON moved to insert in the proposed Amendment after the word "where" the words—
the mansion house is let with such demesne land or
§ He said he understood his right hon. Friend was prepared to accept the Amendment if he showed the necessity of it, and he thought he should be able to show that it was absolutely necessary. He thought his right hon. Friend would perceive that the Amendment as it at present stood only applied to demesne land apart from the residence. His right hon. Friend said it was unnecessary to make any reference to a case 296 where a mansion house was let with the demesne land because in that case it would be a residential holding. He thought his right hon. Friend was in error in that. The section dealt with a case where the holding was in the hands of a tenant. If it was a case of an absolute owner they would destroy the character of the demesne land. Therefore they came to deal with a question where, so far as any argument on the section could be based, the character of the demesne land would be gone, and they would have to consider the mansion house and the land as if it was an ordinary farm. In that case the whole question that would arise would be whether the land was of more value than the house, or the house of more value than the land.
MR. T. M. HEALYwas understood to object to the Amendment, on the ground that undue advantage was being sought by it for demesne lands in the interests of the landlords. The Government had put down an Amendment which was really a concession to the landlords, and the only thanks they received for doing so was that the representatives of the landlords had plied Amendment upon Amendment on the concession.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken against the law of every sort of settlement, but he had not addressed a single observation to the Committee against the Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)said he apprehended that the whole object of hon. Members who were arguing this matter from the landlords' point of view was to secure that the demesnes which the landlords wanted to live in should be preserved to them. With that he had much sympathy, but it was monstrous to allow Amendments to be moved for that object ostensibly, and then allow them to be applied to cases where evidently the lands had wholly lost the character of demesnes. The word "demesne" was differently understood in England and Ireland. 297 In Ireland the Courts had held that practically any good house held by a country gentleman with land about it was a demesne for the purposes of the Land Acts, and the Amendment, if adopted, would interfere with that decision.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he believed those Amendments were raised on the part of the landlords, not because they wanted the mansions to live in, but for exclusive purposes. If not, he would ask whether there would be any objection to insert at the end of the proposed Amendment the words—
And the Court is satisfied that the mansion house is bonâ fide required as a residence for the remainderman.There ought to he some evidence to show that the mansion house was really required for a residence, and he contended that the addition of the words he had suggested would meet any injustice against the remainderman. He should move the addition of the words presently, and in the circumstances he should expect that hon. Members opposite would support him.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CARSON moved further to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the word "would," the words "injuriously affect the rights of the remainderman, or." He remarked that this Amendment raised the question of value. Surely, the question of value was not the proper mode to see whether or not the section ought to apply, but rather the question whether the rights of the remainderman were injuriously affected.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that the introduction of the proposed words would have the same effect as if the Government had accepted the words which were a short time ago suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CARSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would accept his next Amendment—namely, to leave out "diminish the value," and insert "interfere with 298 the enjoyment." He would move that Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALY, rising to a point of Order, asked if this Amendment was not the same as the last. They had negatived the words "injuriously affect the rights of the remainderman." He submitted that to interfere with the enjoyment must injuriously affect the right. The greater included the less.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought there was a distinction between the two sets of words, though it was a very fine one.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was one point which had escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, namely——
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURobjected to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be balanced by something else. His position was that it should be bonâ fide shown that all the objections to the fixing of a fair rent went, not to the question of rent, but to the question of the reasonable user of the mansion house. He was not at all opposed to any reasonable protection by landlords of their mansion houses. He should be sorry to think that because a landlord let for two or three years, he would be deprived of his mansion house, but a letting for temporary convenience had always been considered ample protection.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
MR. T. M. HEALY moved to add to the words last inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
and the Court is satisfied that the mansion house is bonâ fide required as a residence for the remainderman.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURopposed the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYdid not wish to indulge in the hackneyed complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite that no Amendments had been accepted, but simply desired to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College that, as a result of prolonged whines and complaints, he had succeeded in obtaining a most valuable 299 and substantial Amendment in the landlord's interest, while the Government had refused everything to counterbalance it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney) moved to add at the end of Mr. Gerald Balfour's proposed Amendment:—
Provided that no decision that this section applies to any demesne land, made in the absence of the person entitled on such cesser as aforesaid, shall be binding on him, and that he shall he entitled within the prescribed time after such cesser and notice of the order containing such decision to apply to the Court to rescind such order.
