HL Deb 07 August 1896 vol 44 cc17-23

(1.) Where a superior landlord recovers against an immediate landlord a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of the rent of a holding, or of lands including a holding, the estate of the immediate landlord shall be deemed to be determined within the meaning of Section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, without prejudice to his right to redeem his interest, as if a decree to possession or a writ of habere facias possessionem had been executed. (2.) Unless the Court before which the ejectment was brought certifies that the non-payment was due to the non-payment of rent by the tenant of the holding, such judgment shall not be executed against the tenant, and the tenancy of the holding shall not be affected, except that the superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent due from the tenant to the immediate landlord, as if it had always been due to the superior landlord, but (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross under value) not for the recovery of the rent due to the superior from the immediate landlord. If the amount recovered by the superior landlord from the tenant equals or exceeds the amount due to him from the immediate landlord, the interest of the immediate landlord shall not be deemed to have been redeemed, but the superior landlord shall pay the excess to the immediate landlord, after deducting any amount due for costs.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

moved, in Sub section (1), to leave out the words "to possession or a writ of habere facias possessionem," and to insert the words "for possession or a writ of possession."

Amendment agreed to.

On the question "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill,"

*THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY

said that on the Second Heading of the Bill, he expressed the opinion that this clause ought never to have been admitted into the Bill, and informed their Lordships that he should move its omission in Committee. At that time he asked his noble, and learned Friend on what grounds the clause had been admitted into the Bill, but the noble and learned Lord entirely disregarded that question, and took no notice whatever of it. He trusted he would remedy that defect when he spoke on this clause, and would explain why this clause, which was identically the same as that which stood in Mr. Morley's Bill last year, found its way into the Bill of the Unionist Government. That clause was denounced by the late Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Carson) as a revolutionary proposal, with, he believed, the full sanction of his right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House of Commons. Consequently, he asked his noble and learned Friend to explain why a clause which was revolutionary in Mr. Morley's Bill had found its way into the Bill of the Unionist Government? The refusing of the power of ejectment to a landlord was the taking away of one of his chief rights and powers. It might be said that he had the power of what was known as personal judgment, but anyone who was acquainted with Ireland would know full well that in the disturbed districts the right of personal judgment was absolutely useless. Consequently, he maintained that if they took away from the landlord the right of ejectment they at once struck a blow at that right of contract which he had made with his tenant and which he was prepared to carry out in exactly the same way as the tenant should be forced to carry it out. This clause proposed that, where there were sub-tenants, if the landlord had got a decree it should not be of any use so that he might obtain his land as against the sub-tenants. He thought such an occasion as he was about to bring to their Lordships' notice might hardly ever arise, but they had had experience of what Irish tenants could do in bad times. They had had experience of the Plan of Campaign, and although he hoped such a disgraceful, illegal and immoral conspiracy would never arise again, still they would indeed be foolish if they were not to consider that it might take place again. What would be the position of a landlord in those districts where the Plan of Campaign held its sway if this clause were carried? The landlord had a tenant who had sub-let part of his farm to two other sub-tenants. The middleman, or superior tenant, had drawn his rent from the two sub-tenants, and, together with his own rent, had placed them in the war chest of the Plan of Campaign. Naturally, the landlord asked the superior tenant for his rent, and it was refused to him. He then got a notice of ejectment, and he did eject the superior tenant, but he had received no rent from him or from the two subtenants for the simple reason that the money had been paid into the war-chest. So he got no rent whatever for one year. What, then, was his position? The sub-tenants took the same line that the superior tenant did, and when the year was passed they refused to pay him rent, although they might have sub-let their land to two or three other sub-tenants. The long and the short of this might be that the landlord might for two or three years find himself with no rent from the superior tenant, but with a parcel of sub-tenants to whom the land had been sub-let, and who, whenever occasion occurred, might sub-let to other men brought in for the purpose from round the corner. It might be said that sub-tenants could not be made at a moment's notice, but he was informed they could be so made. If the noble Marquess told him that no subtenant could be made after the notice of ejectment had been given he would be satisfied. He did not wish to divide on the question, but he feared that unless he received a satisfactory answer he should be obliged to go to a Division.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

