LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 5 April 1853)

§ VISCOUNT CANNING,
in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it was a transcript, or nearly so, of an Act passed in 1847. The object of both that and the present Bill was to encourage the permanent improvement of land in Ireland by enabling landowners to obtain loans from the public funds for that purpose; and the difference between the present Act and that of 1847 was, that it was now sought to extend the power already possessed by proprietors of obtaining loans for the improvement of their estates by means of public money advanced for that purpose, and to enable them to undertake those improvements with money from their own funds, or obtained from private as well as from public sources, under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The working of the Act of 1847 had given very general satisfaction, not only to the Government, but to those private individuals who had obtained loans under its provisions, and no part of the measure had been more satisfactory than the superintendence of the Commissioners of Works. As evidence of that, he might state that during the time it had been in operation, money to the extent of nearly 2,000,000l. had been advanced under it, and, upon an average, the expense of the machinery for working it had not been greater than 1 per cent in cases where the amount of the loan was under 500l., and not more than 10s. per cent in the case of loans above 1,000l. The machinery was precisely similar to that called into action by the Act of 1847. There would be one or two verbal amendments which it would be necessary to propose in Committee; but, with that exception, no alteration would be necessary. He hoped there would not be any obstacles thrown in the way of the Bill, and that it would be allowed to go into Committee.

The EARL of WICKLOW
believed the Bill to be founded upon just and sound principles. It was an Act for carrying out the objects of the former Bill, to which 587 the noble Lord had alluded, for enabling the proprietors to borrow money from the Government. All the provisions of the Bill were the same as those of the Act of 1847, with the sole exception that the present Bill enabled landed proprietors having partial and limited interests, to undertake the improvements which they wished to carry out, with their own money or with money borrowed from private sources. There was, however, one provision introduced which he trusted Her Majesty's Government would look to. It was this: No landed proprietor, let his property be what it might, or however scattered over the whole of the kingdom, was allowed, under the provisions of that Bill, or at least under the direction of the Commissioners of the Treasury, to draw a larger sum than 5,000l.; whereas the smallest landed proprietor, wishing to improve his estate, had power to draw to that extent. Now, there were many persons with property scattered all over the country who were most anxious to improve it, and yet were debarred from doing so under this provision; and he trusted, therefore, that this defect in the Bill would be looked to and remedied. As he had observed before, the Bill was well intended; but he was afraid that from the manner in which the payments were to be made, it would be found nearly inoperative. This Bill was intended for two classes of persons, and for only two: for tenants for life who had money, and who might be expected to expend it on their own land—a very small class in that country, unfortunately; and the very large class, he was sorry to say, of tenants for life who had no money, and who might be induced to go into the money market to raise funds for the purpose of carrying out improvements. He was afraid, however, that when it came to be known that the only mode of repayment was in the form of an annuity for 82 years, those who applied to the money market would find it impossible to obtain loans. He had no doubt the Bill had been framed upon a good calculation, to give 4 per cent interest for the loan, and secure the repayment of the sum advanced in 22 years; but few people would, he thought, be disposed to lend money upon the terms proposed. This defect, as he considered it to be, in the Bill, could not be amended in that House, but he thought it his duty to point it out. If this Bill had contained another provision, giving power to the bor- 588 rower to settle the interest of his loan upon the estate, and so to mortgage the property to that amount, with the liberty also of borrowing under the existing provisions of the Bill, the Act would have been available for the purpose intended; but, as at present framed, he feared it would be inoperative.