§ He said the simple object of the Amendment was to prevent a decision being arrived at against the remainderman without the remainderman being present. What he proposed was only the carrying out of the machinery which he was quite sure the Chief Secretary intended.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment because it was too wide, and, if accepted, would practically nullify all the provisions of the 7th Clause, because it provided that no order made in the absence of the remainderman should be binding on him; because it also provided that the remainderman should be able to set aside an order that was not binding upon him at all—a most curious provision. It would destroy all finality, and leave the tenant in the position that he would never know when he might be turned out. But the Government were most anxious to secure the rights of the remainderman, and they would be prepared to insert words authorising Land Commissioners to make rules to meet the cases contemplated by the hon. Member.
MR. T. M. HEALYwished to know how a tenant on the demesne was to become acquainted with the landlord's marriage settlements. He had seen settlements which were as voluminous as the family Bible. Half the land in Ireland was under settlement, and the tenants of every landlord who was a limited owner would be affected by this Amendment.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYwished to point out that it was already provided by Statute that the Court could direct 300 that any person having an interest in the property should be served with notice of the proceedings, and that such persons should have such rights with regard to appearances as if he were the party originally served. Surely it could be assumed that the Court would do its business.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)asked whether the Attorney General intended that it should be incumbent on the Land Commission to make rules forcing the tenants to serve notice on every remainderman. In some cases there might be 80 or 40 remaindermen. He objected to this proposed importation of the luxury of Chancery practice. It was out of place. He could not imagine a provision more likely to cause expenditure in solicitors' fees, and it would meet with strenuous opposition. In cases where a tenant applied to have his rent fixed, and no obligation was taken by the landlord on the ground that he was a limited owner, did the right hon. Gentleman propose that these notices must be served? In cases of that kind the tenants might get his fair rent fixed without suspecting that the owner had a limited interest. If notices could be dispensed with in those cases, why should they not be dispensed with in those cases where the tenant had been informed that the owner was a limited owner? It should be left to the Land Commission to say that notice must be given in cases where injustice would result if it were not given.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsuggested that before discussing further the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland, it would be well to dispose of the Amendment actually before the Committee.
§ MR. CARSONcontended that some words ought to be introduced for the purpose of protecting a remainderman who had not had an opportunity of appearing at the hearing which deprived him of the mansion house and demesne. A remainderman who had not had notice should have a right to have the question investigated when he came into the property. It should be borne in mind that up to this time lettings by a tenant for life had not been binding on the remainderman, and therefore there had been no necessity for insisting upon his being protected in this way.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when the Act of 1881 was passed it was intended that the Measure should apply to tenants for life. That construction was put upon the Bill by Lord Cairns, who thought it reasonable that the remainderman should be bound by a fixed fair rent. What he thought unreasonable was that the head landlord should be saddled with the acts of the middleman. Lord Cairns moved an Amendment carrying out his views, and the House of Lords agreed to it, but when the Bill returned to the House of Commons, the Government determined to keep Section 15 of the Bill as it originally stood, on the ground that in that form it covered both the case of the tenant for life, and the case of the middleman, and no man except an Irish Judge would think that it did not.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that his object was that no arrangement binding a remainderman should be made behind his back. However, after what the Attorney General had said, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. CARSON moved to add to the proposed Amendment, after the words last inserted:—
Provided always that when the landlord is a Limited owner, or mortgagor, or mortgagee in poseession, no order shall he made without notice to the person entitled on such cesser.
§ MR. J. J. CLANCYsaid that the assumption underlying both this Amendment and its predecessor, seemed to be that the present race of Irish landlords were such a parcel of rogues that, the remainderman must be protected against their acts.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYexpressed the opinion that this Amendment would make it impossible to administer the Act in a great many cases. Let them consider the case of a marriage settlement, under which a remainder was given to a man's eldest son. A long time might elapse before that son came into existence, and the effect of this Amendment would be that the tenants of the tenant for life would be kept out of Court until after the birth of the son.