was not sure the noble Marquess exactly understood the effect of the clause. This was another case where they had to deal with three parties, the sub-tenants, the middleman, and the head landlord. Under the present law, if the head landlord terminated the tenancy of the middleman by ejectment for non-payment of rent, he might clear the premises of the sub-tenants even if the sub-tenants had committed no default whatever. The Government proposed that if sub-tenants were not in default they should be held harmless, and the clause enacted that when the tenancy of the middleman had been terminated by the head landlord by ejectment for non-payment of rent two things should happen—first, the subtenants should become the direct tenants of the head landlord, and, secondly, if the sub-tenants had paid in full to the middleman the rent due by them to him, the head landlord should not be empowered to require from them a further payment on account of the same period of their occupation. Was that an unfair thing? Who were the sub-tenants? They were men who had a legal estate in the land so long as they paid their rent punctually to the middleman. They could go to Court and get a fair rent fixed against the middleman, and the head landlord was already saddled with the sub-tenants if the middleman's lease expired by effluxion of time or was surrendered. Why, because the middleman's tenure was terminated by ejectment for non-payment of rent, should the sub-tenants be differently treated? He could see no adequate reason for arriving at such a conclusion. The noble Marquess suggested that a tenant who wished to thwart or annoy his landlord might cover the holding with contraband sub-tenants, and that the head landlord, when the middleman had disappeared, would find himself saddled with such sub-tenants. He did not think that would happen. Sub-tenancies created in that way would be illegal sub-tenancies. The landlord could in a case of that kind clear the premises by the ordinary operation of the law. If the noble Marquess would consult the early Land Acts he would find that sub-lettings of that kind were fully provided for. His impression was that in the case of a tenancy from year to year sub-letting was void under the Act of 1881; that in the case of a lease with a contract against sub-letting, sub-letting would be void under the contract; and, again, that in the case of a tenant holding under a statutory term sub-letting would be void because it would be a breach of the statutory conditions. He could not help believing that the danger which the noble Marquess imagined was not one which really arose under this clause, and that the only subtenants who would be protected under the clause were sub-tenants who had a legal estate in the land, and whom it was, for a great many reasons, most desirable they should protect.

*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

did not gather that the noble Marquess had answered his question whether an unfortunate landlord might not find himself without his rent, without his land, and without the power of ejecting the subtenants. He understood his noble Friend to contend that sub-tenants had a perfect right to remain in the holdings so long as they had paid their rent to the middleman, no matter whether the rent had gone into the war chest of the Plan of Campaign or not. He trusted they would receive a more explicit reply as to the exact position of the landlord with regard to sub-tenants. He desired particularly to know whether it would be possible for new tenants to be made sub-tenants after a notice of ejectment had been served.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that by the 15th section of the Land Act of 1881, it was provided that on the determination of the middleman's interest the sitting sub-tenants should not be obliged to lose their holdings. The Act of 1887 dealt with a further class of middlemen; it provided for the case of middlemen who might desire to surrender their interest. It was then thought unreasonable that in consequence of the voluntary act of the middleman in surrendering his holding sub-tenants who had done no wrong should suffer. It was obvious to any legal mind that that left uncovered what was sought to be met in this section—that was the case of a middleman whose interest did not determine in the ordinary way, who had not ended his interest by surrender, but whose interest was determined, in spite of himself, by ejectment, and it was thought that it would be unreasonable not to apply to the occupying tenants in such a case the same consideration that was dealt out to the occupying tenants by the Acts of 1881 and 1887. His noble Friend had referred to the Plan of Campaign and the war chest, familiar and painful and serious topics in Ireland at one time, but which, he was glad to say, had no prominence or existence at present. It might be a hardship to the landlord if a lot of bogus subtenants, called in for the occasion from round the corner, as the noble Marquess said, were found living on the middleman's farm; but he did not think it would be possible under this Bill for such a state of things to arise. Three hundred thousand out of 500,000 tenants had had fair rents fixed and they were absolutely out of the possibility of the objection of his noble Friend, because their statutory conditions forbade them to have sub-tenants. There was another class of tenants who were equally outside. There was the numerous class of middlemen who were forbidden by their leases to have any sub-letting at all. Then as to other cases, he referred the noble Lord to the drafting of the clause, which provided that fraud and collusion and matters of that kind were all to be taken into account, so that bogus tenants would be hit by the structure of the clause. He trusted that their Lordships would be satisfied that the clause had been carefully considered, and that it met any real grievance.

LORD INCHIQUIN

pointed out that great delay would arise in the ordinary course before a landlord could recover his land and before the judgment could be completed.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said that the noble and learned Lord had told them that there were few cases. Why then encumber the Bill with the clause? To put the law in force would be extremely costly.

*LORD ARDILAUN

hoped the noble Marquess would not press this Amendment to a Division. He had a case exactly in point where an Irish Member of Parliament declined to pay his rent, and he, as trustee, took proceedings against him. Then the sub-tenants came to him and complained that they would be evicted in consequence of the act of this Member of Parliament, and they asked that their case should be considered. He at once decided that they should not be evicted. Subsequently the Member of Parliament paid his rent at the point of the bayonet. [Laughter.] He thought it would have been a hard thing to have evicted these sub-tenants. ["Hear, hear!"]

*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said as far as he gathered from the noble and learned Lord, sub-letting under this clause would be absolutely illegal and he, therefore, withdrew the Amendment. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord had not explained why a proposal which, when introduced by Mr. Morley, he had denounced as revolutionary, was introduced by a Unionist Government. [Laughter.]

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12,—