§ LORD ST. LEONARDS
said, that he thought it likely that for the reasons stated by the noble Earl, some persons would not be inclined to lend money for carrying out these improvements upon the terms proposed. That was, no doubt, an evil; but if they gave the tenant for life power to mortgage the estates, the mortgagee must have the power usually possessed by the holders of that class of securities, and would, therefore, be able to file a bill for the recovery of the interest upon the mortgage when it was in arrear, and thus the whole of the parties interested might be plunged into litigation arising out of these improvements. Nothing could be more dangerous or objectionable than this, nor more directly opposed to the principle of the Bill. He had great confidence that his noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government, as well as the Board of Works, would take every step to see that the money was properly expended; but the powers for the improvement of land given by this Bill were indeed of a most dangerous character; and it could not but be regretted that while emancipating Ireland from the curse of estates involved in debt, they were beginning a new system that might involve every settled estate in that country in incumbrances for all time to come. The moment they did what this Bill professed to do, and enabled the owners of a limited estate in land to charge their own expenditure on the settled estate, they took away all inducement from men who had settled estates to improve the property which they enjoyed—for if a man could charge on the estate what was spent in improvements, it was not likely that he would have recourse to his own money without taking what would, in fact, give him a charge upon the remainder-man or reversioner. He thought that it was Lord Clare who said that it was a common way in Ireland "to improve a man out of his estates." The Montgomery Act, which gave power to charge estates with improvements made by the tenant in tail, had not worked well in Scotland. He should not oppose the passing of this Bill, 589 but he certainly wished to see the provisions fenced round by some safeguard. He was, he confessed, a little alarmed at the third clause, which gave the Board of Works power to appoint such engineers, architects, agriculturists, &c., as might be necessary to transact their business, and to pay them such salaries as they might determine upon. These expenses must all be borne by the settled estates in Ireland; and he must, therefore, impress upon the Government the necessity of seeing that these powers were not abused.

§ LORD BEAUMONT
said, that this, like every other Bill which related to property in Ireland, seemed to him a violation of the rights of property; for it gave persons having a limited interest in property the right to burden other persons—namely, those entitled to the reversion or remainder. That was no doubt in itself an evil, only to be justified by the peculiar position of the property and the proprietors of Ireland. Bills like the present, were, too, attended with disadvantages, inasmuch as they took away from the landowners that which was properly their duty—namely, to look after the improvement of their own estates—and conferred it upon a public body, the Commissioners of the Board of Works, who were not so well qualified to perform it as those who were interested in the property. The Bill seemed to commence with a thorough distrust of all who had possession of land, or were in the occupation of land in Ireland, for though it conferred power on them over the property of others, it took away all control in regard to their own property, and gave the Board of Works the supervision of the management of their estates. If, however, it was admitted that the state of Ireland rendered this violation of the first principles of property necessary, then he did not see the force of the objections to it which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken. Because he apprehended that the same machinery which was in action to prevent the abuse of the money expended on land borrowed from the Government, would operate in regard to money derived from the funds of the tenant for life; and that in each the Commissioners of the Board of Works would be obliged to see that the money was expended so that the result of the outlay should permanently benefit the remainder-man who is to inherit the estate, as well as the tenant for life. In fact this Bill, in common with preceding Bills, virtually ves- 590 ted the land of Ireland in Commissioners who were supposed to manage it for the benefit of all parties, owners, occupiers, tenants for life, and remainder-men. If he was convinced that such would always be the case, he should raise no objection to the Bill, because then the reversioner would not suffer by it; for though subjected to a rentcharge which he was no party to imposing upon the property, he would receive a full compensation for the injury thus done him in the increased rent which he derived from the land in consequence of the improvements.

§ VISCOUNT CANNING
said, that he hoped that many of the objections that had been raised to the Bill would fall to the ground upon a fuller examination of it. He was obliged to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) for opposing with the weight of his high authority the suggestions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) that the life tenant should have the power of mortgaging the estate. This would defeat the principle on which this measure, as well as that of 1847, was founded, and would, he thought, be liable to all the objections which the noble and learned Lord so well urged. He might, indeed, state to the noble Earl that the rentcharge provided by the Bill was larger than he seemed aware of, being calculated to yield 5 per cent on the outlay; it was hoped that this would induce banks and other private persons to lend money for the improvement of land. The objection, that this Bill was calculated to induce the people of Ireland to encumber their estates more than at present, applied quite as forcibly to the Act of 1847, the operation of which for six years had, he believed, given unqualified satisfaction. The Bill had been laid on the table since the middle of last month, and had been delivered to their Lordships some days before Easter, and he hoped, therefore, they would think full time had been given for its consideration. However, he was quite ready to grant whatever delay noble Lords might consider desirable, and would propose to put it in Committee of the House on any day which might be convenient to those noble Lords who were desirous of discussing its provisions.