HC Deb 01 May 1877 vol 234 cc168-80
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,

in rising to call attention to the forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-seventh Clauses of "The Irish Land Act, 1870," for promoting the purchase of land by occupying tenants; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the working and results of the forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-seventh Clauses of "The Irish Land Act, 1870," and to report whether any further facilities should be given for promoting the purchase of land by occupying tenants, said, he had thought it desirable to introduce this subject in order to elicit the views of the Government upon it. He had the other night ventured to propose this as an alternative Motion to that of the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue); but as the House rejected that Motion by a very large majority, his proposal now became a substantive proposal, to which he trusted hon. Members from Ireland would give their support. His attention had been directed to the subject mainly by the Returns of the landowners in the two countries of England and Ireland, and, in his opinion, those Returns were well worthy of the attention of the House. In the case of Ireland they had before the House Returns prepared by the late Government at the time that the Irish Land Act was under consideration, and they showed that the total number of landowners in Ireland was not more than 19,000, and the comparison of this number with the landowners in England was worthy of consideration. The English Return showed that, on the whole, there were about 170,000 landowners holding over one acre of agricultural land. In England there was a landowner to every 130 of the population, while in Ireland the proportion was one to every 315 of the population. The comparison became the more remarkable if they included only the rural parts of England. Ireland was essentially a rural country; and if they made the comparison with the rural parts of England the number of landowners was very much smaller. There were in Ireland also, he found, no less than 600,000 small farmers, occupying an average of 34 acres, and 138,000 holding an average of 12 acres. Now, all the experience of the Continent went to prove that it was only when the occupation of small farms was combined with ownership that the best results were secured. It was the magic of property which, in the opinion of the great agricultural writer, Arthur Young, gave sufficient inducement to the small owner so to cultivate his farm as to produce the best result. Ireland was, therefore, a country in which they could have expected to find a large number of small owners established. In fact, there was no country in the world where there were so few small proprietors. Two efforts had been made by Parliament in that direction—the first under the Irish Church Act, the second under the Irish Land Act. Under the former Act it was provided that the tenants of Church property amounting to about 200,000 acres should have the right of pre-emption of their farms at a fair price, and considerable facilities were given under the Act for such purchases. The intention of the Legislature in that respect had been, it seemed to him, from their Reports, very judiciously carried out by the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. They had brought the subject home to every tenant of Church property in Ireland, and the result had been that a very large proportion of them had purchased their farms. Out of a total of 8,000 no less than two-thirds had become purchasers, and of these two-thirds 1,800 had, he found, paid the purchase money in full. The Commissioners further stated that a great many of the tenants had received from friends in America money in order to complete their purchases, which had, it was added, realized a full and fair price at 23½ years purchase, while land sold under the Incumbered Estates Court had brought only 20½ years purchase. In that way no less than 5,000 new landowners had, it appeared, been added to the total numbers in Ireland. Now, turning to the other experiment made in this direction, he came to those clauses of the Irish Land Act which went by the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and which had been conceived in the same spirit as those of the Church Act. In the case of the Land Act the terms offered to the tenants were not quite so favourable. Only two-thirds of the purchase-money, and not three-fourths, as in the other case, was permitted to remain on mortgage, but the rate of interest was 3½ per cent, instead of 4. During the six years since the passing of the Act the number of purchases under those clauses had been only 456, of which no less than 151 had arisen out of one transaction—that of the sale of the Marquess of Waterford's estate to his tenants. Yet during the same period no less than £6,000,000 worth of property—the rental amounting to £450,000—had been sold by the Incumbered Estates Court. That was more than double the amount of the Church property. The result was that while no less than 75 per cent of the Church property had been sold to the occupying tenants, in the case of the Land Act there had been only about 6 per cent. This being the state of the case, he thought he was justified in saying that the clauses of the Land Act had, to a great extent, been a failure. He did not attribute this result to the difference in terms he had already mentioned, but rather to the plan which had been adopted by the officials of the Incumbered Estates Court. The Church Commissioners had done everything they could to facilitate the operation, and had gone direct to the tenants. In the other ease, so far as he could make out, no facilities whatever had been given. The tenants had been left to find out as best they could what they ought to do. They had been obliged in consequence to employ lawyers, or other agents, and to incur expense in other ways. Moreover, instead of the farms having been put up for sale in a manner convenient to the tenants individually, they had been offered in lots of, perhaps, eight or ten together, and the tenants had been obliged to combine and make a common purse in order to get the property. This was a process which, on the face of it, appeared impracticable. He had no doubt it was from this want of facilities for buying single farms that the whole operation had broken down. It appeared to him there was no necessity for selling the land by auction, and that the proper course would be to offer it to the tenants individually at upset prices slightly above what would be obtained in the open market. He believed the officials of the Court would have no difficulty in arranging with the landlord as to the price, and that the tenants were willing to pay something over the market price. By such means, he thought, effect would be given to the clauses of the Act. Almost all the cases of hardship which were sometimes quoted by Irish Members had arisen, he found, in connection with lands recently sold through the Incumbered Estates Court. The reason was obvious. So long as the lands remained in the possession of the old families, they were managed according to the traditional method, the landlords feeling themselves bound to observe the customs of the country. When estates were sold through the Incumbered Estates Court at enhanced values, landlords felt justified in raising the rents, thus practically confiscating the improvements made by the tenants. He knew the occurrence of these hard cases was denied; but the clauses of the Land Act were passed on the assumption that there were such cases, and he hoped that since the passing of the Act they were reduced in number, while it was clear that if the clauses had been passed 25 years ago hard eases that had occurred might have been prevented, because so much more land would have passed into the hands of tenants. If similar principles had been adopted in the sales by the Landed Estates Court as had been followed by the Church Commissioners, the number of landowners in the country would have been greatly increased, because farmers would have been turned into landowners. The more extended adoption of the principle might be advocated as a Conservative measure introducing a fixity of tenure to which no objection could be made. He trusted the Government would consent to his Motion.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but to say that he had always thought that the clauses which were so honourably connected with the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) were founded on a very wise policy, and that he had seen with regret that they had not been so effective as was expected when they became law. He would offer no suggestion as to whether the failure of those clauses was due to any one cause more than to another; but he would express a hope that the Government would grant the Committee, and that, as regarded the clauses which had been referred to, means would be found to give effect to that wise and safe policy which was to be found in the Land Act.

