HC Deb 03 July 1878 vol 241 cc724-35

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. FRENCH,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was scarcely necessary to urge that question of land in Ireland was one which demanded the largest public consideration. It had been the cause of more dissatisfaction and more crime than any other question. There were bad landlords, on doubt, but they were not in a majority, or even in a very large minority; but there were many landlords who were a disgrace to the country, and even to humanity, and it was with them that the Bill proposed to deal. It proposed to give every tenant of an estate passing through the Landed Estates Court, power to obtain a 35 years' lease of their holdings, in cases where they were not in a position to purchase it. All persons interested in the property would be entitled to appear in Court to offer any reasonable objections; but if the objections failed, the Judge would be bound to give the tenant a lease for 35 years, at a rent not less than he already paid. The Bill would interfere—and it was his (Mr. French's) aim to do so—with the speculations of land jobbers, who were in the habit of purchasing land when it was cheap, and then raising the rents to an exorbitant amount. Another class who would be affected by the measure were large tenants, graziers, and others, who were in a position to purchase their holdings under the Bright clauses. A tenant who desired to buy his holding was often obliged to purchase the holding of other tenants who were joined in a lot along with his own. In such cases, the man who purchased was often tempted to raise the rents of the other tenants to enable him the more easily to pay the purchase money, or to turn them out and add their holdings to his own large farm. The Bill would prevent great hardships which were thus inflicted on the poorer class of tenants under the present law, and would not have the effect of lowering the price of estates in the market. In that way, it would facilitate the purchase of their holdings by the holders of the larger farms in Ireland. A great deal of good would have resulted if this Bill had existed sooner in Ireland, and if it had existed they would not have heard of the many outrages and lamentable occurrences, such as that of the Galtee estate, and others, which, he regretted to say, had taken place. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. French).

MR. VERNER,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, in his opinion, no evidence which had ever come before any Committee warranted such a Bill as this. No doubt, the object of the hon. Gentleman was excellent. There were some landlords for whom very little could be said; but, at the same time, it was no reason why such a radical change should take place, which would affect very good landlords. But, however good the object might be, the question that must be asked was, whether it was advisable to go on tinkering about this question of land in Ireland, as hon. Members opposite did, by bringing in successive Bills of this description every year? If it were necessary to deal with this question, it ought not to be dealt with in any piecemeal fashion. Some clauses in the Bill appeared to him to be objectionable in every point of view, as tending to put tenants in antagonism to their landlords, and to depreciate the value of estates; and the powers given to the Court for the prevention of this were very limited. A Committee—of which he was a Member—had for two Sessions sat to consider some of the clauses of the Land Act of 1870, and he thought they would do well to wait until the Report of the Committee and the issue of the evidence on which it was founded had been digested by hon. Members. Several proposals had been put forward by that Committee, which he thought would very probably clash with this Bill. Under these circumstances, his only course was to move its rejection.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Verner.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

believed the Bill was brought in with good intentions. It was good as far as it went, but it went hardly any way. It was a very small and insignificant measure—one which would take 200 years to operate before it would confer a vanishing tenant-right upon the whole of Ireland. Why should it not apply to estates which were not in the Landed Estates Court, as well as to those which were in the Court? He thought that the hon. Member (Mr. French), if he desired to confer tenant-right on all the occupiers of land in Ireland, should have supported the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Limerick in the earlier part of the Session. That Bill would give to the whole of the tenantry of Ireland that protection which the present Bill extended in a very limited degree to a few.

MR. MACARTNEY

admitted that the Bill was an attempt to remedy the cases of injustice which, occasionally, it was evident, occurred with sales of land under the Landed Estates Court. It went, however, a great deal too far, for it would be a very strong measure to give a lease for 35 years to every tenant under all circumstances. To do so would most seriously affect the saleable powers of the property. It would be recollected that landlords were naturally anxious to enjoy the rights which justly belonged to them. But if these constant attempts were made to encroach upon their rights, the House would begin to think that those from whom they proceeded were not worthy of attention. While advocating an amendment of the Land Laws of Ireland, it was most desirable to hold a just balance between landlords and tenants; as, however, the Bill did not do that, he could not vote for it.

