[NO 165.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 July 1876)

§ LORD O'HAGAN
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the measure had passed the Commons without discussion or division. The object of the 1st clause was to extend to Ireland the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act which was passed for England last year, extending notices to quit a tenancy from year to year from six months to twelve months. The principle had been admitted by their Lordships, and he therefore supposed there would be no controversy with regard to that point. The rest of the Bill he believed was the result of representations made on the part of the proprietors rather than the tenants. The 2nd clause provided that no notice to quit other than what was now required by law should be necessary in the case of a tenancy at will. The 3rd clause enabled a landlord who wanted a particular portion of land for certain specified purposes to give notice to the tenant as to that particular portion, and did not require notice as to the whole; and reciprocally the tenant was enabled, on receipt of notice as to a part, to give notice that he accepted it as applicable to the whole holding. It might possibly happen in certain cases that the landlord might take such portions as to render the rest useless, or greatly deteriorate it, and the clause provided against that possible mischief to the tenant. The 4th clause was one of considerable importance, and he should be very sorry if anything occurred to prevent its being passed. Everybody who was acquainted with the relations of landlord and tenant 1695 in Ireland knew that if a tenant died intestate, and no administration was out, recovery of the land by the landlord was attended with great difficulty, because there was no machinery for servinga notice in the absence of a tenant. This clause proposed that it should be sufficient service if a notice was addressed to the representative, and all persons claiming to represent the deceased, and left at his last place of dwelling, or posted in some conspicuous part of the holding, and sending another copy addressed to the townland in which the holding is situate. This Bill would settle the law equally for the benefit of landlord and tenant in this and other respects, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a second reading.

LORD INCHIQUIN
generally approved of the Bill, thinking it was highly important to settle the question of the determination of a tenancy in Ireland. He pointed out at the same time that if the Bill passed in its present form it would not quite assimilate the law with that of England; because it enacted a fixed time for the determination of the tenancy—namely, at the end of the year. He also thought that some further safeguard should be put into the Bill for the protection of the landlord. It was a very serious question the advisability of interfering with landlords in Ireland.

LORD LIFFORD
said, that instead of having 15 months' notice, as tenants had at present, the Bill proposed to give them another six months. He thought the measure, on the whole, would have a most mischievous effect on Ireland, and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.

§ LORD WAVENEY
said, that the Land Act of 1870 had upon the whole worked well in, and been of great service to, Ireland, and he should support this Bill because it filled up some blanks which were left in that Act. It would, however, be quite impossible to make 1696 the systems of tenure of land in Ireland like those which were in existence in England.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, this was a Bill the principle of which, so far as the second reading was concerned, was to assimilate the law of England and Ireland with regard to notices to quit. Many of the points of the Bill would obviously be the subject of discussion, and he was far from saying that it would not need alteration in Committee. But no Notice had been given of its rejection, and it was unusual to offer opposition without Notice to a Bill which had passed through the other House of Parliament without discussion. Under these circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would not assent to its rejection.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD
said, he did not believe in those dangers which some noble Lords thought would happen to Ireland if this Bill were passed into law; but whatever these supposed dangers were, the Bill could be amended in Committee if necessary.