THE O'CONOR DON

also expressed a hope that the Government would be able to accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading. He believed that nothing would tend more to the tranquillity of Ireland than the establishment of a considerable number of persons who would be interested in the land, as owners as well as occupiers, and anything that would tend to increase the present number was a subject well worthy the consideration of that House. He was surprised that more advantage had not been taken of the clauses of the Act; but he believed that a good deal of it was owing to a want of knowledge amongst the people as to how they were to proceed to purchase.

MR. FAY

said, he thought the clauses had failed through want of appreciation on the part of the tenants, although they favoured the creation of a so-called peasant proprietary consisting of farmers, who found one-fourth of the purchase-money and borrowed three-fourths from the gentry of the neighbourhood. When a proprietor got an indefeasible title with his land he obtained advantages from the State for which he ought to give something in return. He had himself made an offer on behalf of 80 tenants for land on the Wicklow Mountain estate. It was bad land, yet they offered 28 years' purchase for it in order that there might be no doubt about its acquisition. At that price it would not have paid more than 3½ per cent, but a nobleman who wanted it for shooting purposes offered 30 years' purchase, and his offer was accepted. Those men desired to become peasant proprietors, and they incurred great sacrifices to raise one-third of the purchase money. This showed a deficiency in the working of the Act. It seemed to him that in such a case if one or two years' purchase were lost to the owner, it would not be too great a price to pay for the Parliamentary title given under the Act.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

