MOTION FOR A PAPER. (Hansard, 12 August 1887)

§ LORD ARDILAUN
, in rising to call attention to the present business of the Land Judges Court (Ireland), and to move for a Return with regard to it, giving the number of petitions filed during the last four years, divided into the number each year; the number of estates offered for sale; the number of estates in which the rentals were settled; the number of estates in which receivers were appointed divided into each year; the number of receivers; the number of accounts not lodged within the limit of time appointed; the number of six months' settlements of accounts; the number of yearly settlements; the gross annual rental under receivers for each year; the gross amount collected each 220 year; the number of officials attached to court, and their salaries; and the number and salaries of those in the receiver's department, said, that his object in asking for the Return was to ascertain the causes of the great delays in the business of the Court; for he knew of cases in which those interested did all in their power to press their cases for the preparation of title through the Court, still incomplete after three or four years' interval after the filing of the petition.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)
asked for the names of some of these cases, and he would make immediate inquiry in reference to them.

§ LORD ARDILAUN
said, he would furnish the noble Lord with cases the delay had arisen in, in consequence of the present position of the Court. The Irish Law Times of the 28th May last reported that at the ordinary weekly meeting of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland a letter from the Secretary to the Southern Law Association was read, which enclosed a copy of a Resolution of that Association. That Resolution was— That the attention of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society be called to the serious delay to the conduct of business in the Court of the Land Judges, occasioned by there being but one examiner (instead of two as heretofore), whose varied and onerous duties preclude the possibility of his investigating titles so as to admit of reasonable progress being made in the conduct of business, as a consequence of which abstracts of title remain in some cases over six months without being ruled on or disposed of, and that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society be requested to adopt such measures as may be considered advisable for the purpose of finding a remedy for the inconvenience referred to. So far as he could understand or learn, the matter was still under consideration, and precious time was being lost. What was the answer to these complaints of the extraordinary delay? It was this—the Court was undermanned, having been robbed of its best officials, they being removed to another Court; and, secondly, no sales could be effected, and consequently there was no necessity to prepare for sale. The first cause was unquestionably true, because the best officials of the Court had been removed to another Land Court, of which there there were now three in Ireland. But he begged to differ from the second 221 reason altogether—that there was no necessity to prepare titles for sales because, owing to the legislation which had been unfortunately passed in this country for the destruction of the interests of the landlords in Ireland, no one would purchase property, except the occupying tenants. But why should the preparation of estates for sale be so delayed? Why should not every estate in which those interested desired to prepare for sale, he prepared against that happy time when tenants would be willing to purchase the whole of them? It would take years to clear all the titles, and during all that time the arrears would inevitably be running up. Should a scheme of purchase be carried by the Government, were they then to commence to make titles clear and settle rentals? If titles were clear now, he know of many cases in which mortgagees would purchase to avoid further loss, receivers would be got rid of and an accumulation of arrears prevented. What was the reason for this delay? The reason, he understood, was that it was to save the Treasury some £500 a-year which the appointment of another examiner to do the necessary work would cost. He thought that it was hardly fair of the Government to allow such a comparatively small sum to stand in the way. It would be a very small concession to the landowners who had been so severely hit by the legislation of recent years, and who with the charge holders by the delay were losing tens of thousands a-year. He hoped that when a measure of relief to the tenants had just passed their Lordships' House, they would now consider whether something should not be done which would be just and perfectly equitable to those who desired to sell their property. He thought it was right to add that the Judge of the Court had asked for this assistance, and that it was the Treasury that was particularly in the way. Coming to the subject of receivers appointed under the Court, he said he understood there were over 1,000 estates—about 1,400—under receivers. There was no check upon these officers, except a nominal annual settlement. These receivers were perfectly free during the whole year to collect the rents, and at the end of the year their accounts were brought up and formally audited. Many of them were influenced by 222 fear, and were very anxious to throw the responsibility of pressing for the payment of rents upon others. Some were extremely indolent, and many, he was sorry to say, were very much open to the cultivation of popularity in the collection of rents. He would suggest to the Government that they should carefully lock into this question, and see how far these receivers could be supervised and checked by some superior officer of the Court visiting the estates in cases where accounts were unsatisfactory. Formerly the receivers were much more energetic, and collected the rents much better, for these officers looked forward to becoming agents to the estates when sold, and that was a great inducement to them to keep the