HC Deb 23 February 1880 vol 250 cc1226-36

Bill, as amended,considered.

MR. BIGGARmoved the insertion of the following new clause:—

(Loans to occupiers of agricultural holdings.)

"And whereas, by reason of the distress amongst the occupiers of land in Ireland, it has become desirable to extend the powers and facilities for granting loans under the provisions of the Land Improvement Acts, and under the provisions of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' and 'The Public Health (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1879:' Be it therefore Enacted, That the Commissioners of Public Works shall, at any time after the passing of this Act, have power to lend money, as set forth in Section nine, and at the same rates, to occupiers of agricultural holdings, on the security of their said holdings, for permanent improvements on the soil."

If the Government advanced money as the tenants to improve their holdings the loan would become a first charge on the land; and they would, therefore, have full security for the re-payment of their money.

New Clause (Loans to occupiers of agricultural holdings,)—(Mr. Biggar,)—brought up,and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that this part of the Bill was really retrospective in its operation, and the Amendment dealt with a question that was not open, because the 9th section, to which it applied, dealt only with past loans made to landlords and sanitary authorities, and not to future ones, as the hon. Member imagined. No advance could be made under it after the 29th of the present month, before which time it was not likely to pass. The proposed clause dealt with a subject in reference to which a vast number of considerations should be taken into account; and if they were entered upon they would lead, and to no purpose, to endless delay. He, therefore, hoped it would not be pressed to a division, as it was one which should not find its way into the present Bill.

MR. SHAW

supported the clause. There were a number of improvements which might be made by tenants, and which would cost less than £100. He did not think the Government could consider a more important subject than the drainage of land, although the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) could hardly be attained under the present temporary Bill. He would remind his hon. Friend that the improvements made, or to be made, under the Bill as it now stood were tenants' improvements as much as they were landlords improvements. The only interest the landlord had in them was that they improved his property and increased his security for the payment of his rent. He hoped the Government would give the subject their best consideration, with a view to its insertion, if not in this Bill, in some general measure, and asked his hon. Friend not to divide the House.

MR. SYNAN

concurred in the view of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), but thought that it would be necessary for the Government to deal with the question in a thorough manner as soon as the present crisis had passed away.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, the principle involved in the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was one of deep importance. It called upon the Government so to arrange their system of loans that they should be made to the tenants for the purpose of enabling them to work on their own lands. A system of relief now required was one which would not cause the neglect of agriculture. The tenant ought to be set to work on his own land. In England it appeared, under 59Geo.III. c. 12, relief could be given by Guardians to able-bodied persons by way of loan. Such an arrangement would prove most beneficial to the country.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, the tenants often did not understand draining, and would require to be instructed by competent men. It might happen, too, that improvement works which were highly important were of such magnitude as to require the co-operation of several landlords. As a landlord, he must thank the Government for the help they had given, which had been a good deal taken up in his county. As an instance of what drainage would do for land, he could mention some land the drainage of which would cost £300, and which land, then worth 5s.an acre, would be worth £2 an acre after two croppings. He had always been opposed to extreme measures when they were brought forward; but no one would be more pleased than he should be to see measures brought forward in the House to stimulate agriculture and make tenants more comfortable.

MR. KIRK

said, he thought a strong case had been made out against the landlords in Ireland, who had allowed millions of acres to lie waste to the present time, and that a strong case had also been made out for allowing the occupiers to be the parties to expend money on the land. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) only wished that the occupiers should have the same opportunity of expending money on the land they held as the landowners, and that their holdings should be security for that expenditure. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert) had stated that a good many of the tenant farmers of Ireland were ignorant of drainage. That was true to some extent; but the reason was that they had never had an opportunity of investing money in the soil which they tilled without the fear that some day or other the improvements made by themselves might be taken by the landlord. That was one of the reasons, at any rate, for the neglect of agricultural drainage; but he be-lived that in a large part of Ireland the tenants were quite capable of draining their lands, if they only had the opportunity given them by means of a Government loan. The Board of Works always sent a person down to see the improvements, and if they were not up to the mark they would not pay for them; and in the same way the occupiers must do their improvements to the satisfaction of a person sent down by the Board of Works. Therefore, he thought the clause was one which the Government ought to consider if possible; and if they did not insert something like it in the present Bill, he hoped they would produce something in the future which would allow the occupiers to receive money on the security of their land, and thus to drain the lands which the hon. Member for Kerry said were not worth more than 5s.an acre now, and which had been left in that state from the 17th century to the present time by the landlords of Ireland. He hoped the tenants would have an opportunity of expending money on such land so as to make it worth £2 an acre.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, all the improvements were, as a general rule, made by the tenants, and the fact had been made the basis of all recent legislation. The Government seemed now to establish a new principle, that the improvements should be made by the landlords; and they made it impossible for the tenants to enter into competition as the landlords wore to have the exclusive use of the public money. He had from the first been against loans to landlords, and he believed they would be productive of great mischief, and that the efforts of all who were interested in the welfare of the occupiers of Ireland ought to be directed to securing for them the advantage of being enabled to improve their holdings themselves.

