HC Deb 31 July 1900 vol 87 cc244-52

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

MR. WYNDHAM

I propose to effect the object which we have been endeavouring to effect by this Bill by another method. I propose to omit the first three clauses, and on Report stage to bring up a clause which is not open to the objection which has been urged to Clause 1. I do not admit that the objection is well founded, but it will get rid of the difficulty in that way.

MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL

said the House was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing these clauses, but ho thought some declaration as to the new clause should be made. A large number of hon. Members who were present on the Second Reading might not be in the House on the Report stage, and if a compromise was about to be made some intimation of its nature ought to be given.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he thought the request of the hon. Member a reasonable one, but he hoped that the hon. Member would have taken it from him that in withdrawing those clauses ho would not in the new clause reopen the discussion. The proposed new clause would provide that a council which had acquired land on behalf of a corps might lease it to the corps for a period of years, so as to give the corps security on which they might borrow money to erect butts, and erect the necessary buildings. Under the existing law the Volunteer corps could not borrow, because they had not a sufficient title to enable them to give that necessary security.

MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL

thought the suggestion was one which would not be objected to by any local authority. At the same time, he thought the time had arrived when the Government should take the matter into their own hands and provide these things at the cost of the State.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

desired to know why the new clause was not put on the Paper so that it might he discussed in the ordinary way, and also whether it was intended that it should be discussed when it came up upon the Report stage. Did the hon. Gentleman propose on that occasion to recommit the Bill in order to allow discussion?

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 negatived.

Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:—

Question proposed, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

MR. MAURICE HEALY

said that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had endeavoured to explain to the House the circumstances under which the Ranges Act of 1891 became law. That Act recited that it was an Act to facilitate the acquisition of ranges for Volunteer corps and others. The Irish Members were perfectly justified in saying that it therefore should be limited to deal with the acquisition of ranges, and that consequently as Volunteers did not exist in Ireland no part of the Act should extend to Ireland. Members of the House wore justified in assuming that a Ranges Act did not deal generally with the subject of military lands or the public defence, and it was not a fair proceeding on the part of the War Department to insert a clause which did not deal with ranges or Volunteers at all. His objection was not a technical one, because, under the Military Lands Act of 1842, it was provided that when the Crown proceeded to take up the land of a subject for the purposes of defence the amount of compensation was to be assessed by a jury of his countrymen, and an elaborate procedure was set up by which the jury should fix the compensation. When Parliament returned to the subject in 1860 with a further Act for the defence of the realm, it was again repeated that whenever a difference arose between the Crown and a subject, the owner of the land to be taken should have the right of having the amount of compensation to be given decided by a jury. But in the Ranges Act of 1891 Section 11 provided for the first time that when laud was acquired, not for Volunteers or ranges, but for the public defence, the Crown should have the right of de priving the subject of having a jury to fix the compensation due to him, and compelling him to resort to arbitration. That might be very good for England, where they could get thirty-five to forty-five years rental as compensation from the arbitrators; but he was sorry to say that when lands were taken from them in Ireland they could not calculate on any such fabulous sums being given as compensation. On the contrary, in some cases the scale of compensation was assessed at less than twenty-five years purchase. He was told that the Ranges Act had been repealed in 1892. Yes, every word of it had been repealed except Clause 11. That clause had been surreptitiously retained by the War Office, who wanted to deprive the people of Ireland of their land without just compensation.

New clause— Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and the powers and provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are being used for the purpose, the amount of compensation shall in all cases be settled by a jury in like manner as in the said last-mentioned Act provided."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. Member for Cork had invited him to discuss the merits of a clause passed by the House of Commons in 1891. He alleged, quite truly, that, in 1892, an Act was passed which repealed the whole of the Ranges Act of 1891, with the exception of Section 11. But the Act of 1892 was a consolidating Act, brought in as such by Mr. Stanhope, and welcomed as such by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. Therefore, he ventured to say it was not a reasonable proposition on the part of the hon. Member to reopen a discussion with regard to the purchase of land for military purposes which was closed by the Act of 1892; and it was all the more un- reasonable as the Bill now before the Committee was not a Purchase Bill at all. The powers under the Military Lands Act wore not so drastic as those under the Defences Act. When the Government in order to meet the convenience of the House had abandoned some of the clauses of this Bill the hon. Member was not justified in reopening a discussion closed long ago.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

