OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 9 May 1878)

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to call attention to the sales of land by the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. The hon. Member, who was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, further legislative facilities should be afforded for the purpose of enabling the occupying tenants of 1602 the Church lands remaining unsold to purchase their holdings, said, that he should venture to indicate the direction which he thought legislation should take with the view of affording the additional facilities required. He would, first of all, briefly allude to the powers which the Church Act of 1869 gave to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners in dealing with the various lands and other properties held by them in trust, and which were formerly the property of the Irish Church; but were, by the provisions of the Act, vested in the Commissioners. With regard to the particular point at issue, the Act empowered the Commissioners to sell the fee-simple of lands held of them by tenants, the right or pre-emption being given to the occupying tenants. The clause which gave this right clearly indicated the intention of the Legislature that every facility should be given to the occupying tenants to become proprietors of these holdings, in order that it might be seen how far the creation of a small class of peasant proprietors would be attended with beneficial results. He was very happy to be able to bear his testimony to a fact well known in Ireland—namely, that the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners carried both the letter and the spirit of the Act as far as they legally could; they even went beyond the letter. They explained the advantages of purchase which would accrue to the tenants, many of whom were poor, ignorant, and rather suspicious of the introduction of any novelty in the management of these estates. By the Irish Church Act the Commissioners were also empowered to deal with the payers of tithe-rent charges—another description of property. These were principally large landed proprietors, and, by the provisions of the Bill, they were enabled to purchase their charge without paying any cash whatever. The charge was divided into 52 portions, and after an annual payment of £4 9s. per cent for 52 years the charge ceased. Thus, these holders were placed in a very advantageous position, the charge being converted into a sort of annuity, terminable at the close of 52 years. The occupying tenants of Church lands, however, had nothing like such favourable position under the Act of 1869, or any amending Act. They could only purchase their holdings by the payment of 1603 one-fourth in cash, and the payment of the balance by half-yearly instalments spread over 22 years, with interest of 4 per cent on the unpaid portion. Last year, he had introduced a Bill with the intention of redressing this inequality, and placing the tenant desirous of purchasing the fee-simple on the same footing as the purchasers of the tithe-rent charges. That Bill provided that the purchase money might remain outstanding, and be terminable in 52 years, with an annual payment of £4 9s. per cent. The Bill made some slight differences between the positions of the two classes, and fixed the purchase money of the holdings at a rather lower rate, and three objections to the Bill were taken by the Government and Members from the North of Ireland. It was complained that the action of that Bill was retrospective, and proposed to place the tenants who had already purchased their holdings upon the same position with those who would do so after the passing of the Bill. Secondly, it was said that the advantages of the Bill would not be solely confined to occupying tenants, but that others would step in and share them; and, thirdly, it was objected that the purchase price was placed too low. In the Bill of this Session he had yielded to all these objections; but, strange to say, the very converse objections to those of last Session were made to the Bill, and it was complained that the Bill was not retrospective. Thus, in endeavouring to please everybody, he had failed. There were still a considerable number of holdings remaining unsold, notwithstanding that the Commissioners made every effort to carry out the letter and spirit of the Act of 1869, and the tenants had shown an anxious desire to purchase their holdings. Half of the tenants had done so; and, after these sales and others in the Landed Estates Court, there remained some 700 or 800 farms unsold. Owing to the property of the Commissioners being broken up by small sales, it was not likely the land would find any purchasers but the occupying tenants. But, however, the people were quite unable to find the quarter of the purchase money necessary; and, therefore, he asked the Chief Secretary to bring in a short Bill, which would not interfere with Government Business and occupy but a very short discussion, to meet this difficulty. The 1604 last Report of the Irish Church Commissioners showed that while the lands sold to tenants were purchased at 23¾ times the amount of the annual rent, those sold to persons other than tenants produced only 22 years' purchase of the annual rent; and former Reports also demonstrated that a considerable profit arose from the purchase of their holdings by the tenants. The Commissioners also bore testimony to the desire on the part of the tenants and to their exertions to improve their holdings from the moment they became proprietors of them. If, in the case of these remaining 700 or 800 tenants, the purchase-money was allowed to become a sort of annuity, terminable at the end of 52 years, it would, in fact, assist in closing the account of the Irish Church Commissioners; for the value of an annuity it was easy to ascertain, and the value of these Church lands could thus be easily estimated. He did not think there was any special way of settling the Irish Land Question. There were a great many ways; but the sale of lands to tenants was not an unimportant branch of the settlement. In Ireland, as elsewhere, there existed the natural desire on the part of a man to own the soil which he lived on; and he asked the House and the Government, as responsible for the well-being of the people of Ireland, to say that some further legislative facilities were necessary in order that the remaining tenants of the Irish Church Commissioners might be enabled to purchase their holdings.

