LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 23 July 1885)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

, in moving that the Report of Amendments to this Bill be received, said, that it would save time if he laid before their Lordships as shortly as possible a sketch of the principal Amendments which he proposed to make. He had endeavoured, in the Amendments he now submitted to the House, to deal with the various points raised in the discussion that had taken place on the Bill. He had also availed himself of many suggestions made to him from various quarters with regard to different parts of the Bill. The first important Amendment was one which dealt with the one-fifth of the purchase-money which it was proposed to leave as a guarantee. He had already inserted various Amendments in the Bill at the Committee stage dealing with that matter, and he now proposed to introduce further safeguards for those whose money would thus be retained for the security of the State. Another important question was with reference to the power proposed to be given by the Bill to the Land Commission in certain instances to make vesting orders. The Bill proposed that these vesting orders should give an indefeasible title; but it had been pointed out in that House, and 1607 also suggested to him by various persons outside, that it would be desirable to permit other vesting orders to be made in cases where the Land Commission might find itself unable to pronounce vesting orders giving an indefeasible title. It was thought that in such cases it would be desirable that the Commission should have power to give vesting orders which should not be absolutely indefeasible. Another Amendment was with reference to a subject brought to their Lordships' attention by the noble Earl the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer). It had relation to the possible danger from the apportionment of rent charges and the possible injustice which would accrue from the apportionment of mortgages. For instance, a person might now receive a rent charge of £1,000 a-year from two or three solvent tenants, and it might be very inconvenient for him to have substituted for those two or three solvent persons 30 or 40 others, from whom he might have considerable difficulty in collecting his money. In the same way a person might have a mortgage of £5,000 secured on the property of one person, and it might be very inconvenient for him to have to look for his interest to a multiplicity of owners. He had, therefore, struck out of the Bill the power of apportioning rent charges and mortgages. He was supported in that by the information which had been communicated to him that the Landed Estates Court had not been in the habit for years of using its power of apportioning rent charges, owing probably to the inconvenience and injustice resulting therefrom. The Landed Estates Court, he believed, had never had the power of apportioning or dividing mortgages, and, therefore, there was no precedent in that matter. Another point to which he thought their Lordships would readily give their assent was with regard to the position of members of both branches of the Legal Profession employed in the business of the Land Commission. It had been felt a grievance that persons of distinguished and honourable position in both branches of the Legal Profession should, by their employment about the business of the Commission, cease to be regarded as practising part of their profession. That grievance he proposed to remedy. He also had taken power to 1608 appoint, if thought necessary, a separate solicitor for that part of the work connected with land purchase. With that sketch of the Amendments which he had now to submit, he begged to move their adoption.