HL Deb 28 July 1891 vol 356 cc526-37

Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential Amendments, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)

My Lords, perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House that I should, in a few words, state the course which I propose to take this evening upon these Amendments, and that I should also state the advice which I would venture to give to the House with regard to the Amendments which the other House have inserted in this Bill. I need hardly remind your Lordships that during the passage of this Bill through both Houses of Parliament it has received the most full and anxious consideration of both Assemblies, and I think I may be permitted to say that while, on the one hand, noble Lords sitting on both sides of this House have taken the greatest pains and the greatest care with regard to all Amendments upon this Bill, it may also be said that the Members of the other House received the Amendments which we made in the spirit of a sincere desire to amend, without in any way infringing upon the principles of the Amendments we inserted, and, generally speaking, I would venture to advise your Lordships to assent to the Amendments the House of Commons have introduced. Of course, on a subject like the present, which involves conflicting interests, and upon which opposite views would naturally be taken, it is absolutely necessary to say that on the ultimate stage of the Bill we should go on the principle of give and take, and therefore I shall not be wrong in asking your Lordships to agree to the Amendments sent up from the House of Commons. There are one or two points upon which I shall venture to move Amendments which I understand will be accepted in the other House. They are the result of careful consideration and of compromise. I will take the Amendments seriatim, and I shall be happy to give any explanation that may be required, or to answer any questions which may be put to me at a later stage when the Amendments come to be moved. Upon one point perhaps I might be allowed to say a word. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Waterford) who has throughout the progress of this Bill evinced so able and intelligent an interest in all that concerns it, has placed an Amendment upon the Notice Paper. I do not like to pass it over in silence, but I will only say now that I trust your Lordships will agree to the Amendments made by the House of Commons. The first Amendment on the Paper has reference to Clause 7, page 7, of the Bill in its present state. It provides for the case of a purchaser who himself pays one-fourth of the money, and proposes that the interest to be paid on the three-fourths advanced shall be £3 17s. 6d. instead of £3 15s., as agreed to in your Lordships' House. I move that the House do agree to this Amendment of the Commons. I believe the noble Marquess has an Amendment upon this point.

Moved, That this House doth agree to the Commons' Amendment, to leave out in Clause A, after Clause 6, "fifteen shillings," and to insert "seventeen shillings and sixpence," and at the end of the clause to add— And an annual sum at the rate of two shillings and sixpence for every £100 of the advance shall be paid and applied in the same manner as the county percentage mentioned in Section 4 of this Act."—(The Earl Cadogan.)

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

My Lords, I put down an Amendment to the Commons' Amendment in the hope that Her Majesty's Government might accept it. The fact of the matter is that the clause which was introduced in this House, and which would induce the tenants in Ireland to produce a certain amount of money themselves, that is to say, one-fourth, has been emasculated in the other House. Your Lordships agreed when it was put into the Bill that it would be a very great advantage to induce the tenants of Ireland to produce a certain portion of the purchase money themselves, because it would increase the amount of money to be distributed, it would add to the protection which is given in this Bill to the British taxpayer, and I think it is only right that people should be induced if possible to pay, at any rate, something towards the purchase of their holdings. This clause is drawn upon the lines of the provisions introduced into the Act of 1870, and the Act of 1881, following what are called the "Bright" clauses. There was an inducement held out under this clause which was introduced in your Lordships' House for the tenants to produce this one-fourth of the purchase money, and the 5s. per cent., which is called the county percentage, is the inducement to make them do so. In another place, that 5s. has been reduced to 2s. 6d., and I do not think 2s. 6d. per cent. is at all adequate to induce a tenant to produce any portion of his purchase money. He would much rather borrow the whole amount from the Government. Therefore, I put down this Amendment to the Bill as it left the Commons. I ask that if the tenant should provide one-third of the purchase-money he shall be forgiven the 5s. percentage. I hope Her Majesty's Government may still see their way to accept this Amendment, and I believe it will be accepted in another place, because really as your Lordships will see it is a very reasonable Amendment. I might say that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in another place pointed out the great advantage which would result from the Lords' Amendment of the Bill as it stands, and I cannot understand how, after the very strong reasons he gave for maintaining that Amendment, the 5s. was cut down to the 2s. 6d.

