§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"
1110§ MR. FINDLATER, in rising to support the Motion, said, that he must ask the House to support a Bill, which had already been submitted to the House of Lords, and, after being considerably modified in its terms, had been passed by that House. In accordance with the Standing Orders, it had been referred to two of the Irish Judges of the highest eminence—Chief Justice May, and Mr. Baron Andrews, both of whom were thoroughly acquainted with the locality. The Bill was of a very technical character, and quite unsuitable for a discussion in that House; but an hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was to declare that the area of settled land in the country should not be increased by a Bill of this kind. He (Mr. Findlator) did not think a Private Bill of that nature was a measure upon which a general discussion in regard to increasing the area of settled land in Ireland ought to be raised. It might be a very desirable opportunity for the hon. Member for Salford to air his crotchets in that House upon a Private Bill; but it was a very serious matter for the unfortunate gentleman who was promoting the Bill. The hon. Member probably thought that the indignation which would be excited at even an infinitesimal attempt to increase the area of settled land would divert the attention of the House from the real merits of the Bill. But he (Mr. Findlater) trusted the House would listen to a very brief statement in regard to the objects of the Bill. The Bill was rendered necessary by the omission, in a testator's will, of proper powers for the improvement and development of certain estates situated in the town of Holywood, near Belfast, and its neighbourhood. The promoter, as tenant for life of that property under the will, and being a very enterprizing gentleman, had succeeded in purchasing 56 acres of foreshore and 35 acres of building land, which intersected the property, in the interest of, and for the development of, the settled land. Fourteen acres of the building land passed into the settled estate on the death of two lives, and the property either intersected or adjoined the estate, so that it was not of the slightest use, unless it was added to the estate. The Bill contained provisions to enable the trustees of the settled estates 1111 to purchase the property so acquired by the tenant for life, and to hold it on the same terms as the settled estates. The price for this property was not to exceed £18,000, and if any difference arose between the parties as to the full value of the property it was to be settled by arbitration. There was a further power given to the trustees to repay the tenant for life the sum of £12,000 expended by him in the improvement of the property, upon which there was at present a mortgage for the amount; and he trusted that the House would not consent to be parties to injuring a meritorious tenant for life, by leaving on his hands property which was perfectly useless unless joined to that which had been already settled, and which, if joined to it, would largely increase its value. The House would perceive that the property affected by the settlement was, in reality, only 35 acres and the foreshore. It might, as he had said, be a very pleasant thing for the hon. Member for Salford to pose as a Land Reformer, and to air his crotchets in that House upon the discussion of a Private Bill; but that which might be an amusement and a gratification to the hon. Gentleman was a very serious matter to the tenant for life in this particular case. It reminded him (Mr. Findlater) very much of the fable of the boys and the frogs—"What is fun to you is death to us." It was well understood that the hon. Member was celebrated for systematically examining the Notice Paper; and when he found that any other hon. Member had evolved from his inner consciousness some new political or social idea, and given it form in the shape of a Notice, down came the hon. Member with an Amendment of a colourable character, to the intense horror of the originator, who found that he was to be robbed of a great portion, if not all, of the kudos he expected to derive from the elaboration of his ideas.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member (Mr. Findlater) was speaking to the matter before the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not think that anything has happened yet which calls for my interference.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he certainly should not have made observations of that kind, without having some founda- 1112 tion for them. In fact, it was whispered that the hon. Member for Salford was only to be compared to a certain bird, which was in the habit of laying its eggs in the nest of some other feathered biped. As long as the hon. Member confined himself to that practice, he would not do much harm, beyond the natural irritation caused to those who were annoyed by his predatory instincts; but when he proceeded to ask the House to throw out this Bill, which, however, it was scarcely likely to do, he placed himself in a position to cause incalculable injury to innocent persons. It must be borne in mind that the promoter of the present Bill was already tenant for life of the property, and that he had been put to very considerable expense in preparing statements and in bringing the question before Parliament. The second reading of the Bill had already been adjourned on one occasion; and he thought it was most unfair for an hon. Member, who had really no interest in the matter beyond a desire to ventilate the general question as to settled land, to seek to retard the progress of the measure, for the simple purpose of putting a private individual to considerable expense. He (Mr. Find-later) contended that this was not the proper time for the hon. Member to ventilate his grievances, or to air his crotchets, especially when it was borne in mind that the House of Lords had already passed the Bill. He, therefore, trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time; and if they thought it necessary that there should be further inquiry, no doubt, as the Bill was practically unopposed, the Chairman of Ways and Means, when it came before him, would see that it was fairly investigated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Findlater.)