believed that the farming classes, notwithstanding that Amendments were very desirable for the extensive application of the Act, would have availed themselves more extensively of the Bright clauses if they had been more thoroughly understood. It might be true that the clauses in the Church Act had been occasionally worked for the benefit of speculators rather than of tenants; but the Committee might suggest the means of putting a stop to such practices if they were carried to a vicious extent. He trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had been so anxious to promote the well-being of that country, would agree to the Motion.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

wished to explain, in justice to the Irish Members, that it was only by an accident that a proposal of this kind had not been earlier brought before the House. The late Sir John Gray attached great importance to this question, and in the year 1874 brought in a Bill to extend the power of tenants to purchase land under these clauses. Unfortunately, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) put a Notice on the Paper which brought the Bill under the half-past 12 o'clock Rule and it could not be brought on. Sir John Gray shortly afterwards died. He was glad to see the matter now taken up by an English Member, as he saw no ultimate solution of this question, except on the one hand a conflict between landlords and tenants, or else the creation of a considerable number of small proprietors. The number of proprietors in Ireland was smaller in proportion to the pecuniary value of the soil than in England. His own idea would be that the Government should advance money at a somewhat lower rate, and so as to enable the tenant to pay during a period of years what he could not pay down at once. The Motion if carried would not injure the proprietors of land, and he hoped the Government would accede to it.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

said, he was very happy to find that the Government did not intend to oppose the Motion, and he was glad that this particular portion of the Act was to be referred to a Select Committee. There were many Members on the Conservative as well as the Liberal side of the House who wished to do justice to the Irish tenants; while, at the same time, there were Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative benches who would resist the extravagant demands which were sometimes made on behalf of tenants, but probably without their consent.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, he thought few things could be more important, as far as the well-being of Ireland was concerned, than to take steps consistent with the safety of the public funds for the purpose of enabling tenants under the Church Act and the Land Act to become the owners of the land which they occupied. He hoped, therefore, no obstacles would be opposed by the Government to the granting of the inquiry which was asked.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought no one who had carefully considered the question could doubt that it would be advantageous to Ireland that the number of persons possessing a proprietary interest in land should be considerably increased. It was intended to bring about this result by the Land Act of 1870 and the amending Act of 1872; but it must be admitted that the clauses framed for this particular purpose had failed to a certain extent, though not quite so much as might be supposed from the figures already quoted showing the number of purchases. Confining himself to those cases in which purchases had been made by tenants with the aid of advances from the Board of Works, he found a very considerable increase in the year ending 31st March last, as compared with the previous year. The total number of cases given in the last Report of the Board of Works, as having occurred from the time the Act came into operation up to March 31st, 1876, was 456, the amount of purchase-money was £476,000, and the amount which the Board advanced was £281,000. But, adding the transactions up to 31st March last, the total number of cases was 574, the total amount of purchase-money was £598,773, and the total amount advanced by the Board of Works was £357,548. This showed, at least, that there was increased progress during the last year. A point of considerable interest was the great difference between the number of applications and the number of loans actually made, a difference which ought to be inquired into. It might be that there was something in the conditions exacted which was too hard for the tenants to accept; but he thought the fact was mainly due to the circumstance that tenants, after applying, failed to provide the proportion of the purchase-money which it was necessary they should provide in order to entitle them to loans from the Board of Works. He could not think that the charges made against the Incumbered Estates Court were entirely fair, because, as far as he had been able to ascertain, he believed that whenever a property was ordered by the Court to be sold, due notice was given to the tenants both as to the fact and as to the conditions under which they might purchase the property. The 46th section of the Irish Land Act provided that the tenant was to have notice when his farm was to be sold, and ho did not think that it could be alleged that those who were required to give such notice had failed to discharge the duty imposed upon them by that section. He would now proceed to the other reasons which, so far as he could judge, had really hindered the operation of the sections of the Act to which ho had referred. The main reason appeared to him to be that the persons who were now the occupying tenants in Ireland did not as a rule desire to buy their farms. The fact was that those persons were so contented with the position of tenants that, though willing to give extraordinary sums for the right of occupation, they did not care to, as it appeared to them, unnecessarily waste their funds by purchasing the freehold. This, at all events, was the conclusion that must be drawn from the fact that the Irish tenants had not to any large extent availed themselves of the facilities offered to them of borrowing money to enable them to purchase their farms. In these circumstances, therefore, he was afraid that any reasonable proposals for the amendment of these sections which might result from this inquiry would not have much effect in extending their operation. He did not gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Reading that any very sweeping alterations in the provisions of the Land Act were contemplated by him. He felt that the hon. Member would agree with him that under any possible legislation on the subject they should secure, in the first place, that there should be no interference with the freedom of landlords who might be desirous, in the ordinary way, of disposing of their property. With regard to estates sold in the Incumbered Estates Court, care should be taken that their full value was realized, and that the tenant should pay the fair market price for his holding, while ample security should be given to the Government for the money advanced to the tenant to enable him to purchase his farm. Bearing these principles in mind, he had no objection to the removal of any obstacles that might exist to the wider operation of the sections of the Land Act which had been brought under their notice. The hon. Member desired that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject. He was bound to say, as he had before stated, that he was not very favourably disposed to any large inquiry into the operation of the Irish Land Act at a period not very remote from its having been deliberately settled by Parliament. But he did not see that the proposal before the House was open to objection on that ground, inasmuch as the hon. Member had carefully limited the scope of the inquiry. The hon. Member had certainly shown that the sections in question of the Land Act had failed in producing the results which their authors might have expected from them, and had shown such a practical knowledge of the subject that very valuable suggestions might well be anticipated from the inquiry which he desired. He did not think, therefore, that he was in any way opening up a question as to the finality which must be held to apply to the great principles upon which the Land Act was based by assenting to this inquiry, which he trusted would result in showing that the Act had been fairly worked by those bodies to whom its carrying out had been entrusted, and in conducing still further to the contentment and prosperity of the country.