said that the abandonment of two or three clauses of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government could not have the slightest effect on his mind. He was pleased to sec that the hon. Gentleman had offered no defence whatever for the shameful transaction of the War Office in retaining that clause of the Act of 1891 in the Act of 1892; he would not have been a party to the nefarious proceeding. It surely could excite no surprise on his part that, having been tricked in 1892 by this extraordinary proceeding of the War Department, Irish Members should take the first opportunity that occurred to raise this question in debate. The hon. Gentleman said that the Act of 1892 was a consolidating Act, that the Members of the House generally were very delighted at its introduction, and that they ought not to reopen discussion upon it. But he ventured to say that not 1 per cent, of the Members of the House knew or cared what was being done by the Act of 1891. The proportion of Members interested in military lands was lamentably small, and to say that they were all panting to have a codifying Act in 1892 was a delusion. The theory of codification would not hold water for a moment. The process of codification was the embodiment into one Act of a series of Acts. But the Act of 1892 was not a codifying Act, otherwise it would have embodied the Act of 1860. The Act of 1892 was limited to a very small fraction of a very large subject. At least, the whole code of the Defence Acts, which still disfigured the Statute-book, made it a burden of a most serious kind to any unfortunate legal practitioner to advise on this subject. He had had some proceedings under them, and had had to transport dozens of volumes all over Ireland in order to make the arbitrators understand the law and procedure. The Act of 1892 was not a codifying Act; it went a small way in the direction of codification, but carefully omitted out of its purview this question of Section 11 of the Act of 1891. He was therefore entitled to ask the Government to address themselves to this question as to whether when the lauds of an individual were being taken by the Crown for public purposes the man ought not to have the right to have his compensation fixed by a jury. The hon. Gentleman avoided that question. He had drawn attention to the fact that that right was given to the subject in 1842 and again in 1860, and that it was not till 1891 that it entered the heads of the War Office to say that the Crown had the right of taking away a man's property without a constitutional appeal to a jury, and they did that not in an open above-board fashion but by a trick. I am sorry that I should have to raise this matter at a time which is not very convenient to Members of the House generally, but the hon. Member opposite cannot complain of the action of the Irish Members who are availing themselves of the first opportunity they have had of exposing a transaction of this kind.

MR. JASPER MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said that it was very interesting to see the hon. Member coming forward in that House as the apologist of Irish landowners.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The hon. Member opposite is under the impression that the only persons who have an interest in Irish land are Irish landlords. I assure him that he is quite mistaken, and I do not for a moment raise this question for the benefit of Irish landlords. I would be very sorry to have land taken from a landlord without fair and proper compensation, but I bog to inform the hon. Gentleman that the person in whom I am interested and for whose protection I have raised this discussion to-night is not the Irish landlord but the Irish tenant. While the Irish landlord can fairly calculate on getting substantial justice on a transaction of this kind, I am sorry to say that the Irish tenant has no such protection, and when he appeals to a jury he cannot calculate on that generous justice which is meted out to Cabinet Ministers and others when their land is taken from them.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MAURICE HEALY,