§ MR. CARSONmaintained that under the rules of Court no difficulty ought to arise in administering the Act. When 302 settled property was being dealt with, if the remainder-man could not be found, the Court, would appoint somebody to represent him. The Land Commissioners were to have power to make rules to carry out the Amendment which he proposed. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that with regard to the Land Court the only matter to be considered was how to transfer the landlord's whole interest to the tenant in the easiest possible terms; but as long as any rights of property were left to the landlords they ought to be protected in the ordinary way.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that he was inclined to accept the Amendment if the right hon. Member would consent to the insertion after "order" of the words "to fix a fair rent for the first time." It was not desirable to fix a fair rent on a man's land in his absence, and it was desirable that an order should be final and binding on all parties. Therefore, when an application was to be made, persons representing those entitled in remainder ought to have notice. This Amendment provided for such notice. It would be the bounden duty of the Court, when they found a provision of this character dealing with demesne lands, and lands in possession of a mortgagee or mortgagor, to ascertain for themselves whether the man was the absolute or only the limited owner before they made another order.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he could hardly believe the Government were serious or were acting bonâ fide in this matter. They were accepting an Amendment which absolutely rendered nugatory the entire clause. The words "demesne lands" had been very skilfully brought in, but the Amendment did not touch merely demesne lands. The tenant in County Mayo or Donegal, who did not perhaps know a word of English, and had never heard of a settlement, when he served a notice to fix a fair rent was not to get his fair rent unless he had an investigation of the title—he must inquire into the title of his landlord, and find out whether the lands were in settlement or not. The Amendment did not provide for the trustees of the settlement being served, and it would affect half the tenants in Ireland. Of the 600,000 Irish agricultural tenants this Amendment 303 hit 300,000, because half the land of Ireland was under settlement. Furthermore, this was being done without there being any suggestion of a grievance. The law had been carried on for 15 years, and where was the remainderman who had been hit? There was only one such case, and he would only have to read to them the comic history of the settlement made by the landlord in that case to show them that there was no grievance. This Amendment was drawn so as to do the tenant most damage. He protested against the Amendment, which he believed had been accepted unthinkingly, and he hoped the Government would, on consideration, see their way to withdraw their assent to it.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the hon. and learned Member was mistaken as to the number of tenants who would be affected by this provision. Surely it was a very exaggerated statement that half the tenants in Ireland would be deprived of their tenancy on such terms that when the life of a limited owner came to an end their right to have a fair rent fixed would also come to an end.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his object was to show that the hon. and learned Member was entirely wrong in imagining that such a very large number of tenants would be affected. As regarded the practical difficulties, not being a lawyer he could not appreciate them, but he was advised that there would not be the enormous difficulty that was suggested.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)said a more insidious Amendment had never been proposed. The late Mr. Wentworth, the Secretary to the Land Commission, had said that every tenant who happened through his own misfortune, or accident, to be the tenant of land under settlement, was surrounded by a ring fence of legal objections to get his legal rights. In Ireland disputed titles were very common, and it was a cruel thing that when a man went to the Court to get a fair rent fixed, he should have to take steps to settle the landlord's right.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas understood to say 304 that, under the Bill, the Land Commission would have power to nominate someone to represent the necessary interests.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)thought it must be clear that, if he might say so without disrespect, the Government had slipped into the acceptance of this Amendment without a very full acquaintance with its effect. This clause was, in substance, the same clause that was in the Bill of last year, and he felt that the acceptance of this Amendment would defeat the whole object with which the clause was conceived last year, and, he supposed, the object of the present clause also. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his assent to the Amendment, for the time at all events.
§ MR. CARSONsaid that at a very early stage of the discussion upon this Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that he was going to accept it. After all, what did the Amendment come to. It merely proposed that in the case of tenants for life and other limited owners the tenants of holdings under them should not be entitled to go into the Land Court and have judicial rents fixed unless notice were given to the remaindermen. It would not be just that, in the case of large demesnes of 300 and 400 acres, the tenants for life should be entitled to undemesne the property by cutting it up into holdings and allowing judicial rents to be fixed for those holdings without notice to those who were entitled to the property in remainder. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would accept the Amendment, which proposed to prevent such injustice being done to the remaindermen.
