§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to amend and extend the Purchase Clauses embodied in the Land Act of 1881. Now, so far as the main object of the Bill was concerned, he was happy to say there was no difference amongst the Irish Members sitting upon any side of the House. They all agreed that the Purchase Clauses required both amendment and extension. He did admit that there was a difference of opinion as to the method by which the object should be carried out; but the end that they all had in view was to give vitality to these clauses, They all agreed that something on the part of the Government of a comprehensive nature must now be done, for it was well known to Irish Members that the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act were practically useless, and had been almost inoperative. He need hardly remind the House that the Purchase Clauses were first inserted in the Church Act of 1869, and were known as the Bright Clauses. These clauses were inserted in the Land Act of 1870, they were amended in 1872, and then finally amended and embodied in the Land Act of 1881. Great results were expected in Ireland when the Purchase Clauses were amended in the Land Act of 1881; but he thought the House would admit—and Irish Members would admit—that up to the present time these clauses had been a dismal failure, and that the creation under them of a peasant proprietary in Ireland was as far off as ever. The House stood committed to an amendment of these clauses, for on the 12th of June last year the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) carried unanimously 998 a Resolution that the Purchase Clauses urgently required to be amended; and the House, in passing the second reading of the Bill, would merely give effect to that Resolution. What were the actual results under these clauses up to the present time? Under the new machinery brought into operation by the Land Act, they had only 330 sales to tenants up to the 31st of December, 1883, or during two and a-half years' operation they had only 330 sales to tenants, involving 15,000 acres of land, and purchase money amounting to £150,000; so that at the present rate of progress it would take 1,000 years to realize the intentions of Parliament. Now, why had the Purchase Clauses failed? In his opinion they failed simply and solely because of the vexatious and technical difficulties introduced into the Land Act. These technical difficulties, he believed, were three— first, no matter what security might be offered, the Land Commissioners could only advance three-fourths of the money; second, the rate of interest could not be varied, nor the term of repayment; and, third, the Land Commissioners were unable to purchase estates, unless three-fourths of the tenants representing two-thirds of the entire rental agreed to buy. Owing, therefore, to the total absence of elasticity in the Land Act of 1881, the Land Commissioners were so tied up that they had to refuse an enormous number of applications. What did the last Report of the Laud Commissioners say? Their last Report said that, although £225,000 was sanctioned for purchases, only £150,000 was paid; and all this was owing to the technical difficulties with which the tenants were unable to comply, so that the result now was there was stagnation in the market for land. The Encumbered Estates Court was blocked, and the mortgagees were only waiting to close and sell properties that were heavily encumbered. The public would not purchase, and the tenants could not. It rested, therefore, with the Government, in the interests of both landlord and tenant, to abandon patchwork legislation in connection with the Purchase Clauses, which had been pursued for the last 12 or 13 years, and courageously set about seeing that the intentions of Parliament should be carried out, and something done to create a number of freeholders in Ireland. The Government, in doing this, would be only following the example of every 999 country in Europe. Every State in Europe had given its attention to this matter, and England alone was behind, although there was no country in the world where the creation of occupying proprietors would work with better results than in Ireland. The Bill which he now brought before the House was merely a contribution to the solution of a question which must before long be settled. He had mentioned the three difficulties which destroyed the working of the Purchase Clauses. The first was the inability on the part of the Land Commissioners to advance more than three-fourths of the purchase money—he proposed in the Bill that the Board to be created under it, and to be called the Land Corporation, should have power to advance the whole of the purchase money. For the money advanced the Corporation would have ample security. They would have the security of the fee simple in the land, and the security of the tenant's interest or the tenant right. He would remind the House, and the English Members especially, that the tenant's interest, as defined and settled by the Land Act, was a very important interest. It was equal, in many cases—he believed in the majority of cases in Ulster—to the fee simple; and, on the average, all over Ireland the tenant's interest would amount to one-half the value of the fee simple. The advance would, therefore, be secured by the fee simple and the tenant's interest as well. It provided, as a further safeguard, that the tenant's title in the land purchased should not be confirmed until five years of the annual instalments had been paid by him. By this time the tenant would have a substantial interest in the land he purchased, and the Corporation would have ample security for the money they advanced. He desired to strongly impress upon the House the absolute necessity that the whole purchase money should be advanced. Let the House remember that Ireland was but slowly recovering from the depression of the last few years; and, bearing that in mind, he thought every Member would agree with him that it would be impolitic to compel the tenant to have recourse to the money-lender, or to deprive himself of the small savings that he would require to work the land, or to sell his stock, in order that he might raise the purchase money. He believed, and it was generally admitted by all 1000 acquainted with the subject, that the Government would be better secured by advancing the whole of the money than they would by advancing three-fourths of it, and thereby driving the tenants into the hands of money-lenders, who would exercise a pernicious control and influence over them. If this course had been pursued with regard to the glebe lands sold to tenants under the Purchase Clauses of the Church Act of 1869, the present