§ COMMITTEE.
§ House in Committee (according to order).
§ Clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule 1—
§ *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDMy Lords, I have an Amendment to leave out of the first Schedule lines 43, 44, 45, and 46. This, my Lords, is a very important Bill for us, and I should like shortly to tell your Lordships what effect this Schedule would have. In the year 1887 your Lordships' House passed an Act which, in the shape in which it left your Lordships' House, provided that a tenant, who held a lease, would either go into Court or be taken before the Court to have his lease reviewed. That was objected to because many tenants held leases which were of great advantage to them, and those tenants did 1871 not wish to be brought in. Therefore Mr. Parnell objected to this proposal, because he said that tenants would be compelled to come into Court and become yearly tenants, whether they wished to or not. Mr. Balfour agreed with him on that point, and said that, if the clause were carried in that state, the moment it passed all leases would be broken, whether they were in favour of the landlord or the tenant. Mr. Parnell proposed an Amendment providing that the clause should not come into operation, except upon application by the tenant, in the prescribed manner in the Court of Lessees. That appears to have been accepted by the House of Commons, and it was moved by Mr. Parnell that that should take place if the leaseholders applied to the Court of Lessees within three years from the passing of the Act. Mr. Parnell was at that period the Leader of a very powerful Party in the House of Commons, and he thought that three years would satisfy all the necessities of the case; it would not be an extensive period, but it would enable substantial justice to be done in the matter. Mr. T. W. Russell had another Amendment to limit the time to two years, and, after a time, Mr. Balfour suggested that two years was quite sufficient; Mr. Parnell then agreed to limit it to two years, and he himself moved that that should be the limit. The result of that has been that it enabled leaseholders to go into Court and have their rents fixed, if they wished to do so, and the time given them was to the 23rd August, 1889. Now, my Lords, what has been done with regard to this Act? Each year it has been slipped into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; it was slipped in in 1889, 1890 and 1891, and now it is again proposed to be slipped in. I protested last year in your Lordships' House that it was very unfair to keep this matter unsettled—the leaseholders have ample time to go into Court if they wish it, and there is no reason why your Lordships' House, or the other House of Parliament, should have put a limit into the Bill if it is to be continually extended by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—there is no meaning in a limit in that case—you had better pass a Bill per 1872 mitting leaseholders to go into Court for ever. The Government of Ireland—and that is the only fault I have to find with them—have never any finality about anything. Let me point out also that, if you strike these lines out of the Schedule, the leaseholders will have their attention drawn to the fact that if they want to apply to the Court they can do so, and they have got to the 31st December this year. Is not that enough? On the other hand, if you put this into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill they will have a year and a half; next year they will have another, as it will be continuously slipped in. And I may tell your Lordships that the only reason given in another place for this, by the Minister in charge, was that it had been slipped in continually before, and he did not see why it should not be again. My Lords, I protest against that system of legislation, and I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
§ Amendment-moved, First Schedule, page 5, line 43, to leave out lines 43, 44, 45, and 46.—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Marquess has explained with great clearness, and with the familiarity that on such occasions he always displays, the matter with which he is dealing; but I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment, and I must ask your Lordships to affirm the clauses and the schedules as they stand. But, my Lords, I do so upon a much more simple ground than that which the noble Marquess attributes to my right hon. Friend in the other House; and my ground for asking it is that the Chief Secretary, who is familiar with the question, I submit, in Ireland, says that it is absolutely necessary for the administration of this law to which the noble Lord has referred, and that he could not possibly dispense with the period for which he asks, unless your Lordships insist upon his doing so. The noble Marquess says that it has happened three times already, and this will be the fourth time, and I think that his argument, which he has very powerfully urged, increases in force as time goes on, and that the 1873 noble Marquess will have made a very powerful attack upon the continuance of this practice in future. My Lords, it always does happen that at the end of a somewhat exciting and busy time something is not disposed of or swept up, so to speak, in Parliament. I am not competent to argue the fact whether these leaseholders have or have not a sufficient time, and whether it is possible to enforce it upon thorn within six months; I can only take what my right hon. Colleague tells me—namely, that he cannot do without it; and I should think the noble Marquess himself would hesitate to insist upon his Amendment in the face of such an assurance. I can know nothing about the merits, certainly not so much as the noble Marquess does; but I give him the assurance of the Chief Secretary; and if the same attempt is made another year I will undertake not to move this Bill with that provision in it.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I do not feel perfectly sure that the effect of the Bill is that which my noble and learned Friend says is intended—it is certainly rather a curious method of legislation. Section 1 of the Act of 1887 provides that at any time within two years after the passing of that Act an application may be made. What does this Bill do? It says that the Acts mentioned in the first schedule, including this Act of 1887, shall to the extent specified in column 2 be continued until the 31st December, 1893, and what is specified in column 2 is so much of Section 1 of 50 and 51 Victoria, chapter 33, "as relates to the time within which applications under the section may be made." But what you extend is that part of the Act which provides that application must be made before the 31st December, 1889; you do not alter, as it seems to me, the provision that the application must be made after the passing of the Act and before the ending of the year 1889; at least it seems to me by no means clear that you do. What really is proposed is not to extend the existing law at all, but to amend the Act by providing that the time for application may extend to a certain date; and it seems to me very doubtful indeed whether you have done so by saying that the Act, or a part of the Act which 1874 provides a particular thing, shall be extended to a particular date.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENMy Lords, I think the observation of my noble and learned Friend is justified; but I must say that this is the way in which Acts have been extended for many years, and I am sorry that my noble and learned Friend has drawn attention to it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf there is any doubt I think it would be very easy to frame an Amendment which would set it right.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENI would ask my noble and learned Friend not to alter it now, because there are so many cases of the same nature.
