HC Deb 05 April 1865 vol 178 cc750-5

Order for Committee read.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that he desired it to be understood that in consenting that the Bill should pass through Committee receiving appropriate Amendments, he distinctly reserved to himself and the Government the right to take any course at a later stage of the present Bill, as well as of other Bills with a similar object, which might seem to be right. The Bills involved very important principles, and it was for the House to consider how far it would be contrary to the course hitherto pursued—with respect to Irish legislation especially—to give Parliamentary facilities for the re-creation of encumbrances on land. The next point to which the attention of the House ought to be directed, was the question how far it was expedient to give the appearance of an especial Parliamentary security to mortgages on land by means of debentures, which might be created at common law without such security. Another important point was the question of value in regard to the proposed debentures. If the appearance of a Parliamentary security was given, it would be perfectly delusive, unless the debentures were represented by a sufficient value in land; but there was great danger that the powers created by the Bill might be made the means of fraud. He hoped that that point would be taken into due consideration. Three Bills had been introduced in reference to this subject; and a considerable number of persons thought that, on the whole, it would be of advantage if greater facilities were afforded for raising money on land with proper securities. Under these circumstances it had been thought right to allow the Bills to be referred to a Select Committee, and the form in which the Bills had been returned to the House, showed that some care had been bestowed on them. It, therefore, appeared to the Government that it would not be an improper course, if it were only out of deference to the judgment of the Select Committee and for the sake of many persons who took an interest in the measures, to permit them to go through a Committee of the whole House, the Government reserving to themselves the full right to oppose the Bills, if it should seem desirable to do so, at some future stage.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was glad that the House had received an assurance that these Bills, which were important either for good or evil, would have the consideration of the Government, and he desired it to be understood that if they were passed the adoption of them would be upon the responsibility of the Government. When they were brought in he had called the attention of the House to what he feared might be the guasi-character of security given to the debentures by mixing them up, as proposed in one of the Bills, with a Government Office. Many persons at present believed that a security attached to the debentures which in reality they did not possess. He hoped that point would receive the consideration of the Government.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Owner of Land may issue Debentures with sanction of Court.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that by the Bill the Landed Estates Court was to examine the title to the land on which the debentures were to be charged, and also to ascertain that since the granting of the certificate no persons had acquired rights which would be injuriously affected by the debentures. The common seal of the Court was then to be put on the debentures, and the seventh clause concluded with these words— The seal of the Court shall be conclusive proof of the validity of the debenture to or upon which such seal shall be affixed or impressed. He felt some apprehension that those words would have a misleading effect, for though they did not give a Parliamentary title they might seem to some persons to have that effect, and he was inclined to suggest that those words should be omitted.

MR. SCULLY

said, he had at first intended to move the omission of the clause, and that another should be substituted. But he would suggest that to the words "common seal" should be added "special seal," a course approved of by Judge Long-field, to whom he had sent a copy of the Bill as it came from the Select Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would move the omission of the words "by its common seal, and also by the signature of such Judge or Officer "after" shall be signified," in order to insert "in such manner as the Court may by any general order authorize for such purpose."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Form and Effect of Debentures.)

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Transfer of Debentures.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the clause provided that there should be two modes of transferring these debentures; the one by memorandum, entered in the books of the Court; the other by indorsement of the transferee. He objected to the second of these modes of transfer, and proposed that the words authorizing it should be struck out.

MR. SCULLY

said, he had previously proposed a third mode of transfer in addition to the two now contained in the clause, and that third mode was by delivery, like a bank note; but as the Select Committee would not agree to it, he had to give it up. He supposed he must also give up the second mode—namely, by indorsement, as the Attorney General would not assent to it; but he believed its omission would be mischievous. For his own part, he did not see why these debentures should not pass by delivery, like a bank note; but, probably, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might object to that, as introducing a new kind of currency.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

counselled caution in that matter, and thought the hon. Member (Mr. Scully) would exercise a wise discretion in acceding to the proposal of the Attorney General.