Moved as an addition to Clause A, as amended by the Commons— And any advance made after the passing of this Act which shall not exceed two-thirds of the price paid for a holding, shall he repaid by an annuity of three pounds fifteen shillings per cent. on the amount of such advance for forty-nine years, and no payment shall be made to the guarantee fund by way of county percentage in respect of any such advance."—(The Lord Tyrone [M. of Waterford].)

EARL CADOGAN

I hope the noble Marquess will not persevere with his Amendment. I confess I agree with a great deal which has fallen from him. It is perfectly true that under our former proposal the county percentage was done away with altogether for those who were themselves prepared to pay one-fourth of the purchase-money; but I hope the noble Marquess will not think I am taking refuge under a technicality if I say that his Amendment can hardly be accepted in point of order. The fact is it is not really an Amendment upon the Amendment we are now considering. By the Amendment carried in this House it is provided that any tenant purchasing who paid one-fourth should be excused the county percentage, and should stand at an interest of £2 15s. In the other House of Parliament when that Amendment was discussed a proviso was agreed to, to the effect that he should pay £2 17s. 6d. Now, the Amendment of the noble Marquess is that we should accept that which has been decided in the other House, that is to say, the compromise of £2 17s. 6d., and that in addition we should create another class of purchasers, namely, those prepared to pay one-third, and to them give the privilege of paying only £2 15s. interest. I think my noble Friend will see that is hardly an Amendment upon the former clause of the Bill. It is really the creation of an additional class, and I am informed it is absolutely impossible to assent to that as an Amendment of the Commons' Amendment. I hope that my noble Friend, therefore, will not think that I am taking refuge under any technicality, but will see that it is absolutely impossible to accept this Amendment.

*THE EARL OF ARRAN

I should like to say, if the noble Earl does not see his way to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess, that it would be better to return to the Amendment as originally proposed in this House. It is surely a most useful thing to induce the Irish tenants to put some of their own money into the land instead of leaving it in the bank.

EARL CADOGAN

Does the noble Earl moan to suggest that we are to disagree with the Amendment now before the House? Of course, my duty in the matter is simply to advise the House as to the course which I think it is best to pursue. The noble Lord is asking us to decline a compromise which has been accepted by the Chief Secretary in the other House. That is hardly a course that I ought to recommend to your Lordships, and I hope, therefore, my noble Friend will not persevere in the course he has proposed.

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

After the observations which have been made by the noble Earl I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Commons' Amendment to Lords' Amendment on page 7, agreed to.

Further Commons' Amendments agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The nest Amendment on the Paper is one which I confess I abandon with some reluctance. It is an Amendment which was proposed by my noble Friend the Marquess of Waterford on Clause 8, page 7, which affected the liability of the tenant after agreement for sale—that is, between the agreement and the completion of the purchase. My noble Friend behind me proposed that during that period the payment of interest should be left to the Land Commission, and that it should not be necessary for the landlord to see to it himself. I can only say that I believe in this respect the effect of the clause as it left your Lordships' House would hare been better than it will be at the present; but at the same time, for the reasons I have before stated, I have to earnestly entreat your Lordships not to insist upon this clause, which has not been agreed to in the other House.

Commons' Amendment, disagreeing to Clause B, agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The next Amendment is in Clause 12 of the Bill, on page 12. These are practically verbal Amendments, which constitute a re-casting of that clause, about which there has been so much discussion upon the subject of proportional allocation of the advances. Noble Lords opposite will remember that when this Bill was in Committee my noble Friend the Marquess of Londonderry proposed an additional clause or sub-section qualifying the Apportionment Clause as it came up to us from the other House; but after consideration before the Report stage I ventured to present to your Lordships, in consequence of the remark made as to the bearing of that clause, one instead of it, which I think noble Lords opposite and others thought an Amendment upon that which was proposed by my noble Friend. Since that time the clause has been again discussed in the other House of Parliament, and that discussion has resulted in a third edition, which I hope will, on the whole, make the meaning more plain to those who read it, perhaps, somewhat superficially. There are a large number of Amendments as your Lordships will see, but I think I should meet the convenience of the House if I might be permitted to read the clause as it would stand if the Commons' Amendments were agreed to. It is Subsection 3 of Clause 10 (b)— If the advances applied for (and which appear to the Land Commission likely to he sanctioned) for the purchase of holdings exceeding £50 rental fall short in any year of the proportion of the annual share of the County in the Guarantee Fund ascertained in accordance with Sub-sections 1 and 2 of this section with reference to the class of holdings exceeding £50 valuation, the difference shall be carried to a common fund to be available for the purchase of any holding within the county for the purchase of which advances may be made under this Act. I do not know whether any noble Lord desires to make a remark upon it, but if it be agreeable to the House I will proceed to put all the Amendments. Most of them are drafting, but the general sense of the Amendment is to be found in the clause as I have just read it.

