HC Deb 15 July 1878 vol 241 cc1564-71

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to enable tenants holding property belonging to the disestablished Irish Church who were not in a position to buy the properties out-and-out to get possession of them by means of leases in perpetuity. If a right of the kind was not given to the tenants, there was a probability of the properties being bought up by land-jobbers, who would, probably, not prove very good landlords; and good tenants who had lived on the properties for many years would fall into bad hands and suffer very unjustly in consequence. The view which he held had been supported by one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, who was examined before a Committee on this subject, and as no injury would be done to the property of the Irish Church in relation to the question of value, he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill. He might remark that the Bill was not compulsory, but permissive.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Motion, on the ground that the Bill involved a most vicious principle. It was true that the Irish Land Act contemplated the possibility of the tenants purchasing their holdings; but it was never intended that they should obtain possession of them by means of perpetuity leases, than which he could scarcely imagine a worse or more mischievous system for the tenure of land. The question had, time after time, been brought before the attention of Parliament, and nothing but condemnation had been heaped upon it. The system which was proposed would not constitute the purchasers of property sold subject to these proposed leases owners of the soil; they would be mere rent-chargers, with not the slightest obligation upon them to improve the lands of which they had become the nominal owners; but which would, for all practical purposes, be owned by the lessees. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he could not understand the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the present Bill. Of course, a man who purchased land which was let on a perpetuity lease would not be in the position of an ordinary absolute owner; but he would have a very good security for the interest of the money which he had expended in the purchase; and the Church Commissioners would be perfectly justified in entering upon transactions of the kind, for he did not anticipate that they would part with the lands at any loss. They would not, in fact, part with the properties in any case at anything short of their full value. They would get increased rents from the tenants in consideration of the perpetuity leases, and these rents could be sold at a very fair rate. The evidence, which was given before the Committee, supported the views of the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill, and he believed that the measure would have the effect of carrying into effect the intention of the Legislature when it passed the Irish Church Act—namely, that tenants who had not sufficient money to buy their holdings out-and-out, should not be handed over to the tender mercies of the worst class of landlords.

MR. MELDON

said, the species of tenure contemplated by the Bill, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary so strongly objected, was a common one in Ireland, and had been found to work satisfactorily in most cases. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon, in referring to the evidence given before the Select Committee, omitted to say that the then Attorney General for Ireland, who represented the Government, made a Report, in which he recommended as nearly as possible that which was proposed in the present Bill, but which was repudiated by the present Chief Secretary. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) made a Report in which there was a distinct recommendation that the Land Act of 1870 should be so amended as to give the Judges of the Landed Estates Court power to give leases in perpetuity to the tenants, instead of selling to them out-and-out. It had been admitted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Church Commissioners had been doing very well. If that was so, why should not discretion be given to them, as was proposed by this Bill? He thought the argument of the Chief Secretary was disposed of by the fact that the Bill gave discretion to the Commissioners; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his opposition to the measure.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to refer to one point which had not been touched by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, that the Government would be secure in advancing money, and any proprietor would be secure in purchasing land if leases in perpetuity were granted; because the purchaser who bought such a lease would have the goodwill of the tenant for his security, while the tenant would not forfeit his perpetuity lease, so that a very good purchase would give place to a very bad one. All the practical men that had given evidence—Judges of the Landed Estates Courts and others—strongly recommended that this power should be given. The general wish of the people in Ireland was that there should be a more settled state of affairs, which they believed would be secured by this Bill giving to a larger number of people a strong local interest either as owners or holders of long leases. The measure was a moderate one. The Chief Secretary had said, with, all the authority of the Cabinet behind him, that the Government would not allow a thousand tenants to have the security which this Bill proposed to give them. The Government, in endorsing that statement, would be taking a strong step for themselves, in resisting a moderate measure which would involve loss neither to the public nor to any individual.

MR. PARNELL

did not know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been in communication with the Church Commissioners with regard to this Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to intimate whether he had communicated with them or not; because, if he had not, it would be a great advantage for him to ascertain their opinion upon this subject before finally disposing of the Bill this Session. This was an important matter, since it concerned the welfare of about 1,000 poor tenants in Ireland. If the Bill were rejected, it would be the last attempt made to obtain some sort of fair treatment for them; for the land in question would be sold in the Landed Estates Court, in all probability to small land-jobbers, who made the worst class of landlords. He did not think the Chief Secretary was aware of the fate to which he was about to consign these tenants, or else he would not have dismissed so summarily this valuable Bill. It did not put the Commissioners in any worse position than that which they occupied at present; in fact, it put them in a much better position. The Bill was only permissive in its character. It did not compel, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) seemed to suppose, the Commissioners to do anything. It merely proposed to give them permission, if they thought desirable, to give perpetuity leases. If the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the opinion of the Church Commissioners as to the desirability of this Bill becoming law, it was hoped that he would agree to do so; and that he would accordingly allow the debate to be adjourned until he got their views upon the subject, and had time to consider them.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

complained of the treatment which the Bill had received at the hands of the Government. It simply amounted to this. At the instigation of their Irish supporters on the Ministerial side, they declared their full determination, under no circumstances, to have any peasant proprietors in Ireland. This appeal to the Government, that they would pass the Bill, was probably the last which would be made during the present Session. The request was made, not at the cost of a single proprietary right, or of a single sentiment as to property; but it was an attempt made to get out of the land which belonged to the Church of Ireland something like a proprietary right for the peasantry. If the Church had continued in possession of the land, it would have been better for the tenants; because, although they enjoyed only temporary holdings, and might have to pay increased rents according to the increased value of their holdings, still they would not be subject to the treatment which, in the present state of legislation, they would probably receive at the hands of the paltry land-jobbers, when the latter had obtained possession of the property. These landowners would not rise to the dignity even of that class described by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) the other evening as "carpet-bag" proprietors and purchasers of land, if this modest and moderate measure were rejected by the House. If its rejection did not serve a single aristocratical or feudal sentiment lurking in the breasts of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sat on the opposite side, at any rate it would offer a distinct encouragement to the Irish peasantry to fill their minds with the idea that the House of Commons was determined not to comply with their just demand for fixity of tenure.

