§ (1.) In the case of every advance made after the commencement of this Act the purchase annuity shall be calculated and payable—
- (a) during the first decade of the annuity, upon the total advance; and
- (b) during the second and third decades, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be unpaid at the end of the previous decade; and
- (c) after the end of the third decade, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be then unpaid
§ (2.) The Land Commission shall, in accordance with such rules as the Treasury may make—
- (a) at the end of each of the said decades ascertain how much of the advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation during the decade of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital, and the residue of the advance shall be the unpaid
353 amount upon which the subsequent annuity is to be calculated and paid; and - (b) ascertain when the whole advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.
§ (3.) If the proprietor of a holding charged with an annuity applies to the Land Commission within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, prior to the end of each of the said decades, that the annuity during the next decade shall not be reduced under this section, no alteration of the annuity shall then be made.
§ (4.) The amount of the annuity, when recalculated as provided by this section, shall be certified by the Land Commission, and that certificate shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall be sent by them to the registration authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act. 1891.
§ (5.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in the case of an annuity for any advance made under the Land Purchase Acts before the commencement of this Act, subject as fallows:—
- (a) where more than ten years have elapsed since an annuity far the repayment of the advance began, the amount of the advance remaining unpaid shall be ascertained as at the end of the last complete decade since that beginning, and the reduction of the annuity in the current decade shall date from the gale day next, after the commencement of this Act.
- (b) In a case where a purchaser's insurance money has been paid, the amount so paid, and not set off against arrears, shall be taken into account at the end of the first decade as if it were a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital: and the provisions with respect to setting off against arrears purchaser's insurance money so paid shall not apply after the end of such decade.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "advance," to insert the words "under the Land Purchase Acts."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (1), after "payable" to insert the words "at the rate of £3 10s. per cent."
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSAs I understand the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it is out of order. The Amendment proposes to make a charge upon the Treasury. Supposing the rate of interest is reduced, and failure was made in paying the annuity, the Treasury would lose 354 by the difference between the two rates if that is so, the fund would be diminished to that extent, and the State would be liable to make good the difference.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsubmitted that the Amendment would not affect the Treasury, or impose a greater burden on the subject, and that if it lessened the amount of interest, it would extend the period of payment. From both points of view he submitted that the Amendment was in order.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when, recently, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis called the attention of the Speaker to a Bill as requiring a Committee on the ground that it was a financial Bill, the Speaker ruled that, as the fund had already been provided for, and the Bill only dealt with the allocation of the fund, a Committee, was not necessary.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSrepeated that the State would be liable to make good the difference between the two rates.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he did not propose that there should be any extra liability on the State. If it was proposed that the annuity should be reduced, the point of the Chairman would be a good one; but he was simply proposing to extend the periods of the annuity. That would throw no additional burden on the State, but simply give the tenant the privilege of a longer time to discharge his burden.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSBut supposing the Amendment formed part of the Bill and payment were made at a lesser rate, and the annuity ceased to be paid, the State would supply the difference between the £3 10s. and the £4 per cent. which would be the proper sum for the tenant to pay.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYreplied that that would be the consequence not of his Amendment, but the general failure of the tenants to pay. That was a loss which would fall on the Treasury at any time by the default of the tenant. It would not arise from his Amendment.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.)rose to move to leave out the word "decade," and to insert instead thereof the words "period of five years."
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsubmitted to the Chairman that after the ruling he, had just given this Amendment would be out of order on the same grounds. The Amendment proposed to alter the conditions of the security.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSI think so. I must also rule this Amendment out of order on the same ground.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDE moved to leave out the word "decades," and to insert instead thereof "periods of five years, and during each subsequent period of five years."
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUROn a point of order, does not this Amendment also alter the conditions of the security?
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe objection does not arise in this case, so far as I understand the Amendment. The 49 years during which the repayments of the purchase money are to be made are divided by the Bill into decades, and the hon. Member proposes to divide them instead into periods of five years.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the effect of the Amendment would be to upset the actuarial calculations upon which the proposals of the clause were founded, and therefore, it would affect the security.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThen we are in this position, that we cannot change the proposed arrangement.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYWe may change it, but only against the tenant.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSIf it is a fact that the Amendment would throw the liability on the Treasury, it cannot, of course, be accepted without the consent of the Crown. I therefore rule it out of order.