owners, especially in Ulster, would not be in their present embarrassed condition. What was the evidence of Mr. Morrough O'Brien before the Select Committee in 1878? He said that he was told by the tenants that they had to starve themselves in order to raise the necessary one-fourth of the purchase money, and in one instance a tenant had to sell his entire stock—two cows and six sheep—and borrow at the rate of 20 per cent, in order to become the owner of his land. If the whole of the purchase money was not advanced, he ventured to say that the sales in Ireland would be few and far between; because they all knew that, in consequence of the Land Act of 1881, the tenants could not now be frightened by the terror of the new and unknown landlord, and not compelled to borrow at 20 per cent, or starve themselves. The tenants were now secured from eviction, except for nonpayment of the judicial rent. He would say emphatically that it was the interest of both landlord and tenant that the whole purchase money should be advanced; and he hoped that the Irish Members would reject any proposals of the Government on the subject, unless the advance of the whole of the purchase money was conceded. Under the Bill he proposed that the rate of interest should not be less than 3½ per cent, and left the terms of repayment entirely at the discretion of the Land Corporation, to decide according to the merits of each estate and case, and to deal with them upon a sound commercial basis. A difficulty in connection with the inability of the Land Commissioners to carry out the Purchase Clauses was the impossibility to get three-fourths of the tenants on an estate representing two-thirds of the rental to agree to buy. Now, what he proposed was that the Land Corporation should be able to purchase estates in globo, and hold them over until transferred to the tenants. In proposing this he followed the suggestion made by Judge 1001 Flanagan, of the Landed Estates Court, before the Commission in 1878. Judge Flanagan said—
You must have a person or persons who would have an interest in the tenants, and who would be prepared to come forward and buy in globo estates for sale, and then sell them back to the tenants. It is the only chance of selling largely to the tenants.Now, that was exactly the principle embodied in this Bill. He was aware that great divergence of opinion existed amongst Irish Members as to the mode for extending the Purchase Clauses; and he brought forward this Bill as a contribution to the discussion, and as an attempt to solve the difficulties now existing. The Corporation that he proposed to establish would be partly a public and partly a State Institution. He proposed that the State should guarantee 3 per cent on £10,000,000 sterling. He was anxious that this should be held out to the Irish people as a source of investment, especially to the agricultural community. The deposits in the Irish banks at the present moment were about £35,000,000, and depositors were paid on that sum about 1 per cent; and he had no doubt that before long these depositors would be ready to invest their money in a Corporation such as this, which would give them a State guarantee of 3 per cent on their money. This would not only be a financial gain to the people, but a great political advantage to the State. He would be glad to see the Irish people having a National Institution of this kind, where their deposits would be safe, and where they would get a reasonable interest for their money. An impression existed, principally in England, that if these facilities were given there would be a great rush upon the part of the tenants to buy. No greater delusion could possibly exist. He would remind the House that the transactions in the Encumbered Estates Court during the most prosperous years did not exceed £1,000,000 per annum. He did not believe that all the facilities for purchase offered by this Bill would lead to sales of more than £1,000,000 a-year, so that the operations would be very gradual, because there was now no pressing necessity on the part of the tenants to buy; and he also believed that when the present glut in the land market was removed it would be found that the proprietors of great estates had not the slightest intention, of selling. 1002 He proposed under this Bill that there should be no law costs, and that the amount of the purchase money should cover all the liability of the tenant. The costs at present to the tenants in the Encumbered Estates Court amounted to 11 per cent of the purchase money; and where the amount of the purchase money was only £150, the costs reached 18 per cent, or four years' purchase. There was a strong feeling about this in the North of Ireland; and he believed that, unless some special arrangements were made, the people would be very cautious about becoming purchasers. It was a well-known fact that tenants would rather pay £10 more for their land than £10 in costs. He had now given the House in bare outline his project, and it did not go one step beyond what the Select Committee had recommended in 1878. One of the Land Commissioners examined by Mr. Bright—Mr. Justice O'Hagan—said that the Commission proposed by him "should have all matters connected with the purchase and sale of land absolutely in their own hands." It had been suggested to leave the working of these Purchase Clauses in the hands of the Land Commissioners. He had no objection if they placed in the hands of the Commissioners extensive powers, and left them absolutely free to deal with every case. If, however, they placed extensive powers in the hands of the Commissioners, could they believe that they could utilize them? Why the Land Commissioners were unable to grapple with the appeals, and 9,000 appeals were waiting for hearing. Their hands were full, and they had more work than they would be able to accomplish for the next four years. Public opinion in Ireland was anxiously awaiting for the solution of this question, and for the creation of a peasant proprietary. The question which they had now to decide was, whether they would allow the people facilities for becoming the owners of the land which was waiting for sale, or let it get into the hands of speculators? He earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government, for the sake of the peace and prosperity of Ireland, would facilitate so desirable a result when they had the opportunity. They were now face to face with the very same position of affairs as existed in 1850; and he hoped that the blunder then made would not be repeated, and that they would now enable the tillers 1003 of the soil to become the owners of the land which they cultivated. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. A. Dickson.)