MR. BUTT

said, he was happy to hear that the right hon. Baronet had acceded to this Motion. Without intending to enter at length into a discussion upon this subject, he wished to fairly warn the House against attaching an exaggerated importance to the effect likely to be produced by an amendment of these clauses. There was this marked distinction between the powers entrusted to the Church Commissioners and those entrusted to the Landed Estates Court— that the latter were unable to offer the tenant his holding at a certain price, but were bound by law to set the estate out in lots to be sold by auction. It might, therefore, well be made a matter for inquiry whether the Landed Estates Court should not have conferred upon it the power to offer the tenant his holding at a certain fair but fixed price. He believed that every difficulty that red tape could devise had been thrown in the way of the Irish tenant borrowing the money for the purchase of his land, and that was also a point that ought to be inquired into. When they had done all this and had given every facility they must not imagine that they touched more than the hem of the garment. The question raised to-night would not touch the case of the great bulk of the Irish tenantry, because not one in a hundred of the Irish tenants would be able to purchase his holding even if the opportunity of doing so were afforded him. He entirely agreed with the statement of the right hon. Baronet that there was no great anxiety on the part of the Irish tenant occupiers to become the purchasers of their holdings; they did not appear to possess any of the pride of ownership. It might be that in the North of Ireland there was a desire on the part of the tenants to become the freeholders of their farms, but that was not the case in the rest of the country. The great bulk of the Irish tenants wished undoubtedly for fixity of tenure; but for some unexplained reason they would almost rather pay a rent—a small rent—provided they were perfectly secure in their possession, than become the absolute owners of their holdings. It might be from want of education, or perhaps it might be owing to the traditions of an older system, or to the want of independence resulting from years of oppression; but the fact remained, which he admitted with regret, that the people of Ireland took no manly pride in becoming their own landlords. He regretted this the more because nothing could be of more value to the country than the existence of a large body of independent landed yeomanry. He would impress the House that, in taking the present course, they were but touching the fringe of the land question.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the doctrine which had been laid down that tenants in Ireland had no wish to become owners of their holdings was one to which he could not subscribe, nor could he allow it to be made without a challenge. That tenants did not become buyers of their holdings was due to other causes. If the Landed Estates Court would put a fixed price upon the lots, and the tenants knew they could have their farms at that price, he believed a great majority of tenants would avail themselves of the opportunity. If the land was sold in smaller lots he believed that there would be plenty of purchasers among the tenant-farmers, and more money obtained.

