HC Deb 26 June 1860 vol 159 cc992-8

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Maintenance of Improvements.)

MR. BUTT

said he wished to inquire of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Deasy) whether it was intended that the annuity charge, created for improvements under the Bill, should take precedence of all previous incumbrances, for such he apprehended was at present the effect of the clause. He would move that the word "first" be omitted.

MR. DEASY

said, that such was not the intention with which the clause was drawn. The object of the Government was to enable landowners to raise money for the improvement of their estates, and it would not be doing them a kindness to alarm the existing incumbrancers. By the omission of a single word, any apparent ambiguity might be removed.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he thought it would be necessary to give the annuity precedence, otherwise persons would not be willing to advance their money for making the improvements which might be desirable.

MR. GEORGE

contended that the annuity ought to be a first charge on the land, and said he hoped the alteration proposed would not be made.

MR. DEASY

said, it was originally intended to make this charge take precedence of all incumbrances, but after careful consideration it was apprehended that by so doing they might create alarm in the minds of those who had incumbrances already existing, and under these circumstances it was thought better not to give the annuity precedence.

LORD NAAS

said, no person would lend his money in this way unless repayment were made a first charge on the estate.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that after the expression of opinion which had been given, he thought it would be advisable to leave the clause as it stood, and accordingly the alteration proposed would not be insisted upon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 23 and 24.

Clause 25 (Mode of obtaining the sanction of Court).

MR. GEORGE

said, this was a very important part of the Bill, as it related to the leasing powers to be granted for improvements. He objected to the chairman of quarter sessions being appointed to make preliminary inquiries into the nature of such leases, as he thought it would be wise to let no machinery interpose between the limited owner and the tenant in the granting of leases except such as the Court of Chancery provided in the case of fraud and injury. He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment that in lieu of the leasing clauses in the Bill, there be inserted the clauses 1 to 31 inclusive, of the Leasing and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Bill, brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) which stood next on the order of the day. Greater facilities for the granting of leases were bestowed by that Bill than by that which had been introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Amendment proposed in page 8, line 14, to leave out from the word "restrictions," to the word "chairman," inclusive.

MR. DEASY

defended the provisions of the Government Bill, as much simpler and more convenient than those of the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard especially to the leasing of ecclesiastical property, the effect of the latter Bill would be to encumber the operation with so many checks and restrictions as to prevent its being of any advantage. There was also, in his Bill, a very objectionable laxity with regard to leases of mines. The difference between this kind of property and cultivable lands was that, by granting the lease of a mine for thirty or forty years, a person having only a life interest might really be making away with the whole valuable part of the inheritance, since the mine would be worked out by the tenant within that period. The interest of the remainder man should be considered, as well as those of the tenant and of the limited owner. It was, therefore, most essential in such cases to make the preliminary sanction of a competent tribunal necessary before granting the lease.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he thought it could hardly be expected that the Committee should be ready to compare in globo thirty-one sections of a rival Bill with those of the present Bill, so as to give a preference to one over the other. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore appeared to him to be an unsatisfactory mode of proceeding. He thought that by a few careful Amendments the Bill might be made a most satisfactory measure. To whatever tribunal they gave the power of interfering with the making of leases, whether it was to the Quarter Sessions or the supreme courts, the effect would be to cause expense, while no additional security would be given against fraud. Under the Act of 1856, application was to be made to the Bolls Court for power to grant a lease of settled estates; but so vexatious were the delays and expenses thereby incurred, that only one lease had yet been granted, he (Mr. Longfield) being himself concerned in that case, which occupied many months, to the disgust of everybody. Therefore it would be far better to interpose no obstacles to the making of leases beyond requiring the best rent to be reserved, but leaving the demises when effectuated to any subsequent impeachment in a court of equity in case of fraud.

MR. GEORGE

said, that in deference to the opinion of his learned Friends he would not insist on the first part of his Amendment, of which he had given notice—namely, to substitute for the leasing clauses the clauses in the Leasing and Improving of Lands Bill, and, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw that Amendment; but he proposed that they should leave out in clause 25, line 15, the words "and no improvement leases," the effect of which would be to prevent the preliminary inquiry on granting improvement leases proposed by the clause.

The first portion of the Amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

LORD FERMOY

said, he was favourable to the preliminary investigation. He wished to see the leasing powers clogged with as few obstacles as possible, but he really thought that it would be a protection to the tenant that a cheap and easy investigation of the title should be first made. He would ask the Government whether they were now, at the eleventh hour, determined to adhere to their preliminary investigation before the chairman of the quarter sessions. With regard to leasing powers, he maintained that if every landlord in Ireland who had now the power to grant a lease would, instead of looking for English or Scotch, or Pro- testant tenants, grant leases to the poor, industrious, hard-working persons, who had been born and bred on the land, Ireland would be in a very different position from that which she occupied at present. The great fault of the landlords of Ireland was that they were too tenacious in keeping possession of the land. They seemed to think that the granting of a lease to a tenant would surrender their power over the land, and they therefore kept hold of half-cultivated, badly-tilled land, and by their ignorance—and he vowed to Heaven he thought they were the most ignorant class in Ireland—they kept their estates unimproved, the people discontented, and the country itself an opprobrium among nations. No matter what powers the Legislature might give, unless the landlords changed their policy, and had the sense to see their own interests, no leasing powers granted by Parliament would do any good.