MR. SULLIVAN

did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) required any "nods and winks" from hon. Members behind him with regard to this Bill; because, with a candour which was quite refreshing, the right hon. Gentleman had the other evening told the House that he detested this Land Act, and that it was passed against his most energetic, not to say obstructive, resistance. That was surely an unpleasant position for the right hon. Gentleman to be placed in. It was as if they had asked Mr. Jefferson Davis, of America, to put in force the Act for the emancipation of slaves.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

observed, that this Bill, which had been described in the course of the discussion as a revolutionary measure, was practically recommended by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who in his Report had recommmended that, in case of sales in the Landed Estates Court, the Judges should have power to sanction fee farm grants to tenants in perpetuity. The clause containing that recommendation had been passed by the unanimous vote of the Select Committee. There was not a single dissentient; and that proposal was founded mainly upon the evidence of Judge Flanagan. In bringing forward this Bill, he did not for a moment propose that the Church Commissioners should lose money by it; for it was merely a permissive measure. They could undertake, or decline to undertake, any transaction, according as they thought fit. Perpetuity leases were well known in Ireland, and there was a good market for them. There was a provision in the Irish Church Act that perpetuity leases should be sold at not less than 25 years' purchase. That showed there was a good market in Ireland for such leases, and a good price was obtained for them. Therefore, no loss would accrue to the Church Commissioners; and it was an entire illusion for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to suggest anything of the kind. The suggestion of loss only showed that the right hon. Gentleman had never consulted the Commissioners, or his own Attorney General, who entertained an opinion altogether contrary from that which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, without having looked into the Report on this subject, without having consulted the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and relying only on his English knowledge of perpetuity leases, which stood in a different position from those in Ireland, now asked the House to reject this Bill; although it was true that perpetuity leases had a good market in Ireland, and that the evidence before the Committee was strongly in favour of passing the measure which the House was now asked to read a second time. Indeed, so strong was that evidence, that he had lost no time, as Chairman of the Committee, in bringing the Bill before the House. If it were rejected, a grave injustice would be done to the tenants concerned.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, this was not a Party question, but a question between a poor class of tenants and speculators in land. He, therefore, appealed to hon. Gentlemen on the other side to reflect before giving a vote which would place this land in the hands of those speculators, who would probably turn away the tenants from their holdings. Nothing would be lost by passing the Bill. It would give the tenants an opportunity of buying their holdings; and, therefore, he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.

MR. O'CLERY

said, that a few nights back the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected very much to an inquiry into the operation of the Irish Land Act, and referred to landlords like Mr. Buckley as "carpet-baggers." The class of people into whose hands land in Ireland would fall under the system which it was proposed to put an end to by this Bill were not even entitled to the appellation which he had quoted—they were mere landsharks, from whose jaws it was wished to snatch the poorest, but by no means the least deserving, of the class of Irish tenants.

MR. BARING

said, it was inaccurate to state that land owned, subject to a perpetual lease, was worth as much as other freehold, and that, therefore, the Irish Church would not suffer by the operation of the Bill; because it stood to reason that no man would pay so high a price for that which he could not sell readily again, as for that which became unconditionally his absolute property. As a proof of this, he stated that the firm to which he belonged had owned property in the city of Cork, subject to a perpetual lease, for nearly 100 years, and owing to this circumstance had never been able to get any acceptable offer for it.

MR. ERRINGTON

hoped the Motion to adjourn the debate, which he begged to make, would be agreed to, because it was clear that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not yet had an opportunity of consulting the Irish Church Commissioners on the subject: it was equally clear that the late Solicitor General for Ireland was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and that if it were not settled at once, the chances of the tenants would be gone for ever.

MR. FAY

, in seconding the Motion, said, he had acted as solicitor for tenants holding under the Irish Church Commissioners; and though some of them could not command sufficient capital to buy their holdings out and out, they were not, therefore, to be despised, and ought to be fairly treated by the Government, so that they might get their property on the payment of a fee farm rent, which most of them would be able to accomplish. The Church Commissioners had in many cases got much higher prices for their land than were obtainable by ordinary vendors in the Landed Estates Court; and, therefore, he thought they should be prepared to make some concession to such of their tenants as wished to get their holdings on leases in perpetuity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Errington.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it was impossible at that late period of the sitting (2.25 a.m.) to contend against a Motion of the kind that had been made.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would prefer to take a division upon the Main Question.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not shut the door in the face of the tenants, but would consent to refer the matter for inquiry to the Church Commissioners. Only the other day he was asked by one of the tenants to whom this question referred to buy his farm in order to prevent its falling into the hands of one of these land-jobbers, who would increase his rent to an exorbitant amount, or turn him out of his holding.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 51: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 213.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for three months.

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.