§ MR. KNOXsaid that if the Amendment were accepted the Land Commissioners would have to make inquiries into the title of every holding with regard to which they were asked to fix a fair rent, with the result that every owner would have to disclose his title to his property to the Court and to the public. It would be very hard upon the landowner that he should have to make that disclosure, but it would be still harder upon the tenant who was seeking to have a fair rent fixed if he was compelled to wait for the rent to be fixed 305 until the title of his landlord to his property had been investigated. ["Hear, hear!"] He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland not to accept the Amendment then, but to reconsider the whole question, and bring up a fresh Amendment on another occasion. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the number of tenants who would be affected by the Amendment was not very large, although, undoubtedly, they were not unimportant. Unless the Amendment were adopted the remaindermen would be placed at the mercy of the limited owners. In his view the Amendment would not deprive the tenant of any privilege which he already possessed, and would not occasion any delay or expense to him. There were still some 200,000 tenants in Ireland who had not gone into the Court, and a proportion of those tenants knew that, under the existing law, if they did go into Court they would do so under the possibility of having the penalty hanging over their heads of having the proceedings set aside on the ground that their landlord was only a limited owner. The clause as proposed to be amended would confer upon such tenants the right to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed, subject to their giving notice to the remaindermen. In his opinion, this would confer a new boon upon the tenants, although, no doubt, it would throw an extra responsibility upon the Land Commissioners. Unless the Amendment were adopted, permanent injury might be done to the remaindermen. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)confessed that the proviso which had now been accepted by the Government appeared to neutralise the value of the clause. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman quite underestimated the number of tenants who might be affected by it. There were an enormous number of present tenants who had never come into the Land Court at all, but had kept out of it for one reason or another; and he made that assertion from tolerable experience and knowledge of the country, and of the working of the Act. As was well known, the majority of Irish properties were in strict settlement, and of the remainder 306 the vast majority were mortgaged. Under the Act of 1881 there was no distinction made between tenants under limited owners and under mortgagors, and others not capable of creating a legal estate; but the judges, who had to deal with these cases from a very technical standpoint, had in one or two cases decided that, if the tenancy was created by a tenant for life or mortgagor in possession, such tenant was deprived of the benefit of the Act. The very object of the clause was to obviate that, and that was the object with which a similar clause was introduced in the Bill which was read a Second time last year. The clause as it stood up to this was a perfectly fair and reasonable one. It enabled the Court to get rid of the technical rule he had described, and against which the Act had always shown an inclination to struggle. It enabled the Court to get rid of that rule when they found that no damage was really done to the landlord by reason merely of the fact of the estate being in settlement. This proviso took away the whole of that benefit. The moment the unfortunate tenant came before the Court, the Commissioners would ask the landlord or the representative of the landlord: Are you a limited owner, or are you a mortgagor? The answer would be: "I am"—one or either. What was the consequence? The consequence would be that the hands of the court would be tied. With this proviso they might as well expunge Section 7 from the Bill altogether.