§ MR. FAY
expressed a hope that the Chief Secretary would give his attention to the subject. From experience, he knew the efforts that families had made in order to raise the necessary fourth of the purchase money, and evidence of a strong character had shown this before the Committee now sitting on the Bright Clauses of the Land Act. These tenants were really some of the poorest in the country, and the fourth to them was a large amount. He hoped the Government would bring in such a measure as would promote love of Constitutional rule among a class of peasant proprietors.

§ MR. MELDON
said, he hoped the Government would seize this opportunity of making an experiment as to whether the creation of a peasant proprietary could be carried out. A Committee was now con- 1605 sidering the question upstairs; but, in this case, the Government had an opportunity, on a small scale, of bringing the matter to a practical test. It was most desirable to remove the obstacles which at present hindered the tenants of the Church lands from purchasing their holdings. The large sum which had been paid by the tenants under the present system showed how complete would have been the success of the experiment if greater legislative facilities had been given to the tenants to purchase their holdings. It was the more desirable to give these facilities, because the fact of enforcing the payment down to one-fourth of the purchase money of their farms tended to exhaust the capital which the farmers had for the cultivation and improvement of their holdings. The Commissioners' Report bore the strongest testimony to the manner in which the acquisition of the ownership of land had stimulated the improvement of the land by those who acquired it. He was satisfied that great advantage would arise from the establishment of peasant proprietors in Ireland. Nor would the State run any risk by advancing the whole purchase money to the purchasers. When a sum was to be repaid by annual instalments, the security would, after the payment of two or three instalments, be more than adequate. Indeed, even if no part of the purchase money was to be repaid immediately, the Land Act would be a sufficient security for the repayment to the Government of the sum advanced for the purchase by the tenants of their holdings. He did not think there was any objection in principle to the facilities which he desired to afford to the tenants for the purchase of their own holdings. The only objection related to matters of detail. But he did not think that these need or ought to stand in the way. Indeed, he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take up the subject, he could easily pass a short Act on the subject, without inferference with the progress of any other Business.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had supplied him, he thought, with an answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Meath. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the fact that this subject was being inquired 1606 into, not in a limited aspect of the question, but in its entirety, by a Select Committee; and the Government would hardly be justified in anticipating the Report of the Committee, whatever it might be, by embarking in experimental—for that was what it was admitted to be by hon. Gentlemen opposite—legislation which might or might not conflict with the recommendations of the Select Committee. Hon. Members had talked as if there were nothing to do but to pass a measure through Parliament without discussion. He hoped he might be allowed to transfer that immunity to some other measure which he might be in a position to introduce. The hon. Member for Meath was hardly justified in drawing from the Reports of the Church Commissioners the inference that they had not succeeded in applying their powers in a successful manner. He thought he was bound to point out that those powers had been exercised in a very full manner, and the results were more than the most sanguine had anticipated. They might, therefore, well wait for the recommendations of the Select Committee before making any alteration in the law. He wished to reserve any opinion he might hold as to the general principle of peasant proprietors; but he could not endorse the eulogy which had been passed on that principle by hon. Members who had addressed the House. It was a large subject, on which many opinions existed. The question before the House was a purely Irish one, and might be considered without reference to the larger one. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) seemed to infer from the success which had attended peasant-proprietorship in other countries that it would also succeed in Ireland; but he thought that the hon. and learned Member might bo content to wait for the Report of the Select Committee. Its recommendations, he had no doubt, would contain many valuable suggestions, and he did not think they ought by legislation to anticipate them.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
said, that, whatever might be the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the subject of peasant proprietors in general, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute the applicability of peasant proprietorship to Ireland. He 1607 must complain, however, of the manner in which this Motion had been met by the Government. Here was an indirect effort to improve the peasantry by means which did not involve any deviation from established principles; but merely carried out the wishes of the Legislature as they were embodied in the Statute Book. But it met with just the same answer as other Motions on the subject of Irish affairs. They were told that the subject in its entirety was before a Committee, and it would be wrong to deal with it in a fragmentary manner; and then, when other Irish Business was brought forward, they were told that other Business stood in the way. That was the way in which, ever since he had been in the House, every attempt by Irish Members was met when they tried to bring forward practical measures dealing with the practical affairs of the people. He must remind the House, that while they were waiting for the Report of the Committee, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland recommended, the Commissioners were selling the land at their disposal. If, therefore, the House listened to the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman, the intention of the Legislature, when it disestablished the Irish Church, would be defeated; and the lands which were intended to fall into the hands of the tenants would fall into the hands of the adjacent proprietors. He must say that he thought the House and the Government ought to listen favourably to a proposition to deal with the Land Question indirectly, and without deviation from the ordinary law of proprietorship.