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would only detain the House for two or three minutes. He had no intention of moving the rejection of the Bill; but it must be understood that he did not in the least degree assent to it. If he moved the rejection of the Bill it would be his duty to give some reasons for doing so. He would not, however, waste a moment of the time of the House. He was anxious to hear the statement which the Chief Secretary had long promised them, and which men of all classes in Ireland had been long looking forward to with the greatest anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman, he trusted, would now address the House and state the view of the Government.
§ MR. PARNELLSir, I should have been very much better pleased if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down had informed the House what measure he was prepared to support of this kind. I doubt very much if the right hon. and learned Member would support any Bill such as has been introduced. I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction; but I scarcely think that the time has come yet in Ireland for any large transfer of property from landlords to tenants, either under this Bill or any other proposal which has yet been made, unless very special facilities were offered by the Government. I doubt very much whether Irish landowners, as a class, are desirous of selling their interests in the land at the price which tenants would be willing to give for it. I doubt very much if the time has yet arrived for such a project. I am very much disposed to think that on the great majority of estates in Ireland the measure would be ineffective, and that its operations would be confined to those which are already in the market, and which must be sold, owing to the fact that the margin which has been left for the benefit of the original owners who have petitioned for the sale has been absorbed, or nearly absorbed, owing to the very great depreciation in the value of land which has taken place in that 1004 country. As regards the main question of the sale of land in Ireland to the tenants, I scarcely think that we shall be able to approach it on the basis afforded in the Bill of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). All Parties in this House now entertain the belief that it would be most desirable that the purchase facilities of the Act of 1881 should be extended, so as to enable tenants upon estates in Ireland to become owners of their holdings upon fair and reasonable terms. It certainly would have afforded some light to the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given some information to the House as to the views of his Party upon the Bill of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson). I can only say, with regard to this Bill, that I recognize in it a sincere attempt at, if not a solution of the Irish Land Question; it certainly is an attempt to solve the present difficulty with regard to the sale of estates in Ireland. I believe that if the Government were to see their way to the adoption of the measure, a very considerable number of estates now in the market waiting for sale from various causes would be transferred, enabling the tenants to become the owners of their holdings upon reasonable and proper; terms. I do think that it would be most desirous that the owners of encumbered estates in Ireland should be afforded an opportunity of selling, and the tenants an opportunity of buying, their holdings. I think, however, in all probability, unless very exceptional facilities were afforded by the Government, such as the extension of the repayment period over a larger number of years, and that a greater amount of the loan was advanced, no very great progress would be made upon, a large scale just now. I have always held that the Land Question in Ireland will never be settled upon a firm and sure foundation until the occupying tenants have been made the owners of their holdings; and I consider that it would be very well worth the while of the Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, to settle the question upon that basis, and to create in the nation a spirit of contentment and peace amongst all parties. I believe that one result would be to do away with the necessity, from their point of view, of "exceptional legislation," and of having to keep up a large garrison of military and police. Yet I 1005 am convinced that if the sale of land in Ireland took place under certain conditions and at a certain price, the result would be that the taxpayer eventually would be no loser whatever, and that not one shilling of extra taxation would be incurred by enabling the Irish tenants to pay in just instalments for their land. While I say this, I say, also, that I think the time has scarcely come yet when the operations of the Bill of the hon. Member could be carried out upon any extensive scale. However, the condition of the land market in Ireland will afford the Government an opportunity of making an experiment, and seeing how far the tenants on these encumbered estates are desirous of purchasing, and also of ascertaining the price which they are disposed to give for their holdings. They can then judge by the course of things during the next few years what probability there would be of the success of a more extended scheme of purchase from the result in this case. If it be found that the tenants upon such encumbered estates purchased their holdings at prices which are accepted by the Courts having the jurisdiction of the sale, and that the instalments are paid with reasonable punctuality, it would afford a strong inducement to the Government to adopt a larger scheme in the course of a few years. It would be an encouragement to the taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms to undertake larger and greater risks with a view to bringing about a permament and lasting settlement of the Land