Question put, andnegatived.

MR. BIGGARmoved the following new clause:—

(Suspension of actions of ejectment.)

"That all actions of ejectment from agricultural holdings be suspended from the date of the passing of this Act, and that, in cases where a decree for possession of any agricultural hold- ing has been granted, such decree shall be suspended for the period of one year from the passing of this Act."

He said, he thought this clause was so important that he intended, if it were not accepted by the Government, to divide upon it.

New Clause (Suspension of actions of ejectment)—(Mr. Biggar,)—brought up,and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that in opposing the clause of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) it must not be understood that he was advising landlords to press on actions of ejectments, except where the circumstances absolutely required it. From whatever point of view the clause was regarded, the House would, he thought, be satisfied that it was not one which could be reasonably ever passed, and he hoped that further consideration would convince the hon. Member that he should not proceed to a division. The clause proposed, without qualification or examination or any distinction whatever, to suspend for one year in every part of Ireland all actions of ejectments. Let the House consider how extravagantly and unreasonably wide that suggestion was. If the clause wore passed a man could not proceed to assert his title by ejectment in any Court in Ireland, no matter what the circumstances were. The hon. Member would hardly say that that was within the region of rational legislation. He also proposed to suspend the right of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and that without qualification. He proposed to take no account of whether it was a thriving and prosperous district, of the character of the tenant, and of the amount which he owed. A tenant might have the money in his pocket and arbitrarily refuse to pay his rent, and yet, under this clause, lie would be equally protected with the tenant who was entitled to their sympathy. The fact was that this was not a matter susceptible of being dealt with by legislation'; it must be left to the right feeling and intelligence of those who had to exercise these rights, and he apprehended that the right feeling of every person connected with land in Ireland at the pre- sent time of trial must be to give and take a little on all sides, and not to press legal rights to an extreme point. If it were said that right feeling could not be relied on to restrain landlords, then he replied that their good sense and prudence would suggest to them not to press the right to actions of ejectment to an extreme extent, because it was most undesirable in the interest of the landlord that he should have farms thrown upon his hands by tenants being driven out from circumstances of poverty, distress, and destitution; therefore, the self-interest of the landlord would cause him to be very cautious about exercising this right of ejectment. Above all, it would be such an interference with all the rights of property and all the institutions that must regulate the rights of property that he did not think it ever could be entertained by the House of Commons.

MR. SHAW

said, he was quite sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have no objection to amend his clause, so as to confine its operations to the scheduled districts and to cases of non-payment of arrears of rent. But he concluded, from the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, that he was opposed in principle to the clause. He admitted that it was a very wide subject, but thought it would be no harm for the Government to turn their attention to the subject; for although he was willing to admit that the great majority of landlords were acting fairly towards the tenants, and not pressing them for rents wherever it could possibly be avoided, yet there were cases where an opposite course was taken and much hardship thereby inflicted. He had prepared an Amendment bearing on the subject, but which had, unfortunately, been left out of the Paper, which he thought that the Government might accept. It was to the effect that nonpayment of rent in the distressed districts should not operate as a bar to the recovery of compensation by a tenant who was ejected. If the Government would introduce an Amendment to that effect it would remedy many cases of injustice.

MR. P. MARTIN

admitted that the clause of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was open to many of the objections which had been stated to it by the right hon. and learned Gentle- man the Attorney General for Ireland, and thought that, under the circumstances, it would be vain to ask the House to assent to any such clause; but the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was of a totally different character, and it was one that appeared to him to be well deserving of consideration at the hands of the Government. All it meant was that in the poor distressed districts of the South of Ireland the tenants should have extended to them a privilege already enjoyed by the more prosperous tenants of the North of Ireland under the Ulster Tenant Right. It interfered with no contracts, and deprived the landlord of nothing which he ought to have.

Question put.

The Housedivided:—Ayes 4; Noes 93: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 19.)

Clause 3 (Extension of power to grant out-door relief in food and fuel).

MR. BIGGARmoved to amend the clause by inserting in page 2, line 2, after the word "purpose," the words "to renew or." The object of his Amendment was to make it quite clear that the Local Government Board had the power to renew the instructions to give out-door relief, the clause at present only giving power to give out-door relief for a period of two calendar months.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "to renew or."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words to renew or be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the matter was dealt with in the earlier portion of the Bill, and there was no doubt that power was given to renew the instructions for out-door relief in Unions where it was necessary. The Amendment, therefore, was not needed.