MR. SHAW

warmly supported the Bill, which he considered a very valuable one. He had voted for the larger and more comprehensive measure for dealing with the Irish Land Question; but for that reason, he did not think it desirable to vote against questions like this, which dealt with parts of the subject. On the contrary, he thought that they were more likely to deal successfully with the question, if they approached it by degrees, and dealt with it piecemeal, by measures which did not excite such vehement passions as were aroused by more heroic Bills. Those measures excited the passions and prejudices of the landed classes, and, therefore, had little chance of success. He thought it would be most desirable to have the question of rent settled by an impartial authority. He would even give the Judge of the Landed Estates Court the power to grant leases to the tenant for long terms, taking fines, which would go to the credit of the estates. In the long run, he felt sure that it would be both for the interest of the landlord and tenant that the rent should be settled in the manner he had described, and that the tenants, who were afterwards quite helpless, should not be left at the mercy of any purchaser of an estate who bought it with the intention of immediately raising the rent of the tenants to an extravagant extent. The Bill would be a step towards bringing to an end the land war of Ireland; and, by giving the Irish tenants a feeling of security, put an end to that feeling of suspicion with which they too often regarded the landlords.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

expressed his astonishment at the opposition to the Bill. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) thought the Bill would do no good. If it did nothing else, it would prevent the undue raising of rents when an estate changed hands in the Estate Court, and would secure to the tenants that the land should—on the expiration of their lease—be let to them at a fair value. No harm could be done by the Bill. What would be done would be to compel the incoming landlord to let the tenant have his holding at a fair rent. He would buy on that basis and no injustice would be done. All that would be done would be to prevent men purchasing estates as a matter of speculation, in the hope and with the intention of raising the rents exorbitantly upon the tenants. He saw nothing unreasonable or unjust in the measure, and he hoped it would not be opposed by the Government.

MR. FAY

spoke in favour of the Bill. His impression was that heroic measures with respect to Irish land were often distrusted by those who introduced them; and he was, therefore, inclined to regard with favour a practical measure like this, which would, at any rate, abate a serious evil which at present existed in the sudden and extreme raising of rent on a change of property. No injustice would be done to a purchaser by enabling the Judge of the Landed Estates Court to confer leases at a fair rent or fine upon the tenants, for the purchaser would know beforehand that that would be done, and would, therefore, buy on that basis. He would not give more than the fair value for the property, instead of as at present looking for a profit to a sudden increase in the rents of the tenants.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, that having regard to its Preamble and some of the clauses, he would be disposed to support the Bill, if it were confined to the granting of leases on property which was passing through the Estates Court, when the owner was insolvent and the estate was greatly incumbered. But, as he understood the Bill, its provisions might be made to apply to unencumbered estates being in process of sale through the Court. That, he thought, would be objectionable, and it ought to be made clear that nothing in it was intended by a side-wind to interfere with the power of owners of unencumbered estates in Ireland to grant leases to their tenants on terms agreed between them. Unless he had some explanation on this point, he should feel bound to vote against the Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the evidence given before the Land Committee of last Session by Mr. M'Donald, Examiner of the Landed Estates Court, as well as that of other witnesses, was strongly in support of the principle of the Bill, and went to show that it would be beneficial to confer upon the Judge of the Estates Court the power to grant leases on lands passing through the Court. To give such a power would benefit both the landlord and the tenant, because the former would often get a higher price by selling subject to a lease granted, especially on a fine, than if he sold the estate entirely free from leases. The evidence tended to show that if the power proposed to be given to the Estates Court were conferred upon it, many estates would be passed through that Court for the purpose of having such leases granted. It would be perfectly safe for the State to say, that in return for the facilities given by the Estates Court on the transfer of land, the Judge, with the consent of the proprietor, should have the power to grant leases on all lands passing through his hands. But the power given by the Bill was much less, and although he did not say that it was a small measure, he thought it was one which they might press without awaiting the Report of the Select Committee on the Bright Clauses, which was now sitting. It was a very moderate step in a right direction, because it would enable many tenants to acquire some perpetuity in their tenancies; and as long as they could not obtain a new Land Bill settling that question on a substantial basis, he would not despise such a small measure as the present one, even although it might be described as "tinkering." He did not think it desirable to put off the question for two or three years; because, although they might possibly consider it in a more perfect manner, many tenants might in the meantime lose the benefit which it would confer upon them. He regarded the measure as a Conservative one, and he thought hon. Members opposite ought to see that a leaseholder was much more likely to vote for a Conservative candidate than a mere tenant-at-will would be. He did not, however, support it for that reason, but because it would confer a sensible benefit on a good many tenants.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, though he did not think much of the Bill, he would vote for it. When the hon. and gallant Member for Galway talked of tenants being willing to pay a fine, the witnesses did not mean to say that the tenants were willing to pay a fine for a 31 years' lease. The truth was, that Irish tenants under a good landlord did not care for a 31 years' lease. But he believed that when property was changing hands through the medium of the Landed Estates Court, it might be useful to give the Court power to grant leases. The Bill, accordingly, would give a landlord who was about to sell his estate, the power of protecting his tenants by granting them leases for 35 years, if they asked for them. If the mortgagee, or other person interested, objected to such leases being granted, then the Judge of the Court would have the power to decide whether the offer of the tenant was fair, and of granting a lease, if he approved of the offer. The Bill would be of advantage to the landlords, as no lease was to be granted at a lower rent than was being actually paid; and it would protect tenants from land speculators, on the one hand, by preventing persons from buying land with a view of getting, not 4 or 5 per cent, but 7 or 8, and sometimes 10 per cent, by raising the rent on the tenants. It would also, on the other, prevent persons buying an estate at a fancy price, and then compel the tenants to pay that price in increased rents. The Bill was a very harmless Bill, and although it did not go so far as he wished, it would do some good, and he therefore supported it, although he had refused to put his name on the back of it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),