§ LORD HERSCHELLBut, if it were altered now, it would be altered to validate the extension as from the original date.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am not quite certain that I concur with the construction which my noble and learned Friend puts upon it. What is extended is so much of Section 1 as relates to the time within which applications under the section may be made; that is in the general sense.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENI think the words are the same as in the other Act. I believe it has been extended precisely in the same way.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDIt has.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI doubt very much whether it would be desirable to amend it, because, if it has been done by those same words in other Acts, I am afraid, if what my noble and learned Friend proposes were done, you would have to validate what has been done under the other Acts, and that I think would be a very serious undertaking to go through.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI withdraw any observations that I made, in the hope that in the future some clearer mode may be adopted.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDMy Lords, I think the answer of the Chief Secretary, which the noble and learned Lord has given to me, that he cannot administer the law, unless this Act is continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, is a very extraordinary one. What are the facts? There is no feeling—there has never been a meeting in Ireland in favour of it; 1875 every single leaseholder who wishes to come in has six months still in which to lodge his application. Really, I think that on the part of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant it is a very unfair answer to give to say that he cannot carry on the government of Ireland without it. My Lords, it is not really very material—I should divide your Lordships' House upon it if I thought it were—but I do not think so, and if my noble and learned Friend will give me the promise that, if he has charge of this Bill next year, he will not again propose this same extension, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment. But really, my Lords, it is not fair to keep us always in this seething state of excitement.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, I entirely concur with what the noble Marquess has said with regard to the extreme difficulty which is occasioned, in the management of any estate in Ireland, by the constant changes that Parliament is making. I pointed out to your Lordships the other day that these things are much better understood by the tenants' representatives in another place than by anybody else, because they comprise a large number of men who are either barristers or solicitors practising at Quarter Sessions and the Courts, and familiar with every turn and trick of these tribunals. The result is that, whenever a Bill is brought in connected with Ireland, one small Amendment and another is put in, all in the tenants' interests, and all whittling down what remains of the landlords' interests, and it is not fair play. And not only so, but the moment you have adapted the management of an estate, both in spirit and in letter, to the decrees of the Legislature, something else—it may be a small or it may be a large matter—comes down upon you, is imposed by the Legislature, and you have to change every arrangement that you have made. What is the result? Even on estates where landlords are on the best of terms with their tenants, the lawyer is never out of the office; not because there is any doubt about the law as it originally stood, but because every year this or that little thing is introduced, which noble Lords frequently consider of very small importance, but 1876 which, when it comes to be worked out, makes a considerable difference in the administration of an estate. I cannot for the life of me understand why Parliament in its wisdom, having imposed a certain limit of time within which leaseholders should come in, should, by a side wind, alter the very enactment which Parliament passed, and which was fully argued in another place at the time. There was no man who better understood what the interests of those whom he represented were than the late Mr. Parnell. After full discussion, he was satisfied that two years were sufficient for this purpose; and it was after a Debate, and after a suggestion made by Mr. Balfour, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, that that limit of two years was inserted. Now it has been three times enlarged, and is about to be enlarged for the fourth time. And, my Lords, what is the use of it? If there were any real hardship I am not one of those who would wish to do anything that savours of sharp practice as regards the tenants; but in this case there can be no possible harm. As my noble Friend has pointed out, there are still six months during which any leaseholder may avail himself of the benefits of the Act, which Mr. Parnell would have been satisfied with had it terminated three years ago. Under those circumstances, what possible hardship can there be? The leaseholders of Ireland are decidedly the best class of tenants, taking them all round; they are the most intelligent; they know their own interests far better than any of your Lordships do; they are competent to take care of themselves; and, if they have not availed themselves of the Act up to this time, what possible reason is there for now extending it? If anybody, by mistake or from illness, or any other cause, has been unable to come in, he would now have full notice that he must make his application within the next six months. Surely, my Lords that meets the justice of the case. It is turning the whole question into a farce if the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is to be passed and an Act of this kind, which was not considered necessary at the time, which has already had ample scope for extension, is now to be included again a fourth time in the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think the noble Marquess, in quoting me, substituted one word for what I said, which makes a considerable difference. I never said that the Chief Secretary could not carry on the government of Ireland without this Bill. What I said was, that he could not administer this law without more than the six months which would be left to him; and I should be sorry to be quoted as having said that this Bill was absolutely necessary for carrying on the government of Ireland.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.