LORD NAAS

said, no man travelling through Ireland could tell from the appearance of the land what was held under lease and what was not. Leases had no effect one way or other in regard to general improvements. These depended on mutual confidence between landlord and tenant. He objected to any preliminary inquiry in cases of improvement leases taking place before the chairman of the quarter sessions; it would lead to expense and delay, and would give no security against litigation afterwards, and, besides, questions might arise that a chairman of quarter sessions was not competent to decide.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he must express his belief, in opposition to the noble Lord, that there would be nothing very difficult in the matters to be submitted to the chairman of sessions or assistant magistrates in giving their sanction to the lease.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he was in favour of retaining this portion of the clause, in order to give the tenant, as the strongest guarantee of the validity of his lease, the sanction of legal tribunal on which he might rely with as much certainty as on a Parliamentary title from the Incumbered Estates Court. On the other hand, the inquiry before the quarter sessions would be a security against trick and fraud in the preparation of leases. It would also be a cheap and effective tribunal, while an inquiry carried on in Dublin would be necessarily a prolonged and expensive one.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, the hon. Gen- tleman who had just sat down seemed to mistake the nature of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the county of Wexford (Mr. George). The Amendment was not the difference between a cheap and costly tribunal, but the doing away with all tribunals.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he admitted that the Amendment was brought forward in a fair spirit. While it proposed to do away with the tribunal provided for in the Bill, it did not propose the establishment of any other description of tribunal. Now, something had been said of the delays and expenses attendant upon obtaining the sanction of the Master of the Rolls to a lease of settled estates under the Act of 1856, but that inconvenience arose from the number of assents to be procured from the various parties concerned, and there would be no such tedious formality in the leases now contemplated. General rules were to be framed for the guidance of the chairman of counties, and instead of any precise statutory provisions with regard to the terms on which these leases should be sanctioned, the system would be an elastic one, capable of being adapted to the circumstances of different parts of the country, or of the whole country at different times. It was the opinion of the Government that the intervention of the chairman of counties would provide a cheap, an accessible, and an expeditious local tribunal for this purpose, and he therefore trusted that the clause, as it stood, would receive the favourable consideration of the House.

MR. M'MAHON

said, that the tenant would not feel secure under the Bill, but that his lease might be void because the prescribed stipulations were not complied with, or because the rent fixed by the lease was not the highest that could reasonably be got from the land. The value of land and of improvements was a matter which the chairman or assistant magistrate, as a barrister, could not well inquire into.

MR. BUTT

said, he thought they ought not to give a limited owner of an estate power to execute an improvement lease without the sanction of the chairman of the county, but in the case of an ordinary agricultural lease for twenty-one years he thought such a sanction might fairly be dispensed with. In granting an improvement lease, the landowner accepted not the highest rent that could be got from the land, but a smaller rent in consideration of the improvements to be made by the tenant. If the validity of the lease should be disputed on that ground, perhaps many years afterwards, when the reversion of the property fell in, it would be some protection to the tenant to have the sanction of the legal tribunal on record to justify the terms on which the lease was granted.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he was of opinion that there ought to be the protection afforded by the sanction of the chairman of the sessions, not for the sake of the tenant, but for the sake of the persons who would be bound by the leases, and for the sake of the successor. Looking at the clause in connection with the 28th section, by which those leases were made binding on the successor, he was inclined to give his support to it as it now stood, though he confessed that he had had considerable difficulty in arriving at a conclusion on the subject. But if the 28th section were omitted, he would not make it necessary for the tenant to go through this expensive process.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, if hon. Gentlemen went on making speeches they would never get through the Bill. He thought the effect of the clause, as it stood, would be to prevent leases altogether. He should prefer to have the matter left to a competent tribunal, but as he did not think the Quarter Sessions Court would be a tribunal of that kind he would vote for the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'no improvement lease,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—The Tellers being come to the Table, it was stated by Mr. Brand, one of the Tellers, that the Tellers were not agreed as to the number who voted with the Ayes:—Whereupon the Chairman directed the Committee to proceed to a second division:—The Committee accordingly again divided: Ayes 82; Noes 79: Majority 3.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he would then move as an Amendment that the word "twenty" as applied to leases should be omitted, and the word "forty" inserted.

Amendment proposed, in line 23, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "thirty."

—instead thereof.

LORD FERMOY

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member to substitute thirty for forty years in his Motion. That was a term of lease which would give great satisfaction in Ireland.

MR. LEFROY

said, he thought the term of twenty-one years should be adhered to. That was the term usual in England and Scotland, and he thought the law should be as uniform as possible in all the three kingdoms.

LORD NAAS

remarked that in the clause there was no precise definition with regard to the term for which building leases should be granted, and he thought it desirable that some accurate definition should be laid down in regard to that matter.

LORD JOHN BROWNE

said, he concurred with the noble Lord opposite that it was very desirable that the term of building leases should be definite.

MR. DEASY

said, he would take into consideration the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. M'Mahon) would adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and make the term thirty years.

MR. CARDWELL

said, the present measure gave power to grant a forty-one years' lease in certain applications coming before the Court; but it merely retained the powers at present allowed the corporate, ecclesiastical, and other bodies, to grant, without the preliminary sanction of the Court, leases for twenty-one years.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 117; Noes 45: Majority 72.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 26.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday, at Twelve of the clock.

Back to