TENANCY NOT INVALIDATED BY REASON OF SUB-LETTING BY LANDLORD. (Hansard, 7 August 1896)

*LORD CLONBROCK
moved to leave out from the word "voidable" to the end of the clause. The noble Lord observed that the description of the clause was rather misleading, inasmuch as it was not directed against the action of the landlord but of the middleman—and what was more, a fraudulent middleman; of a man who, having illegally sub-let his land, and finding sub-letting inconvenient, either as a bar to going into the Land Court or other purposes, suddenly turned round and said to his tenant, "My sub-letting is illegal, and, therefore, void, and you must give up possession." With the first part of the clause down to the word "voidable" he had not the slightest objection; but the second part of the clause to which the Amendment was directed proceeded to exonerate the middleman from the consequences of his illegal act. It provided that the landlord should be deemed to have expressed sufficient consent to the sub-letting in the manner in which consent was required by law (that was in writing), unless, within reasonable time after his knowledge of the sub-letting, he served on the lessee or sub-tenant notice of objection to the sub-letting, or instituted proceedings against the lessee. It was said that silence gave consent, but in this case silence was to be assumed to have given a written consent, which appeared to be somewhat racy of the soil over which the Act would extend. Look at the position in which the landlord was placed. It was said he ought to have taken proceedings, or to have expressed his dissent. The subletting might have taken place long before the matter came to his knowledge, and the only way in which he could proceed would be by eviction, a process never resorted to except in case of extreme necessity, as it exposed the landlord to great opprobrium. He would be called a tyrant, an oppressor, or perhaps a murderer, for Mr. Gladstone's definition of an eviction notice as a "sentence of death" had never been forgotten in Ireland. It was said he might serve notice 13 of dissent, but he would naturally think it was no use to bark if he did not intend to bite, and that serving a notice without taking proceedings would be only a confession of weakness. The Amendment was not directed so much to preserving the interest of the landlord as against the practice of sub-letting which had been a fruitful cause of evil in Ireland and which ought to be severely discouraged. In this case the tenant who illegally sub-let was protected from the consequences and his illegal act was legalised. There could be nothing worse than to legalise an unlawful act or to give the tenant or any other person to understand he was not bound by the conditions of any agreement he had made. Another reason against sub-letting in a case like this was that it would be an obstacle to purchase as the Land Commission would not advance money on any land in the occupation of more than one person. The middleman who had sub-let ought not to be a particular object of sympathy. In the first place he had broken the law and in the next he had probably imposed upon his unfortunate sub-tenant a rent very much in excess of that which he himself paid to the superior landlord. He had known cases when the middleman had charged three times as much rent as he was paying himself. He hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said that what the Government proposed under this clause seemed to him a very fair thing. They provided that, if the middleman had deliberately let the land to a sub-tenant, he should not after tolerating the presence of the sub-tenant for a number of years, suddenly turn round and object to his presence. That was the effect; of the earlier portion of the clause, to which he thought the noble Lord did not object. Then they came, not to the middleman, but to the head landlord. If the head landlord, in a case of that kind, after having also acquiesced for an indefinite time in the presence of the sub-tenant on the land, suddenly turned round and objected to him, it was quite clear there was no use in telling the sub-tenant that he was to be protected against the middleman. If they wished to protect the sub-tenant at all in a case of this kind they must protect him, not only against 14 the middleman, but against the head landlord. That was the object of the clause, and in the latter portion of it it was provided that the sub-letting should be valid, unless within a reasonable time after the sub-letting came to the knowledge of the landlord or his agent he served on the lessee or sub-tenant a notice of dissent. Of course those words would entirely protect a landlord who was absent from the country and who had no means of knowing what was going on in his absence. The only case in which the head landlord would be obliged to recognise the presence of a sub-tenant, would be the case in which he had knowingly and deliberately acquiesced in his presence, and it seemed to him that in a case of that kind the sub-letting should be good in the eyes of the law.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
asked how on earth was the head landlord to know that his tenant had sub-let?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD)
said if he did not know then he did not come within the clause.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND
It must be brought to his knowledge.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
said he had no right to go on the land or to send anybody on the land to ascertain whether there had been sub-letting. It seemed to him the reasonable course would be to impose the obligation on the person who had deliberately violated his covenant of sending notice to the head landlord, and upon that, if the head landlord took no action, it would be very reasonable to assume that he recognised the sub-letting.