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that, among other purposes to which it would be scarcely necessary for him to refer, it was proposed by this Bill to pass certain land, which was now free land, into settlement for the term of 1,000 years. He thought that was sufficient not only to justify his opposition, but to render it absolutely necessary that he should oppose the second reading of the Bill. 1113 The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) evidently knew but little of the Bill, and he had grossly misstated the quantities involved. ["Oh, oh!"]
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know if the expression "grossly mis-stated" was Parliamentary language?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have not yet noticed anything out of Order.
§ MR. WARTONThe expression used by the hon. Member for Salford was "grossly mis-stated."
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not see anything in that expression that is irregular.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDresumed. He did not think there was anything irregular in stating that the hon. Member for Monaghan had grossly misstated the acreage dealt with by the Bill. The main point, however, was that the Bill proposed to place free land under settlement for a term of 1,000 years; it proposed to increase the area of settled land, which meant, to place the land, as far as it was in the power of the trustees, according to the law of the country, in such a position that for 1,000 years, if the Bill passed, it could not even be sold upon demand of creditors in the event of the insolvency of the proprietor. That was the effect of settlement of land. The consequence was that where land was settled, not a single yard or acre of that land, from the time of settlement, could be sold in the event of the insolvency of the proprietor. It so happened that this Bill was an Irish Bill; and he confessed his surprise that an Irish Member should have been found to advocate the increase of settled land in Ireland. He did not believe that any Irish Member would occupy such a position, because, baneful as had been that practice in England, in Ireland it had almost been the ruin of the country. The proposal of the Bill was to increase the area of settled land, and by that means to further the policy which had brought landowning in Ireland to this position, that, at the present moment, one-third of the land of the country was held by fewer than 300 persons. The hon. Member for Monaghan had spoken of the hardship which the rejection of the Bill would entail on the promoter. Now, there was no hardship at all in the matter. The House, 1114 in its wisdom, had passed a measure last year, the author of which actually came from the neighbourhood of Belfast, in which the present Bill originated. The House had passed Lord Cairns's Settled Land Act, in order to meet cases of this sort; and it was because the promoter did not choose to take advantage of that Act, that he now came to Parliament with an audacious proposal to increase the area of settled land. There had been other private Settled Land Bills before the House during the present Session and in past Sessions; but he would give the House his word that there had been no Bill which contained a proposal of this sort, or he would have opposed it. There had been no Private Estate Bill introduced, either in the last or in the present Session, which made so monstrous a proposal as that which was contained in the present Bill—namely, to settle free land for a period of 1,000 years. He would appeal to the House to reject the Bill. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient to increase the area of Settled Land as proposed by the Bill,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was only due, as a matter of courtesy to the House, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should express some opinion upon the Bill. He should not have risen himself if it had not been for the fact that the Speaker was on the point of putting the Question, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not consider it necessary to rise. Now, he (Mr. Healy) regarded this Bill not merely as one affecting the personal interests of Captain Harrison, but as a most extraordinary kind of procedure, by which a Private Act of Parliament, affecting an individual landlord, was to be smuggled through the House. He failed to see, if this Bill were to pass, what was to prevent any landlord, who possessed sufficient means, from subtracting the whole of his estates from 1115 the purview of the Common Law of the country. It appeared to be the easiest thing in the world for the landlord to introduce a Private Bill to upset the Statute Law, and to deal with estates upon a principle of law totally different from the rest of the land of the country. This was a most mischievous principle, and a mere glance at the provisions of the present Bill would convince the House of its extraordinary character. In the first place, there was a most affecting statement made in regard to Captain Harrison himself—"And whereas Captain Harrison is in the 50th year of his age, and not married." How glad the House would be to hear that Captain Harrison was 50 years old, and was still unmarried. Personally, he (Mr. Healy) trusted that Captain Harrison was enjoying the best of health; and the only matter of surprise to him was that Captain Harrison had not published his portrait as a frontispiece to the Bill, so as to enable the House to understand the kind of man Captain Harrison was. Now, why was it that the House were called upon to sanction the extraordinary principle of permitting a private individual to go before the Examiners of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and enter into an arrangement for settling land, which would relieve private property from the obligations it was under for the benefit of creditors, and thus relieve impecunious landlords from their responsibilities? He could easily understand other impecunious landlords in Ireland throwing longing eyes across the Channel, in the hope of getting similar powers to those which it was proposed to confer on Captain Harrison. He could further imagine that the Irish landlords, who were Members of that House, would give the Bill their support, because they knew that if they did there was a prospect of their own lands becoming settled in the same manner, and their creditors being unable to recover their just rights. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that, when the Bankruptcy Bill came up for consideration in that House, he should propose to introduce a clause into it affecting such cases as this of Captain Harrison and other private gentlemen, who were attempting to withdraw their estates from the responsibilities which might attach to them in the event of bank- 1116 ruptcy. His (Mr. Healy's) own opinion was that whenever these gentlemen attempted to get out of their difficulties the House of Commons should be ready rather to invent hindrances than facilities. The landlords of Ireland were not a class on which the House of Commons ought to look with extreme satisfaction. They had been the curse of this country for generations, and, in a special degree, they had been the curse of Ireland. Why the House should be asked to take up its time in order to discuss a palpable job was more than he could understand. He hoped the House would reject the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had appealed to him to state his opinion in regard to the Bill. He had no intention whatever of withholding that opinion, although he did not recognize that the Office he held was one which rendered it necessary that he should express an opinion in regard to a private measure of this kind. At the same time, he knew perfectly well what the object of the Bill was, and he was most happy to relieve the minds of hon. Members from any misapprehension in regard to it. The Bill contained ample powers of leasing, and of leasing subject to fee - farm rents, which formed the tenure under which the most prosperous parts of the land of Ireland wore now flourishing. The entire town of Belfast was held upon that tenure. So far as the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan were concerned, there was no attempt whatever in this Bill to defraud creditors, and he very much regretted that such a suggestion should have been made. All he would say was that, even if that state of facts did exist, it was a mistake to say that the creditors would have no power over the estate, seeing that the power of leasing would pass to the assignees in bankruptcy, and no portion whatever of the property could be withdrawn from the creditors. So far as the suggestion was concerned that the Bill was an attempt to tie up property which was formerly free, he could only say that, at the present moment, the estate was most strongly tied up, and that the Bill would have a tendency to render it far more free than it was at the present moment. Therefore, having been appealed to by the hon. Member oppo- 1117 site (Mr. Healy), he could only say that he thought the Bill was a very proper one to be passed by that House.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) was perfectly right when he asserted that it was not the business of the Government to look into this Bill; and the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman convinced him (Mr. Labouchere) that he had not looked into it. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had given the House three reasons, and three of the most extraordinary reasons he (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to say that were ever submitted to that House, to justify the passing of a Private Bill. The first was, that they ought not to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because it was most unfair, upon the part of that hon. Gentleman, to interfere with a matter which did not concern him. That was to say, that no Member of Parliament must interfere with a Bill which did not personally concern him. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) had always thought that these were precisely the kind of Bills which hon. Members ought to notice, because it was usually thought improper for hon. Members to take part in Business in which they were personally interested. The second reason was, that the Judges had looked into the matter, and that they had endorsed the Bill. No doubt, certain Judges in Ireland had examined the Bill, in order to see that the conveyance, as a matter of law, was right; but it was no part of their province, and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would bear him out in that, to express any opinion as to the merit of any of the Private Bills which were brought into the House. The third reason was, that the House of Lords had passed the Bill. Now, the Bill had passed the Upper Chamber; but an Assembly of landlords would naturally pass a Bill to promote landlords' private interests. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) said that, under these circumstances, the Bill was unfit for discussion in the House of Commons. If so, why had it been brought into the House of Commons? If hon. Gentlemen chose to bring in Bills, and ask the House to pass them, they must accept the fact that the House 1118 was fitted to discuss and look into them. The hon. Member for Monaghan had gone further, and had given some details of the Bill. It was a very complicated Bill, and it would require at least six hours' consideration at the hands of any lawyer to make it out, and about a week on the part of anybody who was not a lawyer. Nevertheless, he (Mr. Labouchere) had been able to make it out in about 10 minutes. A very cursory examination had enabled him to arrive at the opinion that it ought to be rejected. So far as he could make out, the Bill had been introduced by a private gentleman who had an estate in Ireland. As his hon. Friend the Member for Salford had remarked, the hon. Member for Monaghan had understated the case. This was one of three estates which belonged to this gentleman, and which amounted altogether to 5,300 acres. Captain Harrison had now bought additional land in the neighbourhood of his estate. The hon. Member for Monaghan told them that that land was absolutely valueless to anyone. Nevertheless, under the Bill, the trustees were empowered to pay for it a sum not more than £18,000; and the trustees, having purchased this land, were to throw the fresh land into the settled estates. That was to say, that this additional land was to remain settled for 1,000 years with the other portions of the estate. Now, hon. Members in that part of the House were thoroughly opposed to the system of investing property in land for the benefit of persons who were yet unborn, or for persons who might not be born for even two or three generations. It was perfectly monstrous, after Parliament had passed Lord Cairns's Act to free settled estates, that they should settle additional laud for the period of 1,000 years. Now, what was proposed to be done with this land? The sum of £40,000 was to be raised on the old settled land, and, of this £40,000, £18,000 were to go in payment of the cost of the new settled estates, Captain Harrison selling the rest to the trustees himself. He (Mr. Labouchere) confessed that he was not able to make out from the Bill what was to become of the rest; but it seemed that there was some old mortgage to be paid off, and a sum of £6,000 was to be spent in improving the estate. It was further proposed to destroy some 23 cottages, and to lay out 1119 the land for villa purposes. He had certainly thought that it was desirable in Ireland to build more cottages and to improve them, rather than to destroy them. But in this Bill the House was asked to put an end to the very existence of a considerable number of cottages, so that they might be able to lay out the land on which they stood for villa purposes. Under these circumstances, in future, whenever any Irish gentleman took it into his head to increase his settled estates, and to convert cottages into villa residences, the House of Commons were to be told that the House of Lords had passed the measure, and that it was their duty to accept the decision of the House of Lords. Personally, he was altogether opposed to such legislation, and-he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford.
§ SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought the arguments which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had just addressed to the House were reasons why they should not depart from the usual custom, but should rather consent to the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member said he had been unable to master the details of the measure, although he subsequently declared that a perusal of 10 minutes enabled him to comprehend its scope. Certainly, in such a case, the mastery of his hon. Friend did not commend itself to him (Sir Arthur Otway). The object of the Bill had been clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), and also by the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. Findlater). He was, therefore, not disposed to trouble the House, except to correct the misapprehensions of the hon. Member for Northampton, and of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). As a matter of fact, it was a very small portion of land indeed that was proposed to be dealt with by the Bill, and which could not have been dealt with by Lord Cairns's Act, as it was altogether of a nature which could not be brought under the provisions of that Act. The hon. Member for Northampton had spoken in defence of the interference of private Members in questions of this kind, and had objected to the House dealing with them, unless they did undergo full discussion. Now, he (Sir 1120 Arthur Otway) had no objection to any hon. Member taking part in the discussion of any Bill submitted to them; but he must appeal to the House whether, in the present state of Public Business, it was not to be deplored that hon. Members should take the opportunity not only once or twice, but repeatedly, afforded by the introduction of Private Bills dealing with very small matters, for entering into and instructing the House generally on the very large question of land tenure, and the custom of the country in regard to the land system. It was within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had, on several occasions, seized such an opportunity for instructing the House upon the question of land tenure. He (Sir Arthur Otway) thought the practice was very much to be deplored; and it was certainly not conducive to the progress of Public Business that, whenever a Private Bill stood upon the Paper, which dealt in any way with land, the hon. Member should avail himself of the occasion to enter into the general questions affecting the land system. It was only the other day that the hon. Member took advantage of such an opportunity for bringing forward a name which was never mentioned in that House except with the highest feeling of affection and veneration. The hon. Member on that occasion took advantage of the opportunity for casting reflections on the son of a most distinguished statesman. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he had done nothing of the sort.] He thought he was within the recollection of the House, and it would bear him out, that the hon. Member had referred in strong terms to a Bill introduced in the name of the present Sir Robert Peel.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Baronet was regular in referring to a previous debate?