Question, which, as anyone with any experience of the actual situation of affairs in Ireland knows, is the only accepted means of leading to tranquillity and peace in that country. The subject of the present Bill is divided into two questions—Are the landlords willing to sell, and are the tenants willing to buy? I have already answered these two questions by saying that, in my opinion, the landlords are not willing to sell at present at such prices as would enable the tenants to buy. The tenants are not willing to give 20 years' purchase on the judicial rent. When the question comes to be considered it will be fought upon that. The tenants will object to having to pay the entire taxation upon these estates, county cess, poor rate, and Income Tax, with the knowledge that they would have an in- 1006 flexible landlord, instead of having, as at present, a few rare examples who are flexible. When they would understand that the demands of the tax-gatherer could not be avoided, postponed, or delayed, they would rather look forward to the time when the Healy Clause of the Land Act will be a reality in existence instead of in theory, as at present; and when, instead of having to pay for the improvements of their predecessors in title 20 years' purchase of a judicial rent, they will themselves obtain the benefits of such improvements. The Irish landlords, unless they received a further loan, would not permit the tenants to purchase under these conditions; and, therefore, I hold that, unless the period of repayment were very materially extended from 35 to 52 years, the tenants would not be induced to buy at such a rate as the landlords would be willing to sell at. I should be very glad to know the sentiments of the Government. They appear to shrink from placing themselves in the position of creditors on an extensive scale to the Irish tenants. The Land Act of 1881 preserved the landlords as a buffer between the Government and the tenants. I do not know whether the opinion has been modified within recent years; but the announcement that they intend to propose some scheme of purchase would rather appear to indicate that they are favourable to the assumption of a greater risk by the State than they were when the Land Act of 1881 was passed, and that, so far as regards the encumbered estates which are now in the market, and must be sold whether the price obtained for them be high or low, they are disposed to experiment on a somewhat larger scale than hitherto. I believe that the experiment can be tried with perfect safety. I think that in all probability an expenditure of £10,000,000 a-year extending over a period of 10 years—that would be £100,000,000 altogether—would enable most of the land in the occupation of tenants subject to the operation of the Land Act of 1881 to be purchased, and that long before the expiration of the 10 years you would have repaid in annual instalments a very considerable portion of the sum lent during the first three years, and that possibly, if it were worked out by an actuary, it would be found that at no time during the 10 years 1007 would the State have lent more than a total sum of about £50,000,000. In all probability, what will result from the present situation will be an experiment on a large scale as to the feasibility of establishing a peasant proprietary. Bui I shall regard the discussion as important if the Government evinces now less repugnance to pledging the credit of the State on a larger scale than formerly. There is one most important condition which is absolutely necessary to be satisfied, so as to secure the success of an experiment, even upon a limited scale. I refer to the advance of the whole of the purchase money. Whether that advance is to be through an intermediate body, such as the Company which has been established under the Tramways Act, which would take upon themselves some portion of the risk, or whether the advance is to be to the occupying tenant himself, I look upon it as an indispensable condition for the purchase of any quantity of land by the tenants that the whole of the purchase money be advanced by the State. Whether they would extend the period of repayment is another question. I think an extension would facilitate purchases. Perhaps the House is not generally aware of the important provisions contained in the direction of advancing purchase money in the second part of the Tramways Act of last Session. It is claimed by the Company which has been formed for that purpose that the Land Commissioners now, if permitted by the Treasury, could advance the whole of the purchase money of an estate to the Company, though, when the estate comes to be resold to the tenants by the Company, only three-fourths of the purchase money can be then advanced to the tenants. Thus the Company is rendered responsible for the repayment of a quarter of the purchase money. It appears to me that by a development of the principle which is contained in this portion of the Tramways Act you might obtain a solution of the difficulty weighing upon the mind of the Government as regards advancing the whole of the money—that if some intermediate body in a responsible and solvent position, either a public Company with a subscribed capital at its back, or a local body, such as a County Board, or in the absence of a County Board the Board of Guardians, with power to levy rates on the locality, could be established, that 1008 then the Government might with safety advance to such a body the total purchase money, while reserving to themselves the right to hold this body responsible for the payment of one-fourth in case of the failure of the tenants. That is the construction which has been placed by a lawyer of ability upon some sections of the Tramways Act. We have not yet got the opinion of the Land Commission. But it is hoped very shortly that an opportunity will be afforded to the Treasury of declaring what is their interpretation of the Act; and if