TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 18 December 1906)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
who had given notice to move the insertion of the following new Sub-section in Clause 6,— (2) A claim for compensation under this section shall not be made after the expiration 1154 of three months from the time at which the tenant quits his holding, said he understood, after consultation with noble Lords opposite, that the settling of the time within which claims for compensation were to be made under this clause was a matter more properly dealt with by rule made by the County Court Judge. That was the practice under the Act of 1870, and he presumed it would be the practice under this Bill. If that were done, it would obviously meet his point better than by rigidly laying down a time in the Act of Parliament. He, therefore, did not intend to move the Amendment standing in his name. His second Amendment on the Paper was to insert after the word "contrary" in line 17 of Clause 6, the words— Unless such agreement was, in the opinion of the Court, reasonable, and not made under direct or indirect compulsion. The object was to make it perfectly clear that Clause 6did not conflict with Clause 10. Clause 10 provided that any contract made after the passing of this Bill, by virtue of which a tenant would be directly or indirectly deprived of his right to obtain compensation,.. Shall be void unless the court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was reasonable and that it was entered into by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion. The words in Clause 6 were "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary," and did not allow the provision which was made in Clause 10. It was important that contracting out should be allowed in all cases of large properties, and it was in order to make that clear that he moved his Amendment.

LORD DENMAN
said it was not very convenient to introduce and discuss important Amendments at this stage of the measure. Clause 6 was introduced by noble Lords opposite. The choice was given him between that clause and no 1155 clause at all. Therefore, he was obliged to choose the clause, but he greatly preferred the clause which stood in the original Bill. He contended that this was not a convenient time to tamper with Clause 6, and to whittle down its provisions to the detriment of the tenant. The noble Earl had made a point of the fact that the clause as it stood was inconsistent with Clause 10, but he would like to point out that there was an Amendment later on in the name of Lord Dunboyne which would make Clause 6, even if they adopted the Amendment of the noble Earl, quite inconsistent with Clause 10. On behalf of the Government he had to say that he must resist the Amendment, and if the noble Earl pressed it upon them they would be obliged to divide against him.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said there was some truth in what the noble Lord has said about the inconvenience of moving Amendments on the Third Reading, but he was afraid it had been an invariable practice to insert Amendments at that stage. Even most important Bills had been constantly amended on Third Reading. The Amendment now before their Lordships was obviously moved in the most perfect good faith, and he was not himself impressed with the seriousness of the objection raised to it by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The Amendment took up words that were already in another clause in the Bill, and why those words should be incapable of being even looked at now when they appeared in another part of the Bill he could not see. It was really only a drafting Amendment, seeking to bring forward the qualifying provisions in another clause. He submitted that the Amendment was a reasonable one and would not defeat any object in the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
did not quite gather from the noble and learned Lord whether, speaking as a lawyer, he regarded this as a purely drafting Amendment, and whether he considered that the insertion of these words in Clause 6 would have no extra operation on the clause beyond that which was already conferred on it by the words in Clause 10.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
It was in that belief that the Amendment was inserted.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
said he would have supposed at first sight that the words might have an operative effect upon cases under Clause 6 which would not be provided for under Clause 10.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
thought the matter lay in the narrowest possible compass. The general clause with reference to contracting out was Clause 10, which contained words in deference to which Lord Barrymore withdrew his Amendment the other day. It was pointed out by Lord Donoughmore and by himself that the words in Clause 10 left it to the County Court Judge to say whether the contract was reasonable and had been made by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion. That was an idea they thought reasonable and fair, and in deference to its reasonableness and fairness Lord Barrymore withdrew his objection. Lord Donoughmore only desired to bring forward the idea in Clause 10 and annex it to the words in Clause 6; but, if it was thought more desirable by the legal advisers of the Government that a reference to Clause 10 would be a more convenient way of doing this, he thought Lord Donoughmore would be quite satisfied with that.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment standing on the Paper, and to move the insertion of the words, "subject to the provisions of Clause 10." He begged to amend his Amendment accordingly.

LORD DENMAN
said the Government were unable to accept that Amendment.

LORD DUNBOYNE
said the object of his Amendment was to put the onus of proof upon the party who impugned the written document, and not upon the party who supported it. He could not understand why in this clause such an elementary principle of law and equity should be departed from. Clause 1157 10, as he proposed to amend it, would read— Any contract (other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement) made after the passing of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation under this Act, shall be held to be void if the Court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was unreasonable and that it was entered into by the parties under any direct or indirect compulsion.

LORD DENMAN
regretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord desired by his Amendment to place the onus of proof on the tenant. There were exceptions to the elementary principle to which the noble Lord had referred, and the particular clause in question was founded upon Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. In the opinion of the Government the Amendment would be detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and on that ground he was obliged to resist it. If the noble Lord pressed the Amendment the Government would have to trouble their Lordships to divide upon it.

LORD DENMAN
then moved two Amendments which were not on the Paper, one of which was to insert a sub-section which the Government accepted from Lord Ashbourne with regard to the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. He believed there would be no objection to the insertion of the sub-section in the place proposed.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
saw no objection to either of the Amendments, a typewritten copy of which had been supplied to him. They were merely drafting Amendments to make the Bill read more harmoniously.