while complimenting the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) on his temperate speech, questioned if he had fully looked at all the difficulties which surrounded the question, or had sufficiently considered all the existing laws on the subject. He agreed with much that had been said about the class he christened "land jobbers," men who bought estates, not with the view of living on them with their families, but with the view of raising the rents and making as much as possible out of them. Certainly that class would never enjoy much respect in Ireland; but the existing law had not been sufficiently considered in regard to the Bill. The Bill did not recognize the fact that under the existing state of things, the Landed Estates Court had in name become a thing of the past. But, passing from that, which was merely a technical point, he would venture to offer a few criticisms upon the most important part of the Bill—the 2nd clause. That, he thought, showed that it had not been altogether drafted with that desire to do justice to all parties which the hon. Member for Roscommon avowed was his object. Power was given to the tenant to give notice of the rent he was willing to pay, and the covenants to which he would submit—in fact, the contract he would accept. But, when he came to look at the other side, and asked what power was given to the landlord to consider what covenants he would like, or what rent he would desire to obtain, he found that no power was given to him, he found that none at all was accorded; and, more than that, there was no power given to the Court to vary the rent, to alter it up or down, or to change or vary any single one of the covenants. Another objection he had to make was that the provisions of the Bill were absolutely compulsory; and if a tenant served a notice asking for a lease, and no notice of objection happened to be served, the lease must be granted. The sole discretion was practically left with the tenants. When he considered the existing state of the law in Ireland relating to the granting of leases, could he admit that a case of necessity had been made out? At present there were two large classes of persons whose property might be sold in the Encumbered Estates Court—namely, tenants for life, or owners of settled estates, and those who were absolute owners. Under the Act of last Session relating to Settled Estates, a power was given to the Landed Estates Court and the Court of Chancery to do all that was just between the parties in the granting of leases on such estates for 35 years, so that, in by far the largest class of cases, the existing law did everything which that Bill should do, providing proper safeguards in addition; and, in regard to the estates of absolute owners, he greatly doubted whether the Bill, as it stood, could ever work satisfactorily. Looking from a common-sense point of view, the absolute owner would have to face and meet the exercise of the powers defined by the Bill before he introduced his property into the Landed Estates Court, and it would be quite impossible for the owner to grant leases at such rent as the market allowed him to get from his tenant. He admitted there was a great deal in the Bill entitled to attention, and he was very far from saying that it was not worthy of consideration whether some proposal should be made for extension of the power to grant leases in this Court; but he would suggest that, having stated his views, the hon. Member should withdraw the Bill at the present period of the Session, and guided by the light of the present discussion, should consider it carefully during the Recess, with a view, if he thought proper, to introducing a Bill next Session which would be more satisfactory, and to some extent free from the provisions which had invited the hostile criticisms which had been urged against it. Another reason in favour of delay was that the Committee that was sitting, and presided over by the hon. Member for Reading, had gone fully into many matters which were to a certain extent connected with that subject; and perhaps it would assist the House in any future discussion which might occur on that Bill, if they had the Report of that Committee, together with the evidence which it had taken, placed on the Table.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was gratified to find that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not see any insuperable objection to the adoption of the principle of the Bill; but he would have been more pleased had his remarks been followed by the announcement that the Government would not oppose the second reading, because most of the objections made were such as might be made and met in Committee, and did not touch the principle of the Bill. If the Bill had been passed years ago, they would not have had the agitation on the Land Question, or that treatment of the tenant which gave rise to the agitation. The Land Act of 1870, doubtless, had been a protection to tenants against land speculators; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that under the present system much dissatisfaction existed among the tenants, and that dissatisfaction gained strength every time an estate was bought in the Land Court by a speculator who regarded his purchase as a mere commercial transaction, and treated the tenantry in a very different way from that in which the old proprietary had been accustomed to treat them. The phraseology to which the right hon. and learned Attorney General objected was a mere technical objection, and would be met in a moment by any legal gentleman who would give his mind to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill was compulsory, and that no option lay either with the landlord, or the Court, the sole discretion being with the tenant. But that was not the case according to the way in which he read the Bill. And if it contained compulsory powers upon all except the tenant, that was an objection to be urged in Committee. He believed the Bill did give the Court power of considering a statement put in by the owners. It certainly should contain such a provision; but that, also, was a matter for consideration in Committee. He saw nothing inconsistent with the rights of property in attaching conditions to sales in the Landed Estates Court. That should be submitted to by those who chose to take advantage of the facilities of the Court, and he trusted the House would assent to the principles, to which the right hon. and learned Attorney General did not object.