Words struck out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Coupons), agreed to.

Clause 11 (Debentures on Unincumbered Land.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, this clause, which was the most important of the Bill, provided that in the case of unencumbered land no debenture or debentures should be charged upon the land for more than ten times what might appear to the Court to be the yearly value of the land, having regard to any lease or other matter affecting it; nor was the annual amount of interest reserved on any debenture to exceed one-half of what might appear to the Court to be its yearly value. Now, how was the Court to ascertain the value of the land? There was no machinery for doing so supplied by the Bill. He had no faith in Court valuations. The Court, which in such matters had no knowledge of its own, must place confidence in other persons, such as surveyors and professional valuers, who, he was sorry to say, were certainly not infallible and not always honest. They could never be sure that the margin they proposed to leave really existed. This was the clause in regard to which his great objection to that scheme mainly turned. What he disliked and distrusted in all Bills of that kind—although he did not think it belonged to his department to take the whole responsibility of opposing a considerable opinion entertained in favour of that experiment—was that a great number of simple people in the country might be led by the machinery of these measures, by the intervention of the Court, and all the other forms, to suppose that they need not look narrowly into the title or the value of the property on the security of which they lent their money, and that great losses and, perhaps, frauds might occur. The limit of one half, the yearly value fixed by the clause, appeared very fair, provided they could be quite sure that that amount would be bonâ fide ascertained; but there was no machinery in the Bill for ascertaining it.

COLONEL DUNNE

concurred in the objections taken by the Attorney General to the principle of these Bills, and thought their provisions required very careful watching.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

believed that the public valuation of land in Ireland was based on sound principles, and would admirably answer all the purposes required by the present Bill. It was from 10 to 20 per cent under the real value.

MR. SCULLY

allowed that this clause contained the whole essence and marrow of the Bill. However, his intimate acquaintance with the transfer of land in Ireland enabled him to state that he had every confidence in the valuations of the Landed Estates Court, the Judges of which were practical men, with every appliance at their command, In a letter which he had recently received from Judge Longfield, that learned Judge expressed a hope that he would insist on the principle of valuation by the Court, otherwise the Bill would be of little value. The writer saw no substitute for such a system of valuation, and did not believe that the public would have any confidence in any valuation by a person selected by the owner himself. That a public valuation was a safe standard of value was proved by the experience of other countries. In Poland the limit of three-fifths was adopted, whereas the present Bill took only one-half. In Hamburg and Frankfort the limit was one-half, with a guarantee of the title by the State. In Belgium, Lombardy, parts of Germany, and Switzerland, public valuations were also used to measure loans on land; and in Ireland they had a uniform Government valuation, which regulated all rates on land, such as poor rates, income tax, &c. He had tried to keep down the limit as low as possible, so that the debenture should be almost cash, and he gave no Government guarantee, which was expressly negatived by the 30th clause, providing that under no circumstances should the holder of a debenture have any claim on the Court or on the public funds in respect of any mistake or omission relating to the value of title to any estate or otherwise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the explanation elicited in the course of that discussion as to the public valuation of lands in Ireland seemed to be important; but there was not a word about that valuation in the Bill. He proposed, therefore, to add to the clause, as an additional security, these words, "Not exceeding in any case the value fixed by the public valuation of lands in Ireland."

MR. SCULLY

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on that alteration, which would cut down the Bill much too far. In many cases the public valuation in Ireland was far too low, and no one would dream of dealing with land merely on that valuation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he had proposed the words in order to get out of the region of mere speculative values, and he must express some surprise, after the course which the discussion had taken, that any one should object to such an Amendment.

MR. SCULLY

supposed he must submit if the hon. and learned Gentleman persevered, but if this alteration were now made a Bill would have to be introduced before long to get rid of it.

MR. KER

suggested that, as a general rule, the Government valuation might be taken, subject, however, to certain exceptions, within the discretion of the Court.

COLONEL DUNNE

thought it would be much safer to adopt the Government valuation than to leave the matter to the Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Clauses 31 and 32 postponed.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.