estates in good order. But at present nobody would purchase an estate but the tenants, and when tenants purchased no agent was required. He thought the receiver's accounts were not audited frequently enough, and as to the system generally there was no second opinion as to its badness. He would give some cases. On one estate the receiver was appointed in August, 1882. The accounts were lodged with the receiver on the 1st September, 1884, 29th January, 1885, 26th February, 1886, and the 12th January, 1887, but none of these accounts had been over vouched or passed. The rental over which the receiver was appointed amounted to £382. The arrears due on the first account were £1,302; the amount due on the 1886 account was £1,410, or nearly four years' rent. In the next ease he would refer to the receiver was appointed on the 6th December, 1881. The yearly rental of the estate was stated in 1884 to be £1,115; the arrears due on the receiver's account for 1884 to be £1,329, and for last year to £2,980. The receiver took the direction of the Judge, and issued about 100 ejectments, at the expense of the estate; but none of the ejectments had ever been put into execution. In the third case the following were the facts:—The receiver was appointed in February, 1882; the rental was £592. The first account was lodged on the 29th February, 1883. The arrears to November, 1882 were £798; to November, 1883, £793, and to November, 1884, £835, while the final account showed the arrears due in May, 1886, to be £1,408. The arrears now were con- 223 siderably over £2,000. The receiver, however, had got a large amount of the arrears, 'but had left the country with the money in his pocket. This showed the necessity for some local supervision. He asked from the Government an assurance that they would give some assistance to the Court by the appointment of even a temporary examiner, and that the question of receiverships, which was profoundly unsatisfactory, and worked great injustice, would be considered.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said, that his noble Friend's first charge was that the Landed Estates Court was undermanned. He would admit that the subject which the noble Lord had called attention to was deserving of consideration, although he did not admit the statements to the extent given by his noble Friend. When the Purchase Act of 1885 was passed, it was true that under the provisions of that Bill, and in order to assist its working, and at the same time assist legitimate economy, certain officials were transferred to the Land Court. There had been two Judges to the Land Court now under discussion, but one of them having resigned, it was decided in the legitimate interests of economy, without interfering with efficiency, not to fill up his place. That left some of the staff for other employment, and two officers were transferred to the Land Commission. He had never heard that the transferrence of those two officials interfered in the slightest degree in the working out of the legitimate operations of the Landed Estates Court in the prepation of title. It was not desirable, and it was obviously inexpedient, when there were practically no sales at present, to appoint any more highly paid perma- 224 nent officers, but if after some time, it was still found that the present examiner was unable to cope with the business, he could then consider whether he would not seek Treasury sanction for the appointment of some temporary assistant, and thus keep down any arrears of reading titles and making them ready for that sale which they all hoped would soon take place in Ireland. The noble Lord had called attention to the receivers under the Court, but their position was only an index to the state of the country in too many parts. These receivers had to deal with property having a rental of more than £500,000. The delays about which complaint was made in particular cases were not always to be ascribed to the Court. The parties were themselves to blame sometimes. When his noble Friend blamed the receivers for not collecting rents better and more expeditiously, he should bear in mind how many landlords there were not labouring under the administration of the Court; who found a difficulty in getting their rents, and who, at the end of the year, had to put on the paper as assets, a very long list of arrears. He did not, therefore, think in these circumstances it was enough to show that there were arrears due to the receivers in order to convict them of maladministration. The noble Lord charged the receivers with being afraid. Well, in these times, one could not expect a man who collected rents in disturbed districts to be entirely free from timidity. He had no objection to give the noble Lord the fullest possible information that could be given. His noble Friend asked him to allow the Motion to appear again on the Paper in the same form on a future day—say, Thursday next. In the meantime he would communicate with the Judge of the Court, and if the Judge saw no objection he would be the last person in the world to desire to withhold the information for which the noble Lord asked.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, he thought the existing state of things ought not to continue. This Landed Estates Court succeeded the old Encumbered Estates Court. Formerly there used to be periodical sales of land, and the Court had been of great service in disposing of encumbered estates; but now, when purchasers could not be found for many 225 estates, the functions of the Court were in abeyance. There was now only one Judge of the Court, Mr. Munroe, but the staff was enormous. In his opinion, this Court had become an excrescence; and in the interests of economy and efficiency it ought to become part of the Land Commission. He believed his noble Friend had not overstated the case when he said there were 1,400 receivers now acting under the Land Court. Nothing could be worse for the country than such a system as that. It was costly in every way, and he thought this matter ought to be taken into consideration by the Government with a view to its being referred to a small Commission.