§ LORD CASTLETOWN
asked whether his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had gone into this question as regarded sales? Perhaps he was not aware that in the event of a sale to an immediate tenant, if there was a sub-tenant, the Land Commissioners would refuse, as a rule, to carry out the sale. Under this clause, as far as he understood it, the superior landlord had very little means of knowing whether the middleman had sub-let or not. If the middleman had sub-let, and the superior landlord desired to make a sale, the Land Commissioners would refuse to carry it out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND
said the case put by his noble and learned Friend would appear to be quite protected. If the sub-letting was not brought to the knowledge of the head landlord he was not within the section. As to the ignorance of the landlord, he would very likely be happy in his ignorance, because he would be protected in the application of the clause. He was not aware exactly of the point stated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Castletown). He would say that the section did not apply, but he would consider it. He would like to say, with reference to the general criticism, that this clause had been in the Bill for weeks and months. The matter was before the House of Commons over and over again, and he really did not think that there was any criticism or challenge there in reference to that part of the clause. That did not in the least preclude examination or criticism by their Lordships, and he only mentioned it to show that the clause had run the gauntlet of considerable time and experience in the House of Commons, and that no objection was taken to the reasonableness and fairness of it.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
Surely we are entitled to consider it in this House.

§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD
My noble Friend said so.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
Then what was the meaning of the interruption, if it did not mean that we were not to consider it or not to consider it fully? But the noble and learned Lord had entirety missed his point. As long, no doubt, as the head landlord was in ignorance he was protected; but it might come to his knowledge many years after, and then it would be very unfair for the sub-tenants to be turned out.

*THE EARL OF BELMORE
hoped the noble and learned Lord would look very carefully into the point raised by Lord Castletown, because he was informed by a noble Friend who had sold a great deal of land that he had no less than 30 or 40 cases in which the Land Commissioners either refused altogether or delayed for a very long time to carry out the sales, because they found sub-tenants.

*LORD CLONBROCK
said his objection was that the clause legalised an illegal act. He thought it was a very 16 dangerous thing, more especially in Ireland, after a man had sub-let illegally, that he should get off scot-free by the provisions of this clause.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The clause legalises an act which has been condoned by the persons interested.

§ LORD CASTLETOWN
said there had been cases of this kind—he was not perfectly clear whether there had been cases where the intermediate interest had lapsed and the superior landlord had come in as owner—in which the Land Commission had refused the sales because sub-letting existed on the holding, although that sub-letting was created with the knowledge of the superior landlord at the time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND
said the whole purchase code in Ire-land was intended for the benefit and advantage of the occupying tenants, and the Land Commission, necessarily, in the discharge of its duty, had to consider whether the applicant for purchase fulfilled the conditions all through; and they were bound to carry out the Act of Parliament.

§ LORD CASTLETOWN
said that was exactly why he said the clause, militated against purchase, which, as he understood, was the object of the Government. In any case the point ought to be cleared up.

LORD MONTEAGLE
asked the noble Marquess whether he would put in the word "immediate" before "landlord" at the beginning of the clause, to make the point clear. He presumed, too, that the word "lessee" in the seventh line on page 8 should be "immediate landlord."

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said the drafting had been carefully considered, but if the noble Lord would bring the matter up at a future stage he would consider it.

LORD MONTEAGLE
understood the main objection of the noble Lord opposite was to the legalising of an illegal act, but he did not see in what way it would help if this part of the clause was omitted, unless the landlord was prepared to evict, which was just what he understood the noble Lord was unwilling to do. In the same point of view it appeared to him that the objection raised by his noble Friend below him would 17 also depend upon whether the landlord was prepared to evict.