MR. PARNELL

also dissented from the views expressed, that the tenant-farmers did not desire to become owners; on the contrary, he thought that if a fair opportunity of purchasing their farms was presented to them they would embrace it with the utmost eagerness, and one of the results of the inquiry would be to show the truth of that. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) said an inquiry into the operation of the "Bright" clauses would but touch the hem of the land question, and that was so. He did not know what the proceedings of the inquiry might be; but he firmly and strongly believed that whatever the endeavours of the right hon. Gentleman might be, the question would never be settled on any other basis than that of giving to the Irish people the right and liberty of living on their own farms as owners.

MR. D. TAYLOR

thanked the Government for acceding to this inquiry, because he believed that the position of the tenants in Ireland could be much improved without interfering with the owners of the soil, and if greater facilities were given for the purchasing of land in Ireland it would occasion its increased value in the market. Bright's clauses had not been taken advantage of to the extent it was perhaps thought they would have been, but that had arisen very much from the difficulties the tenants had in arranging for loans, which frequently were very small indeed. From what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he believed he was willing to make the inquiry a thorough one, and he hoped it would be carried as far as possible. One thing which should induce the Government to go as far as they could was the fact—he believed he was correct in saying so—that in all the advances made to Irish tenants there had never been a defaulter in paying those advances. That would show that whilst there was a desire to acquire land, there was also every effort made to carry out their engaements in connection therewith. He engagement strongly to the opinion that it was for the interest of Ireland and a matter of importance that land should be held by two classes of proprietors—a class of proprietors owning their own farms and a class of large owners. On the large estates the tenants were, as he knew, contented and comfortable, and between them and their landlords the best feelings existed; but it was on smaller and incumbered estates that the position of the tenant was unsatisfactory. No doubt as greater facilities were given to tenant-farmers they would hasten to seize the opportunity of becoming owners. Thanking the Government for granting the inquiry, he expected from it good results.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

thanked the Government for assenting to the Motion. He was glad the Government had recognized the present position of the tenants as not satisfactory. With regard to the declaration that had been made that the tenants did not desire to become owners, he believed that was true in the case of large and old established properties, where the tenants were certain of the traditional customs of the country being carried out. But in the case of estates where there had been a change of proprietors in consequence of a sale under the Incumbered Estates Act, he believed the tenants would be anxious to purchase the land they farmed if they were able to avail themselves of the facilities which, under the Land Act, it was intended to offer them.

Motion agreed to. Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the working and results of the forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-seventh Clauses of 'The Irish Land Act, 1870,' and to report whether any further facilities should be given for promoting the purchase of land by occupying tenants."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.) And, on May 31, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. PLUNKET, Mr. JOHN BRIGHT, Mr. HEYGATE, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. LAW, Mr. WILSON, Mr. BUTT, Mr. PLUNKETT, Mr. DOWNING, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Captain NOLAN, Mr. CHAINE, Mr. ERRINGTON, Viscount CRICHTON, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. VERNER, Mr. RICHARD SMYTH, Mr. MULHOLLAND, and Mr. SHAW LEFEYRE: — Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum. And, on June 5, Mr. FAY added. June 6, Colonel TAYLOR added; June 7, Mr. DOWNING disch., Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA added; June 14, Mr. MULHOLLAND disch., Sir JOHN LESLIE added.