§
MR. FINCH HATTON (Notts, Newark) moved to add at the end of the clause:—
Provided that the purchase annuities of tenants who have acquired or who may acquire their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, shall he subject to revision in like manner as rents now are under the revision clauses of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe same ruling applies to this Amendment. The interest might be reduced under such an arrangement, and the Treasury would be the loser.
§
SIR T. ESMONDE moved to add at the end of the clause:—
And the provisions of this section shall apply in the cases of simple mortgages under section twenty-three of the Purchase Act of 1885, power being hereby given to the Land Commission to convert any such mortgages into instalment mortgages on the application of the persons liable, provided they agree to pay the same rate of interest on their mortgages as is payable by purchasers under this Act.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would be sorry to give an answer offhand, but he would consider the matter.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to insert in Sub-section (4), after the word "them," the words "for registration."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved an Amendment so as to give the tenant the reduction of the annuity in the current decade dating from "and including" the gale day next after the commencement of the Act. Unless those words were included the tenant would not receive the relief properly intended, and it might make a difference of a six months' term to him.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not see that there could be any material advantage in one day.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that it was not one day, but one gale.
§ MR. J. MORLEYsaid this was a very technical point, but he saw that it might make a difference of six months. By inserting the Amendment that would obviate every possible objection. He did not think it could possibly do any harm.
§ * SIR J. COLOMBsuggested whether, as they had now been considering the Bill for nine and a half hours, and this seemed to be a very difficult question, it would not be advisable to report Progress. [Nationalist cries of "No!"]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not wish to press the House to an impossible or intolerable length, but he thought they might finish this clause. He did not think he was wrong in saying that there was really nothing in the next two or three clauses. If the House would give them to the end of Clause 8 he would then report Progress.
§ * SIR J. COLOMBsaid he did not make any Motion. He merely made a suggestion.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Member for Cork City was very likely right, and before Report he would consider the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)said he had a sub-section on the Paper which he wished to move, and by which the period for the payment of instalments would not be increased beyond the terms of the Bill. He would like to know whether he would be in order in moving it.
* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that his ruling applied to the sub-section and it would not he in order.
§ MR. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to consider the state of the people on whose behalf he endeavoured to move the Amendment. Immediate relief was absolutely necessary in many parts of Munster.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that every Member on his side of the House had been in receipt of numerous requests, begging them to move such Amendments as would give a greater percentage of relief to purchasers under the Purchase Acts than this Bill afforded. It was perfectly notorious that in many parts of Ireland there were bodies of tenants who had contracted to buy their holdings under threats of eviction. They had consented, under coercion to place themselves under obligations to the State which they could not discharge, and while he thanked the Government for the relief proposed in this section, he desired to impress upon them the fact that this relief was not sufficient, and that there was urgent necessity for some further measure of relief. He trusted that in future the Judge who was responsible for the administration of the Land Purchase Acts would keep a closer eye on these transactions, with a view to seeing that the tenants were not coerced into compulsory obligations they could not discharge. In speaking on the purchase question, he differed in this respect from the hon. Member for South Mayo. He had always been a supporter of the policy of purchase, but he had found it necessary on numerous occasions to raise his 358 voice in warning to the Government as to the necessity of taking greater precautions than were now taken to secure that the tenants were not coerced into an engagement to pay too large a price. One of the reasons why he was so anxious about the passage of the Improvement Clauses before they got to the Purchase Clauses was that unquestionably what had occurred in a number of the cases of the tenants who were crying out for relief in the shape of reduction of their purchase annuities, was that the tenants had been compelled to purchase from their landlords the whole of their own improvements. That was the cause of the present difficulty. If the policy of purchase was to have a fair chance in Ireland and was to be a success, it was absolutely essential that the administration of the Purchase Commissioners should be very considerably improved in the direction he had indicated.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEremarked, as this was the first clause of the purchase part of the Bill, he wished to give expression to the opinion entertained by an increasing number of Members on his side of the House, that the whole purchase policy was a mistake, and would meet with an increasing amount of opposition from year to year in this country. The clauses of this particular Bill, however, were, comparatively speaking, clauses of detail, and did not, he thought, offer the policy to them in that shape which would make it desirable or wise that they should divide against the clauses, or in such a form as would enable the whole subject to be easily or conveniently discussed. A great many of them in and outside of the House wished to offer a word of protest with regard to the continuation of the purchase policy, and that was the proper occasion to do it, as that was the first of those clauses presented to them.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDEthought the Government should consider whether they could not better their purchase proposals. What they should do was to extend the period of repayment in the case of the purchasers and to revise their instalments. Now that the Government had an opportunity of doing something to settle the Irish Land Question, he thought it would be a pity if they did not take advantage of it. If they did not better their purchase proposals, this Bill would not become effective.
§ MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts, Huntingdon)thought many English Members who were not conversant with the working of the Purchase Acts might be influenced by the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo that tenants had agreements forced upon them on such terms that it was perfectly impossible for them to pay the instalments. He doubted whether any pressure had been put upon tenants to pay larger sums of money for their farms than they ought to have done, while he would also point out that the State was absolutely and entirely guaranteed, and that these agreements between landlords and tenants were subjected to the valuation of the Purchase Commissioners, who sent down and inspected the farms, and who, in the interests of the Treasury, would see most carefully that the amounts applied for were not excessive. They inspected not only the value of the land and the improvements upon it, but they also considered the condition of the tenant himself, whether he was idle or thrifty, and whether, consequently, they could advance him the money. The State took the utmost care to see that the amount advanced was such that the instalments were absolutely safe. He thought the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo should not be allowed to pass without a word of remonstrance.
§ MR. CLANCY, dealing with the question of the rate of interest under this Bill, and under previous Acts of Parliament, contended that the Treasury was actually making a profit out of these transactions. He believed he was absolutely correct in stating that the percentage charged for interest and Sinking Fund was 4 per cent., precisely the same interest as was charged under the first Purchase Act of 1885. Everyone knew that money could be borrowed by the Government at at least 1 per cent. less than in 1885. If that was the case it was as plain as a pikestaff that the Government must be making a profit out of these transactions of at least 1 per cent. The only answer to this to which he could point was that this percentage might be applied towards the recouping of the loss the Treasury had sustained on the advances made under the Acts. But the loss to the Treasury under the repayment of the loans had been practically nil, and consequently the Treasury had not, had to expend any of the 360 profit which he contended they had been making under the Acts, and which they would continue to make under the present Bill. He regretted that the Rules of Parliament did not permit the Irish Members to move Amendments on the subject, but he would appeal to the Government that, having regard to the struggles of the Irish farmer, who had hard work very often to meet his purchase instalments, they might devote some of the profit made to their relief in the way of reducing the rate of interest. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. KNOXsaid the objection he had to this clause was that in its present form it was impossible for anyone to tell how many years the annuity in future was to run. The Treasury, up to the present, had gone on the principle of laying down a certain amount for interest, allowing a certain sum for the Sinking Fund, and allowing the annuity to run for 40 years. The Government had adopted the plan of lengthening the term for repayment. To that he did not object, but at the same time they had, under the Bill, left it practically to the Treasury to say what the length of time of repayment should be, and under a later clause the Treasury had power to assign as much as they liked of the aunnual payment to the Sinking Fund. They could lay down, also, the rate of interest, and there was no sort of implication in the Bill as to what was to guide them in laying down that rate. He deprecated this enormous power being placed in the hands of a Government Department, and especially as that Department was the Treasury, which was less popular with the mass of Irishmen than any other Department of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] The Treasury had shown itself in this matter quite incompetent to forecast the future. In connection with the Bill of 1891 they were absolutely wrong in their calculations, and therefore were not-entitled to that respect which would be given to the actuaries of an ordinary building society.
§ MR. POWERsaid the Government were able to borrow money at a very cheap rate of interest, and they ought to give purchasers the advantage of that rate. He hoped that between this and Report the right hon. Gentleman, whose skill they all admired, would frame some Resolution which would safeguard the 361 interests of the Treasury, and at the same time confer some advantage on the people who purchased. No doubt instalments had been paid punctually, but in order that the payments might be made, farms had been depleted and tenants placed in a position of great difficulty.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYhoped that, in order to facilitate purchase, somewhat better terms would be given to the tenants.
§ MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)read a Resolution from the Ashbourne tenants to the effect that an Amendment should be introduced whereby the interest on instalments should be reduced from four to three per cent. He believed a great number of these tenants were on the verge of bankruptey.
§ Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 20,—