their view should be that the whole of the purchase money can be thus advanced, a very important step will be taken in the simplification of this question. There is another important question with regard to leaseholders. They will be unable to take the same advantageous terms of purchase as those yearly tenants enjoying judicial tenures with reduced rents. The leaseholders will be compelled to purchase on the basis of their own high rents, which, in all probability, are 50 per cent over those paid by the tenants from year to year having judicial tenures. Hence it will follow that the risk to the State of the element of repudiation will be very much augmented as regards these leaseholders, and it will be impossible to carry out a symmetrical scheme of purchase. I think if the Imperial Exchequer is asked to advance a large sum of money to enable Irish landowners who must sell to dispose of their estates upon comparatively advantageous terms, where there is at present no market for them, those who are responsible for the safety of the taxpayers as regards these transactions should ask the landowners to permit the leaseholders to enter the Land Court, to allow them to have fair rents fixed, so that the State may be assured that if this experiment is tried it may turn out satisfactory to the Government and to this country. If sales are carried out to any extent, and the leaseholders buy with the rest, as they must, and on the basis of the old unreduced rents, I confess I cannot feel that confidence in my own mind that the transaction, so far as regards these leaseholders, will turn out as satisfactory to the State as I should like. I think, therefore, that the State might ask that this important class, the leaseholders, should be admitted to the benefits of the Land Act.
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, if a long declaration of policy tad been expected from me I should not have had time to make it. I have, however, no such declaration to make, and the limit of time allowed me will suffice for what I have to say. The debate, though short, has been interesting and instructive; and my only regret is that my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket) had not given the House the full benefit of his remarks. The announcement I have to make is important, as every stage of so important a matter as this must be. It is simply this—that the Government have been maturing a scheme, which is now almost in the very last stage; and it is a scheme which they believe will be satisfactory to the persons interested in this question. That speculation has not been diminished by what has taken place in this debate. It is unnecessary for me to enter into the objections which the Government feel to the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend, I take it, felt that, as a private Member, he could not lay down a comprehensive machinery for carrying out the purchase of land by a Government Department; and I conclude that, being well versed in business, he sought for a means of obtaining that end by means of a commercial body. But the objections which the Government take to this scheme are vital. They are strongly of opinion that if the Government guarantee is not to be a mere gift to the shareholders, it will be necessary for the shareholders, in order to obtain interest for their money, to make that money, in some shape or other, out of the tenants of Ireland. But the tenants have shown their determination that not a penny shall be made out of them if they can possibly help it. That is the real objection which lies at the bottom of our unwillingness to accept the scheme of my hon. Friend. I think, however, that that scheme is admirably drawn up, and if a land bank which will stand between the Government and the tenants and landlords could possibly be devised I cannot imagine how it could be better devised; but the only land banks which have hitherto been concerned in carrying out these transactions have been Government institutions—I refer to Prussia; and the Government think that a machinery more straightforward and convenient than even such institutions can 1010 be invented, and has been to a very great extent invented in their hands. I wish this scheme to come before the House as a whole, and I will not, there fore, enter into any details; but I shall take the earliest opportunity of unfolding it. On all sides this is allowed to be a most momentous business, and the assurance that the Government is on the eve of embarking upon such a scheme is, at all events, a very important stage. I do not wish that the House should be able to read between the lines of my speech in any important respect. I may say I agree very much with what has been stated in the course of the debate. I agree as to the paltry results of the purchase system, as to the importance of an independent body which shall practically be able to give its full time and attention to this business; as to the importance, if possible, of obtaining the tenant right as a part of the security, if that might be obtained by just means; as to the immense importance of doing everything to diminish or limit the legal expense of the transaction. And if—
It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that the matter had already been postponed twice, and five weeks ago they were told that a statement would be made that day. Now they were referred to that elastic period —an early date. Did that mean a week —he called that an early date, though not very early—[Mr. TREVELYAN dissented.]—or a fortnight, or when?
§ MR. TREVELYANI have conferred with my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Childers), and I have no reason to doubt but that he or I shall be able to lay the outline of the Government proposal before the House in the shape of asking leave to introduce the Bill, in the course of a fortnight, or, at any rate, two or three days over that time, or possibly a day or two more.