Question put, andnegatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)moved to omit from page 2 all words after "Any," in line 17, to the word "Act," in line 25, inclusive. The words he proposed to omit were those which were introduced when the Bill was in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), to give power to the Local Government Board to enable central Poor Law Guardians to make advances. He (Mr. Gibson) had carefully considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that it would be better to give a wider discretion, and therefore he proposed to omit the Amendment; and should also propose an omission in Clause 4, in order to insert an Amendment in the clause giving all Unions the power to make advances.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, and he had no objection to his Amendment being omitted.

Amendmentagreed to;wordsstruck outaccordingly.

Clause, as amended,agreed to.

Clause 4 (Power to borrow).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments were made:—In page 2, line 28, leave out from "scheduled" to "seventy-nine" in lines 31 and 32, inclusive; and in line 37, leave out from the word "Every" to the word "expenses" in line 43, inclusive.

MR. SHAWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty" in lieu thereof, so as to make the period over which loans to local authorities were to be repayable 20 years instead of 10. He would have been prepared to make it 30 years when the Bill was in Committee, but the Government declined to accede to the suggestion; but he hoped they would favourably consider the present Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Shaw.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was compelled to oppose the Amendment, believing that 10 years was an ample time to allow for the repayment of the money. If it was extended beyond that, the Unions would be placed in an embarrassing position in regard to re-payments, and he thought 10 years was a most liberal allowance. Besides, they had no right, and it was inadvisable, to burden posterity in the matter.

MR. SYNAN

thought it was in the interest of the Treasury to accept the Amendment, as the state of the country was such that, in several of the electoral divisions of Ireland, they would never be able to repay the money in so short a time as 10 years. The result would be, if the Amendment was not adopted, that appeals would be made to the Government at a future time to remit the whole of the loans. He thought, in fact, that in some of the Unions in the West of Ireland the Government was not very likely to get its money back at all. He wished, further, to point out that, even if 20 years were given, that would be 10 years less than was given in the case of Lancashire.

THE O'DONOGHUE

supported the Amendment, on the ground that if only 10 years was allowed for the re-payment of loans it would prevent many Boards of Guardians from availing themselves of the advantages offered by the Bill.

Question put.

The Housedivided:—Ayes 96; Noes 33: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 20.)

MR. SHAWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, to omit the word "three," and insert the word "two" in lieu thereof, so as to allow local authorities to borrow money at 2½per cent interest instead of 3½ per cent. In doing so he was not asking the Government to advance English or Scotch money at that rate, but only to advance Irish money. The Government themselves got money from the Irish people in the Irish Post Office Savings Banks at 2½ per cent, and he thought that it was only reasonable they should advance money for the relief of distress at the same rate of interest.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 33, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "two."—(Mr. Shaw.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, whatever else the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had shown, it could not be denied that he had shown considerable ingenuity in the foundation upon which he rested his proposal. The hon. Gentleman complained that the money was taken, not out of Imperial funds, but out of Irish funds. He desired to have a separate finance administration, with an Irish Exchequer to deal with Irish taxation. Those were matters which could not be entered into; they must treat the Exchequer as a whole. It was proposed that we should lend the money not at 3½per cent, but at 2½ per cent. The 3½ per cent would not bring a profit; but it would save the Exchequer from a loss, and the Government thought it was doing very good service to lend the money to Boards of Guardians at that rate. They could not get it at so low a rate elsewhere, and without the Bill they could not borrow it at all. He could not break up the usual system of lending money, and the only alternative was to stand to the figures in the Bill.

MR. SYNAN

urged that the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) did not involve the separation of the Exchequer of the two countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid of loss to the Exchequer; but why not lend out the money at the same rate of interest paid to depositors in the savings banks? The only answer to the proposal was that it would separate the two Exchequers; and, therefore, the Irish paupers must be charged 3½ per cent. The argument remained the same, and the right hon. Gentleman had not answered it.

Question put, andnegatived.

Clauseagreed to.

Clause 15 (Remuneration for county officers).

MR. SHAW

said, that the section of the clause referring to money to be borrowed to cover loss gave the Grand Jury power to grant compensation to landowners without previous application to the presentment sessions. That was giving very large powers to the Grand Juries, and he should move the omission of the words "without previous application to presentment sessions," in order to insert the words, "having been previously approved by presentment sessions."

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 33, to leave out the words "without previous application to presentment sessions."—(Mr. Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

remarked, that the words objected to were put in to save time. The whole machinery would hang fire without them. The object of the Bill was to afford immediate relief by means of public works, and the presentment sessions had to consider the matter in the first instance. The money might then be advanced without further reference.

MR. SHAW

I am quite sure that I am right, and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong; but I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Clauseagreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER

This matter has been very fully considered by the House, and as it is of a very urgent character I now appeal to hon. Members to allow it to be read a third time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. James Lowther,)—put, andagreed to.

Bill read the third time, andpassed.