The amendment which I have set down is one about which I must confess I had, at the time, considerable doubt, not with regard to its necessity or value, but as to the exact place in the Bill to introduce it. At first I thought it should come in after Section 8 altogether as a new sub-section. Then, because in Section 4 the words are used "rent lawfully due," it occurred to me in haste that that was the place in which to introduce this reference to Bradshaw and McMullan. I was aware in Sub-Section 2 of Section 2 that there was a phrase which looked remarkably like counteracting the effect of the House of Lords decision, and in Section 8, also, there was, and there is, used a phrase which seemed also to deal with it. I will try to make my mind clear on the matter, if that is possible. The words of this amendment are, instead of "paid," to read "habitually paid." To go back a little to the history of Bradshaw v. McMullan case might serve a useful purpose even though it would take a few minutes. Previous to the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, ordinarily the landlord paid half the poor rate and the tenant the other half, but it was always legal for the tenant and landlord to make an arrangement by which the landlord would be liable for the entire poor rate. Then, through Section 52 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, an agreement of this kind was declared null and void. In any contract of tenancy, entered into after the Act of 1898, a provision putting liability for the poor rate upon the landlord was null and void. Now, in the case of Bradshaw v. McMullan, at the second stage of the hearing of the action between these two litigants, Bradshaw claimed to take advantage of that, presumably, as the Minister says as a man in a betting dispute may claim the cover of the Gaming Act. The present Chairman of Seanad Eireann, who was then Lord Chancellor, decided in favour of Bradshaw's contention that under Section 52 the contract made by McMullan for his own cover was null and void. The other landlords immediately proceeded to break the agreements made with their tenants under a like agreement. The Act of 1920 tried to introduce protection, but the words it used are the words at the beginning of Section 8—“Wherever any liability for rates was legally borne by the landlord.” The decision of the Irish Courts was that inasmuch as this was not imposed on the landlord by statute it was not a legal burden, and, consequently, the protection that was sought to be given by the Act was not afforded. My amendment was intended to get rid of Section 2 of the Act of 1898, and to declare that, notwithstanding anything in that section that a contract transferring liability for rates from the tenant to the landlord should be valid. Now, I understand that the contention here is that the substitution of these words in the amendment for “paid” has the same effect or, at any rate, pro tanto, the effect desired. It does not seem to me that that was so because the word “deduct” is used. That proved, as regards some legal decisions, a very wicked word. What I am not quite satisfied about is that the Irish Courts here shall not be obliged to follow the rulings of the House of Lords. We must not forget that in our Adaptation of Enactments Act, these decisions will still have the authority they had unless there is an express repeal. I respectfully suggest that there is no express repeal here.