§ MR. SPEAKERI did not understand the hon. Baronet to refer to a debate that has taken place on a former occasion; but simply to give an illustration to the House.
§ SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he had only a few more words to add, and he would only say that, so far as he was concerned, he found it difficult to understand why the course which the House 1121 usually took in regard to these Bills should not be followed in the present instance—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the details, which the hon. Member for Northampton said they were unable to master, might be inquired into. The case, he thought, was one which should not be decided by the House, but should be submitted to the proper tribunal.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he wished to say a word in order to correct a misapprehension. He had stated that there were 53 acres of foreshore dealt with by the Bill, and about 21 acres of building land included in the settlement. That was the only portion of the property dealt with by the Bill which was unsettled; the 1,500 acres which had been referred to having been already settled.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he knew nothing whatever about the Bill, except what he had gathered from the speeches which had been delivered in the course of the debate; but he felt bound to state that the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) against the Bill convinced him that he ought to vote for it. In point of fact, the speech of the hon. Member was one which made him inclined to wish that the estate of every Irish gentleman could be settled in some way or other, because the hon. Member told them that out of £18,000 which the Bill authorized to be raised, £6,000 were to be spent in improvements. He sincerely wished that on every Irish estate, valued at £18,000, there could be a sum of £6,000 reserved for improvements; and, for the purpose of securing in this case that the £6,000 should be spent in improvements, he should certainly vote for the Bill. He should vote for it also for another reason—namely, that he did not like the interference of English Members in purely Irish matters. If there was anything wrong in the Bill, it should be left to Irish Members to attack it, and not to the keen-eyed vision of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). For that reason, and in order to secure the expenditure of £6,000 in improvements out of £18,000, he should vote for the Bill.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had examined the Bill carefully, and he thought it had 1122 been represented to the House as being very much worse than it really was. If hon. Members read the Bill, they would see that the late John Harrison, of Mertoun Hall, Holywood, near Belfast, left a strict settlement of his property. The real fact of the matter was, that one of the sons had died, and this was a family arrangement between the grandson of the late John Harrison, and the surviving son of that gentleman. He (Mr. Biggar) did not think that hon. Members who had discussed the question could have correctly read the Bill. At any rate, they had not accurately stated the real facts of the case. He know the estate very well, and he could imagine the advantage that the small town near which the estate was situated would derive from the outlay of £6,000 in the improvement of the property. At the present moment, the place to which he referred was in a very un-prosperous condition, and the value of property there had fallen something like 40 per cent during the last 10 years. He was, however, inclined to believe that if £6,000 was going to be raised under the provision of the Bill, it was hardly likely to be spent in the local improvement of the property. But he had no doubt that the object of the Bill was to simplify matters, and to allow Captain Harrison, who was the second son of the late John Harrison, to make some arrangements by which the property could be divided, and the profits likely to accrue from it realized. That was the real object of the Bill, and he did not think it would have any practical effect in perpetuating the settlement of estates.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—
§ The Tellers being come to the Table, Mr. Findlater, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, stated that Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Member for Whitehaven, being in the Left Lobby, had declined to Vote, not having heard the Question put.
§ MR. FINDLATERadded that the number which had voted for the Ayes was 185.
§ MR. SPEAKERDid the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven hear the Question put?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKNo, Sir.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question proposed was, "That the Bill be now read a second time," since which an Amendment has been made to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient to increase the area of Settled Land, as proposed by the Bill." Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman declare himself with the Ayes, or with the Noes?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKWith the Ayes.
§ MR. SPEAKERdirected the Vote of the right hon. and learned Getlemann to be added to the Ayes.
§ The Tellers accordingly declared the numbers: Ayes 186; Noes 37: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.