I beg to move an amendment:—

In page 8, after Section 24, to add a new section as follows:—

Repeal.—The Act of the Irish Parliament passed in the year 1710 and entitled "An Act for the better securing of rents and to prevent frauds committed by tenants" (9 Anne, Chap. VIII.) is hereby repealed.

That statute is still operative, and the effect of it is to give the landlord to whom a year's rent is due priority over ordinary judgment creditors. It is well known to members of the legal profession and the members of the commercial community that there is often collusion between landlords and tenants under that statute, to deprive the ordinary judgment creditor of his remedy for the recovery of his debts. Apart, however, from that, it is considered undesirable that a landlord should have priority over an ordinary creditor, and it is considered desirable that this particular Act should be repealed.

Would the Minister explain whether this repeal of priority would apply in any other case than in judgments in these minor courts? For instance, would it repeal the priority rights of the landlord in a case of bankruptcy or a case of that kind. I would like to know if it applies in such cases?

I do not think I quite got the Deputy's point.

I think I am right in saying the landlord is a preferential creditor in case of bankruptcy. What I desire to know is will this repeal of this Act repeal the priority in that case as well as in the case of a judgment debt?

I think not.

Does Deputy Johnson mean where there is good-will in the premises and rent due to the landlord that preferential payment to the landlord in that case ought not to be kept and that the landlord should not be in that position; because the reason for keeping him in that position in that case is that there is good-will, something in respect of which the payment of the rent secures to the estate something that is more valuable than the rent.

All I am anxious to know is whether this repeal repeals the privileges that landlords have over other creditors?

To that extent I would say it does not repeal that particular thing. If it did it would mean that the landlord would come in and get something more valuable than would be the actual payment of whatever a gale's rent ran into.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

I move:—

That the provisions of Standing Order 88 as to the giving of notice for the taking of the Fifth Stage of a Bill be suspended to permit of the Fifth Stage of the Enforcement of Court Orders Bill, 1926, being taken to-day.

I gave notice on the Committee Stage of this Bill that in view of the long interval allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, and between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage, that I would move for the suspension of Standing Order 88 to enable the Fifth Stage of this Bill to be taken to-day.

Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.