in moving a new clause as to the way in which the costs in connection with legal proceedings should be paid, said: I am not competent to say whether the matter referred to in this clause is a grievance existing in England as it unquestionably exists in Ireland, but I apprehend that it is a grievance common to the two countries. I do not think that any man who considers the matter fairly can come to any other conclusion than that there is a substantial grievance to be deal with. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not meet this Amendment as he did the last, by stating that this Bill does not deal with the subject of land purchase. This measure is entitled "An Act to amend the Military Lands Act, 1892," and the hon. Member has described that Act as a codifying Act, and therefore, in his view, it covers the whole field of the acquisition of military lands. I raise to-night a question which, no doubt, does not directly arise out of any clause in this Act, but which is certainly covered by the title of the Act, and which, it certainly cannot be denied, is a proper subject for consideration when any topic connected with land is being discussed. When a railway company or any public undertaking of that kind goes to law with a private individual to enforce a process of compulsory purchase, that undertaking goes to law with the risks as to costs of an ordinary litigant. If he is beaten in the litigation lie is beaten at the peril of costs to himself. On the contrary, when the Crown goes to law, acting in what they conceive to be the public interest, if you can succeed in satisfying the court that they are proceeding against you in a legal manner, you are met with the legal doctrine that Her Majesty's judges have no power to give costs against the Crown, and you have the luxury of defraying out of your own pocket the costs of a litigation in which you have succeeded. If there is one litigant who ought not to escape costs it is the Crown, which has the whole resources of the Empire at its back. Some authorities on jurisprudence are of opinion that the State should bear the costs of all litigants, and that no one who litigates on a question of law should be at any expense in doing it. Parliament has never accepted that doctrine as regards litigation generally, and the law is that if people take the risks of litigation they must pay the costs if they are beaten. Is there any reason why the Crown should be exempted from that doctrine? I will toll the right hon. Gentleman of a particular case. It was the case of the Belhaven land. The Attorney General for Ireland is familiar with the litigation connected with it. It entered into the heads of the Crown that it would be a proper thing to take away the land of the tenants, and have the compensation assessed by two resident magistrates. I ventured to question that procedure in a court of law. I am bound to say that the resident magistrates promptly decided that the Crown wore erroneous in their procedure. The Irish Attorney General took me into the Queen's Bench for the purpose of compelling those magistrates to hear the cases. I met him in the Queen's Bench, and the judges there decided that the Crown were not entitled to take the cases in that way. Having decided in my favour after a long and elaborate argument, the court could not give costs against the Crown, and it was held that I should bear the costs out of my own pocket. The Crown, acting on a representation from the court, paid me my costs. That is what I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whom I have never known do anything but what was perfectly fair. I submit that when the Crown is defeated in litigation of that kind it should bear the costs.

New clause— Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes, either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and also where any legal proceedings are taken in connection with or arising out of such proceedings, the Secretary of State or other person or authority acquiring the land or taking such proceedings shall be subject to the same liability to pay costs in connection with such proceedings as any person or authority acquiring lands under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts relating to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

The hon. Member has again invited me to defend the Defence Acts. For the purpose of putting my position to the Committee, all I need say is that the Bill before us is a Bill to amend the Military Lands Act, 1892, and not one to amend the Defence Acts. Under the powers conferred by the Defence Acts lands can be taken and the price settled afterwards. They are drastic powers which enable the Government to take land if necessary for the purposes of emergency. These Acts are not before us. With all deference to the hon. Member, I will not undertake the task of disproving that the Defence Acts need amendment. In my opinion they are very valuable Acts, but we are not now discussing them. My point is that this is not a convenient opportunity for opening a discussion on the Defence Acts, with which the Bill we are discussing has nothing to do.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

said the hon. Gentleman failed to realise that both the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Act only partially protected the person whose property was being taken away. It might be said that he was magnifying the importance of one particular set of cases in which lands were taken compulsorily. He assured the Committee that that was not so. The very contrary was the fact. In nearly every case in which lands had been taken compulsorily in recent years it had been necessary to resort to the ordinary legal tribunals to litigate some point. When an emergency of that kind arose, and when a subject was dragged into court by the Crown to litigate his rights, he ought to be indemnified against the costs of the litigation when he succeeded.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MAURICE HEALY moved a clause providing that the justice determining compensation should not be a resident magistrate. He asked the Chief Secretary to embody this provision in the Bill, as it only asked that when the Crown wore taking land they should not have the right to assess compensation by their own paid magistrates. He did not wish to make any attack upon resident magistrates generally. He wished to discuss the question in an entirely impersonal way, but, seeing that their position was dependent on the will of the Crown, they would not be free in exercising their judgment. How was it that such a monstrosity ever came to be embodied in this Code? When the Defence Acts were passed originally there was no idea whatever that compensation should ever be assessed by magistrates. It was twenty or thirty years after—he thought in the Act of 1860—that a clause was inserted giving the Crown the right to proceed under the Lands Clauses Act.

New clause— Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes, either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and the powers and provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are being used for the purpose, neither of the justices determining the compensation pursuant to the 121st Section of the last-mentioned Act shall be a resident magistrate appointed in pursuance of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said this new clause and the others which had been moved by the hon. Member were tantamount to amending the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, and this was not the time for discussing such a question. There was no land purchase provision in the Bill now before the House, and that being so, he asked the hon. Member not to regard him as disrespectful if he declined to argue the question on its merits. This was not the moment to go into the merits of the question raised, and if the hon. Member wished to do so, he must take another opportunity in another session.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.