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought the last speaker was very much mistaken in thinking that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had approved the principle of the Bill. He had only admitted there was much in the Bill worthy of consideration. For himself, he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought the House would be very unwise to adopt the Bill, the principle of which, as he understood it, was not only to enable, but in many cases to compel, the Judge of the Landed Estates Court to grant leases without the consent of the owner or the intended purchasers. The granting of the leases would either diminish or increase the value of the property. If it would increase the value, the vendor would not object to a lease being granted, and therefore no legislation was needed; but if it would diminish the value, it would be a statutory robbery to compel the grant of one, to the injury of the owner and mortgagees. He considered that the House would be unwise in adopting the principle involved in the Bill, and, therefore, he trusted they would reject it.

MR. FRENCH

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was so strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill. He himself was in no way wedded to the wording of any particular part of the Bill, and in Committee he should be willing to accept any Amendment that did not strike at the object of the principle involved. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said the Bill gave power only to the tenant with regard to the new leases. He, however, seemed to forget that there was power given to object, and if the Court were of opinion that there was a reasonable objection to the lease, it could not grant it; but if, on the other hand, there was no reasonable objection, the Court was obliged to grant it. Any proposal that would not affect the principle he was ready to accept in Committee. He must be allowed to express his surprise at the opposition of the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Youghal.

SIR. JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he did not opposed the Bill, but only said it would be useless for the purpose for which it was designed.

MR. FRENCH

considered the Bill would be exceedingly useful in preventing a class of men trafficking in the land, which was really the greatest cause of the tumult and misery and lawlessness and crime in Ireland.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 179: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for three months.