MR. T. M. HEALY, having cited the case of "Jones v. Aylward," said that, according to what the First Lord proposed, Parliament would be sacrificing the interest of the tenant for life in order to help the remainderman, because, if there was one principle of English law more deeply rooted than another it was that a man was entitled not to show his title and have it tattered and torn before his eyes. Here, in order to benefit the remainderman, the tenant would have to ask his landlord in his originating notice: "Are you a tenant for life?" and the landlord, who had hitherto had the credit of being the owner in fee simple, would have to expose to the world the fact that he was only a limited owner. He called that sacrificing the interest of the man in possession for the interest of a man who had yet to come into the estate. 307 And suppose the landlord stated what was false in order to puzzle and bewilder the tenant, was there to be a system of fines and penalties to meet such perjury? He did not blame the Government, but the fact was they were plunged in a serbonian bog. It would be better to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)thought that in accepting this Amendment the Government were taking out the meaning of the clause which, as it stood, appeared to be perfectly reasonable. In dealing with the law of settlement in this country they had endeavoured to give more and more power to the tenant for life, and to assume that his bonâ fide actions were in the interest of the estate, and that it was for the public good to allow him a reasonably free hand in dealing with the affairs of the estate. The Amendment was in no way limited to the question of demesne land, but it covered all lands in the hands of limited owners where a fair rent was not already fixed.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that where the Court under this proviso was in ignorance of the fact that it was dealing with the estate of a limited owner and made an order, the tenant might have his fair-rent tenure broken, and that he had no fair rent at all. The Attorney General for Ireland should make it quite clear that this proviso would not in some respects make the law worse than it was before.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that after what had passed everyone had come to a general agreement as to the principles on which they ought to work. They were all agreed that the interests of the remainderman should be protected; they were all agreed that the tenant should not be put to the expense or trouble, and that they should not throw on ignorant peasants a laborious investigation of title. They were all agreed, also, that the responsibility and cost should be borne by the Court; and, lastly, they were agreed that if an error be made by the Court as between the parties, the loss should not fall on the tenant. If the Amendment of his right hon. Friend did not carry out that object there would be no difficulty in introducing words.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONsuggested that public notice or advertisement should be given to those interested in the land.
§ MR. CARSONdemurred to the interpretation made by the Leader of the House. His right hon. Friend stated that, if the Court made a mistake in not giving notice to the remainderman, the remainderman was to suffer.
§ MR. DILLONWe understood him to say that the tenant was not to suffer.
§ MR. CARSONsaid that the court might or might not give notice. If it did give notice the remainderman was bound, and if it did not give notice he was also to be bound. He did not accept this view, put forward by the Leader of the House, as a just one.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to disclaim his acceptance of the interpretation of the Amendment put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that he did not accept it in the sense which had been indicated.
§ MR. CARSONwanted to know whether his light hon. Friend was going back on his acceptance of the Amendment. The discussion showed that, if one only talked long enough on any Amendment, and kept the thing going for a sufficient time, everything would be given up by the Government. He would really like to know whether his right hon. Friend really meant when he said that he accepted the Amendment—which had been on the Paper for three weeks, and had neither been withdrawn nor altered in the time—providing that no order was to be made without notice; still if the order was made without notice it was to be binding. It would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was sorry he had ever accepted the Amendment; but to say that he accepted it, believing it to mean nothing, was really almost trifling with the House, and leading to lengthened discussions which, if the present view of the Chief Secretary had been stated before, might have been obviated.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he could not help regretting the line which his right hon. Friend had taken in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] Whether the interpretation of the Chief Secretary was a reasonable one 309 or not he would not now dispute, but he was sure that when his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated that, his view of any question was such as had been indicated, no one would be disposed to cast doubt upon it. When the right hon. Gentleman said that, in consequence of a misunderstanding, or in consequence of the views taken of the Amendment, it had lost its value, he was surely going beyond anything which the facts of the case warranted. [Cheers.] Whether or not it might be good for the owners of land in Ireland that the Amendment should be accepted he could not judge, but that the clause as it was amended in the sense he had described gave a security to the remainderman which, without the Amendment, the remainderman would not have, seemed to be obvious on the face of the words; and he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman taking the view he had taken and expressing it with the trenchant hostility which characterised his remarks.
§ MR. KNOXsaid that, in order to carry out the intention of the Government, he would move to insert that—
No order to fix a fair rent for the first time shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe Amendment of the hon. Member would not be in order. The Amendment has already been amended beyond the point at which the hon. Member seeks to amend it. We have got down to the words "no order to fix a fair rent for the first time," therefore, any Amendment must come in after those words.
§ MR. KNOXI shall move it in a different form—namely, after the words "no order to fix a fair rent for the first time," to insert the words "shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ Amendment, as amended by the addition of these words, agreed to.
§
MR. CARSON moved, after the word "accordingly," at the end of the Clause, to add:—
Provided always, that when the landlord is a limited owner or mortgagor or mortgagee in
310
possession, no order shall be made without notic to the person entitled on such cesser.
§ Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 8,—