Moved in Clause 10, page 11, Sub-section 3, Sub-clause (b.), lines 3 and 4, to leave out ("amount so deemed to be allocated ") and insert— ("Proportion of the annual share of the county in the guarantee fund ascertained in accordance with sub-sections one and two of this section with reference"); sub-clause (c.), line 4, leave out ("amount so deemed to be allocated") and insert ("proportion of annual share of the county in the guarantee fund ascertained in accordance with sub-sections one and two of this section with reference.")—(The Earl Codogan.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I have only this remark to make upon these Amendments so far as I understand them. I believe I raised a good deal of objection to the form of the clause, but they seem to me now to make it perfectly clear.

Commons' Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The next Amendment is in what is now Clause 13, page 13, line 42. The Commons disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 11, line 37, for the following Reason:— Because, it is not thought necessary that the Crown should appear in every case by counsel, and alternative amendment approved of, namely, to substitute for ("counsel appearing") the words ("what is offered.") I move that the Commons' Amendment be agreed to.

LORD HERSCHELL

My Lords, I think it is rather a curious reason this for disagreeing with the Amendment. As the Bill came to us from the other House it provided that the Privy Council, after hearing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Crown, should advise the Lord Lieutenant. This House inserted the words "if any." and that is disagreed to, because it is not thought necessary that the Crown should appear in every case, which is giving the very reason why it was agreed to. We must not look at it too critically; but there would be this objection to it: if the Crown did not wish to appear by Counsel, but desired in some other way to argue the matter, they would be precluded from doing so; they could only appear by Counsel, and that is probably why the alternative Amendment is put in. I do not understand the statement that one may get something else to be an argument why one should get nothing.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

Is it worth while making the point, because after all they have to submit the value, and the Attorney General has to secure the assistance of a private advocate. It is not, I think, worth while making a distinction between the cases, and, on that account, the point is not worth disputing.

LORD HERSCHELL

It would not be worth disputing if some Amendments had not been made already, and the Bill therefore has to go to the other House, otherwise I would not suggest it. But I do not press it if your Lordships are satisfied with the English.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My impression is it is Irish, and, therefore, it is quite in keeping.

EARL CADOGAN

I move that the Lords do not insist upon their Amendment.

LORD HERSCHELL

First we do not insist upon our own, and then we agree to the Commons.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I suppose they have amended it. It is put in the strangest way here. It does not say the Amendment is approved of, but that the alternative Amendment is approved. The usual course is to tell us they have made an Amendment. I hope they have, otherwise embarrassment will arise: that is all.

EARL CADOGAN

I am informed that the alternative Amendment was made.

Moved, That the Lords do not insist upon their Amendment.—Agreed to.

Moved, That this House doth agree to the Commons' Amendments.—Agreed to.

Further Amendments agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The next Amendment is in Clause 25, to insert new Clauses F and G. The Commons have disagreed to the clause which is marked F, giving power to the Land Commission be let or manage their holdings. They disagreed with this because the clause Joes not make provision for the application of any profit realised in the management of holdings, and because the second part of the clause would place the Land Commission in the position of Judges in their own case, and enable them to vest in themselves the holdings of tenant purchasers. I am bound to say that this is one Amendment with which I sympathise. There was considerable reason in the objections entertained by the other House with reference to this clause. A discussion took place upon it in the other House, and I believe it was then agreed that the clause as passed by your Lordships should be dissented from, and that we should bring in a new clause in substitution for it. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the Amendment I now propose. I move, first, that the House do not insist upon its Amendment.

LORD HERSCHELL

I should have thought if you were going to substitute a new clause you would not say you were going to insist upon it, but suggest the new clause in substitution.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If you send down a new clause you certainly need to insist, otherwise your Amendment is gone.

