CONFERENCE.—CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND). (Hansard, 12 August 1836)

§ The Duke of Richmond
reported, that the managers on the part of the Commons had left with the Lords' managers the reasons assigned by the Commons for disagreeing to certain of their Lordships' amendments.

§ Lord Plunket
hoped they might be taken into consideration at once, as he was obliged to leave town on Monday.

The Marquess of Westmeath
was surprised that the noble and learned Lord should propose at once to debate the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to their Lordships' amendments, as those reasons had not been five minutes on their Lordships' table. The noble and learned Lord might have seen those reasons more than five minutes ago; but as he had not had any such advantage, he did not feel himself competent to enter upon the discussion of them at that moment. But, though he was not, at any time, able to cope with the noble and learned Lord on a point of legal argument, and though on this occasion he laboured under the additional disadvantage of not knowing a single iota of the reasons, still, as he was unwilling to be the cause of any unnecessary delay, he was willing to proceed then. He wished, however, that the reasons assigned by the Commons should be read at length.

The Marquess of Salisbury
was anxious to hear the reasons which the noble and learned Lord had to urge in favour of the view taken by the House of Commons.

§ Lord Plunket
said, that the object of the amendment made by their Lordships was to give the Barrister presiding in the Civil Bill Court a permanent jurisdiction to determine cases of ejection for non-payment of rent. That was a power greater than was possessed by the superior courts. They would not sanction an ejectment for nonpayment of rent, unless written evidence were adduced in support of the application; but their Lordships' amendment gave to the assistant-barrister the right to affirm a decree of ejectment upon parole evidence, a course that was calculated to encourage perjury. In short, the amendment went to give to the assistant-barrister a power that was never possessed by the superior court. He believed that every professional man would agree with him, that such a 1152 clause might be made the instrument of great oppression.

§ Lord Wynford
quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Fitzgerald and Vescy
said, that he was unprepared to meet the difficulty which had been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, which had not been stated when the amendment was brought forward, at which time the clause was generally received as one that was essentially necessary. The opinion of the noble and learned Lord was different from that of several legal individuals with whom he had had communication on this subject. As, however, he felt that it was a very serious matter to effect an important change in the existing law through the medium of an amendment to a Bill, he would call on noble Lords not to insist on that to which the Commons had disagreed.

The Marquess of Westmeath
wished it to be understood, that the amendment did not originate with him, but was first proposed in the House of Commons by a noble Lord, whose own exertions, and those of his father, in favour of the agriculture, and in support of the tenantry, of Ireland, were not exceeded by the exertions of any landlords possessing considerable property in that country. He, therefore, could not be suspected of being actuated, more than any other noble Lord, by interested motives in bringing forward this clause, which he conceived was calculated to operate beneficially. The noble and learned Lord had said, that power was sought to be given to the Civil Bill Court which the superior court did not possess. Now, it ought to be observed that the Civil Bill Court was itself an anomaly which the situation of Ireland had rendered necessary, and to which an increase of jurisdiction had, from time to time, been given by Parliament. Therefore, in his opinion, there was not much force in that objection of the noble and learned Lord. That court had great power at present. As the law now stood, where notice to quit was legally and regularly given to a tenant from year to year, the judge must, in conformity with the Act of Parliament, issue a decree. But it was said, that if this clause were persisted in, it was likely to lead to perjury. On that point considerable negotiation had taken place; and those who favoured the clause evinced an anxious desire to give to parties a full and fair 1153 opportunity to show what the real and actual amount of rent due was. But their proposition was refused. They were told that middlemen would, upon all occasions, be ready to get on the table and swear up the tenants' rent to any point they pleased. Now, every security was offered to prevent any such fraudulent proceedings, but the offer was not accepted. He admitted, that he was bound to respect the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown on legal points; but, with respect to this bill, every thing did not meet the eye which was connected with the subject to which it referred. The fact was, that there was a party in Ireland, at the head of which was his Majesty's Roman Catholic Attorney-General, whose object seemed to be, to deprive the landed interest of that country of its fair and due weight, and to prevent them from doing that which, in the exercise of a humane and just feeling, they deemed best for the country. The noble and learned Lord must be aware that many landholders in Ireland periodically serve their tenants with notice to quit, in order to keep up and maintain that authority to which they were justly entitled, but which, as the law now stood, they could not maintain. Yet, without some such power as that, it was almost impossible for them to go on successfully in the management of their property. He should not press their Lordships to insist on these amendments, but he hoped that, after this discussion, their Lordships would see the necessity of taking up this question in another Session, and that they would then do justice to that much-calumniated class of individuals, the landlords of Ireland.

Lord Plunkett
could but express his surprise at the unnecessary allusion which had been made to the Attorney-General for Ireland. He was perfectly convinced that that learned Gentleman would do his duty honestly and impartially, whether the parties who came within the sphere of his office were Protestants or Catholics.

The Marquess of Westmeath
had reason to think highly, in a personal point of view, of the right hon. Gentleman to whom allusion had been made. With respect, however, to the appointment of a Roman Catholic Attorney-General in Ireland, he regretted that description of appointment more than he could express, because it must have the effect of placing the law in the hands of that agitator who was now 1154 disturbing the peace of Ireland. That was his decided opinion. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that the Attorney-General for Ireland never made any distinction on account of the difference of religion amongst his Majesty's subjects in that country. He did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had ever done so; but this he knew, that the right hon. Gentleman had been a prominent advocate for the repeal of the Union with Ireland, and that he conceived to be a bad qualification for the first law-officer of the Crown in that country.

Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey
would move, "that their Lordships do not insist on these amendments." Involving, as the subject did, nice legal distinctions, it would be difficult for their Lordships, who were not professional, to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord. It was better to postpone the question to some future occasion, when a substantive enactment might be brought before them, and the whole question might be properly inquired into. When that time arrived, he hoped he should be able to show that a proposition of the nature now objected to was not so much for the advantage of the landed interest of Ireland as it was for the benefit of the tenantry.