EARL CADOGAN

I have placed upon the Paper notice of an Amendment of a new clause to be substituted for that proposed by the Commons' Amendment. I propose to substitute the following: it will stand as a new Clause 26, page 20, of the Bill as last printed.

Moved, in lieu of Clause F. to which the Commons have disagreed, to insert the following new Clause:— Whenever the Land Commission are entitled to cause any holding to be sold under any power of sale, they may, if they think fit, apply to the High Court or (if the rateable value of the holding does not exceed fifty pounds) to the county court of the county in which such holding is situate, for an order to the sheriff to put them in possession of such holding, and it shall be lawful for such court, upon being satisfied that the Land Commission are so entitled, to issue an order accordingly, and such order shall be executed by the sheriff in like manner as a writ for the delivery of possession."—(The Earl Cadogan.)

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The next Amendment is marked G, on page 7. It was an Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, with reference to the provision that holdings while subject to purchase money should be under conditions especially relating to questions of waste. It dealt with drains and watercourses, and it dealt also with that very important subject which your Lordships discussed, namely, the question of timber, and what has been held to be the practical disafforesting of Ireland. I am afraid it would be impossible for me to advise your Lordships to insist upon the retention of this clause. The House of Commons have given as their reasons that the provisions in that behalf of the Drainage Acts and the rights enforceable under the Common Law are sufficient to secure the proper maintenance of drains and watercourses. I am not quite sure, if my information is correct, that the provisions are sufficient to secure that which was secured by the clause of my noble Friend. I am rather inclined to think not; but, at the same time, I cannot advise your Lordships on that account to retain the clause. I believe that the provisions of the Common Law do not go quite so far as the proposed clause, but that they are practically sufficient to attain the larger part of the objects of my noble Friend. The Commons Reason also states that the proposed sub-head (a) would only have the effect of preventing a purchaser from cutting down timber growing on his holding, and would not operate to protect plantations, which are not included, as a rule, in the land purchased. With regard to the question I have just now alluded to, I may repeat what I have said on a former occasion, that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has turned his attention to it, with an earnest wish to arrive at a solution of it; but at present he does not see his way to any legislation on the subject. I much regret it, because I deeply sympathise with all that has been said by noble Lords on both sides of the House as to the danger of disafforesting Ireland, and as to the unsatisfactory arrangements with regard to timber.

Moved, "That the Lords do not insist upon their Amendment."—(The Earl Cadogan.)

*THE EARL OF ARRAN

I should like to say, with regard to the drainage part of the Amendment, that, of course, if the Common Law is sufficient to ensure drains being kept open, there is no necessity for the clause; but all I can say is, it has not hitherto been sufficient. The drains have not been kept open by the tenants, as far as my knowledge goes. With regard to rejecting the sub-clause A, because it provides only against part of the danger and not the whole, that does not seem a very good reason.

EARL CADOGAN

As I said before, it is with considerable regret that I ask my noble Friend not to persevere with his clause; but, on the whole, I am afraid I must ask the House not to insist upon this Amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Further Amendments agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

The next is in Clause 23. The other House has left the appointment of Assistant Commissioners in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury, and all they have asked is that before the appointments are made the Land Commissioners shall be consulted upon them. I think this is a compromise which I can safely recommend to your Lordships, and I hope you will adopt it.

Commons' Amendments agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

Then there is an Amendment of your Lordships in Clause 31 of the present Bill, page 24. Tour Lordships may remember there was a provision for an appeal from the decision of a Commissioner, and when the Bill was before this House it was thought provision should also be made for an appeal against the decision of two Commissioners, in case two Commissioners sat on one of those cases. The Commons disagree to the Amendment, and they move a proviso which practically provides that a decision shall always be given by one, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to provide for an appeal from the decision of two Commissioners. They disagree to the Amendments because the object of the proposed Amendments would be better carried out by the insertion at the end of the sub-section of the following:— Provided also, that every order made by the Land Commission in carrying the said Acts into effect shall, in the first instance, be made by a Commissioner sitting alone. I beg to move that the House does not insist upon its Amendment.

Agreed to.

Moved, That this House doth agree to the Commons' Amendment.

Agreed to.

Bill returned to the Commons.