HC Deb 11 August 1904 vol 140 cc307-18

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

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

Clause 1.

* THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County intends to apply a time limit to the first sub-section of Clause 1 only, he is right in moving it in the place in which he has put it now, but if he wishes to apply a time limit to the whole Bill this Amendment ought to come up as a new clause at the end of the Bill. I do not know which course the hon. Member desires to take.

MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory)

said he had put down two Amendments, one of which was on the lines the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and the other to amend Clause 1. This Bill was introduced to remedy a decision of the Law Courts of Ireland which affected the payment of the bonus in respect of the sale of land to a tenant for life, and which also affected the payment of the bonus to the owners of untenanted land. In its present form he did not think the Bill carried out that object and therefore he desired to move the Amendment.

* THE CHAIRMAN

There is a Standing Order which says the period of duration of any temporary Act must be expressed in the Act at the end of the Act. I understand the object of the hon. Member is to make this a temporary Act, and therefore the proper place to put this would be at the end.

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

pointed out that this sub-section of Clause 1 dealt with an entirely different subject to those raised in the other section of the Act. He contended that this Act was not a temporary Act at all and not passed for temporary purposes, and he submitted that if this Bill was to be passed and this bonus was to be given on the sale of untenanted land the limit of five years was quite long enough for that purpose.

MR. DELANY

asked whether there was any difficulty in putting this Amendment as it was, and then to meet the question of making the whole Bill temporary by bringing in a similar Amendment as a new clause at the end.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The difficulty here arises from the fact that Clause 1 deals with two questions by one of which the rest of the Bill is not affected. Therefore, if the hon. Member is successful in introducing a time limit in Clause 1, it does not follow that he would be successful in putting a time limit on the rest of the Bill. If hon. Members were not prepared to discuss it as a separate clause, but desired to limit their discussion to the time limit on Clause 1, they can approach the subject now.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,) Dover

said this Bill did nothing more than was expressly agreed to both in this House and another place last year, and it must be clear to) hon. Members opposite that to deny a bonus to those who sold untenanted land, after a certain time, would be to put a premium on the holding of untenanted land.

MR. DELANY

said he did not want to deny the inducement to sell untenanted land, but merely to limit it so that the Act might be carried out.

* THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member wishes to press his Amendment, he is entitled to do so. But in doing so, he must confine himself to the untenanted land. The other question must come up afterwards.

MR. DELANY

said he had no desire to take up time unnecessarily. What he had said showed what he desired to do. He had no desire to limit the inducements to sell, but that the period during which those inducements should exist should be limited. The other night he heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Camborne ask for a time limit in what he, the hon. Baronet, called the Brewers Endowment Bill. He wanted a time limit on what he should call the Landlords Endowment Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, at beginning to insert the words 'For a period of five years after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Delany.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WYNDHAM

quite understood the object of the hon. Member. He wished untenanted land to be brought rapidly into the market, and to deal with questions which could not at present be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act. He objected to the Amendment, however, because it would have precisely the contrary effect. It was more necessary to have a bonus for untenanted land than for tenanted land. Untenanted land was land where both interests were owned by the landlord, and, therefore, it was worth more than tenanted land. But if they bought either to sell it to a tenant farmer or to an evicted tenant, he was going to farm on the same conditions as all the other farmers in Ireland, and therefore he could not afford to pay more, indeed in some cases he could afford to pay less, so that a bonus was more necessary in the case of untenanted than in the case of tenanted land. On the other hand the chance of untenanted land being sold was more remote. Take the case of a man who owned a tract of untenanted land. Why should he sell? There were no tenants to approach him. He would only sell because he wanted to carry out the policy of the Act, and because under this Act the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board were able to offer him the fair value of that land. To put a five-year limit in was not to induce him to come to terms, but to put a bar to the prospect of those operations being carried out. It was almost a contradiction in terms to say that if the land was not sold in five years the inducement to sell should be withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

said that the fact that they were now discussing this Bill showed that they should scrutinise very closely the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. The intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were, no doubt, good, but when these matters went before the very subtle Judges in Dublin an entirely different complexion was put upon them. This Bill could not be passed in its present shape without it was carefully explained. If this clause were passed in its present form the result might be that land would be sold to the Land Commission, not for the purpose of being distributed amongst the people, though the sellers would get the bonus. That would mean the stereotyping of the poverty in the West of Ireland.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the whole of this trouble had arisen because in Clause 8 of the original Bill it was declared that the Land Commission might purchase any untenanted land which they considered necessary. Lawyers had held that that must be different from the general purposes of the Act, and the fact that there was a separate clause raised a doubt as to whether the bonus provision applied to the land so bought. This first subsection removed that doubt.

MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)

asked the Chief Secretary whether he would be willing to accept a time limit of, say, ten years. There ought to be a time limit put in the Bill in order that the question of untenanted land might be properly dealt with. In the West of Ireland ninety-nine out of 100 of the landlords who held such land were not in a flourishing financial position, and they let their land on the eleven months system. Of course, the objection of the hon. Member did not hold good in the case of the eleven-months men, for they were not tenants within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman believed that it would facilitate the acquirement of untenanted land to have no time limit at all.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was deeply in earnest in desiring that this Bill should pass. He had to speak on it at a later period of the session than he would have desired, and the time now available did not enable him to enter so fully into the question now before the Committee as, under other circumstances, he might have done. He did not think that a time limit would be salutary in regard to any part of land purchase, but it would be fatal in the case of untenanted land. He thought hon. Members from Ireland would admit that he had shown considerable zeal in trying to acquire untenanted land. He did his best to effect that object last year. He had taken the best legal advice available, and he believed that if this Bill were passed as it stood that could be done without any further delay.

MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

said if the bonus were given the owner would have a temptation to sell either to the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission, but if they withdrew the bonus there would be no temptation to sell.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'untenanted land' and insert the words 'land wholly or partly untenanted.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TULLY

moved an Amendment for the purpose of ensuring that herds should get the benefit of the recent land legislation. As the Land Act stood at present the bonus was given in respect of certain estates. The definition of tenant was contained in Section 2, and he was not sure that herds were included in any of the categories mentioned. In his own county they were an important class, and he thought they should be the first men entitled to get a bit of grazing land. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'for the purposes of being divided amongst the purposes mentioned in Section 2, Sub-section 1,(a),(b),(c),(d), including herds.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

said Section 2 had no reference to the question raised by the hon. Member. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. TULLY

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

moved an Amendment providing that the bonus should not be paid unless the vendor had withdrawn the estate from the Land Judge's Court before 1901. He said the estate of the late General Redmond afforded a typical instance of what had been done with regard to the bonus and of the way in which the price of land had been raised to tenants in Ireland. He had asked the Chief Secretary that day whether the agreements for purchase on the Redmond Estate, county Wexford, had yet been lodged with the Land Commission; whether they showed the rent, valuation, and price in every case; if so, whether he could give the figures to the House; and, if not, when would they be published in the official Returns to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said in a supercilious way that he would not give the information, and denied that such information was usually furnished to the House. He found from the Blue-books previous to the 1903 Act that such information was furnished to the House. In a letter to The Times, London, Messrs. O'Keeffe & Lynch, solicitors, who had charge of the sale of the Redmond Estate, stated that the number of tenants was ninety-four; rental £1,579 0s. 11d.; amount of purchase money £33,779; average number of years purchase on rents, 21.3; percentage of reduction of rent in the future annuities 30.7. These included a large number of second- term rents; forty-six tenants bought at 18.3 years purchase. When the case came before Mr. Justice Meredith in the Land Commission Court, Mr. O'Connor, K.C., who appeared for the vendor of the estate said that the total of mortgages was £23,241, the rental, in round numbers, was about £1,600 a year, and that the total out-goings in priority to Mrs. Redmond's jointure amounted to about £1,414. For all practical purposes this was a bankrupt estate in the Land Judge's Court. It Yielded no surplus.

* THE CHAIRMAN

How is this relevant?

MR. TULLY

said he would explain.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Act which the Committee was amending provided by Sub-section 4 of Section 48 that no bonus should be payable in respect of an insolvent estate. Whethor a particular estate was insolvent was a matter for judicial determination, and it was waste of time for the Committee to try to decide such a point.

MR. TULLY

said his point was that he wanted the law in regard to an estate that was insolvent carried out. A year ago last July the Member for Waterford had not an interest of 6d. in this estate. When he saw that this Act would pass he withdrew the case from the Land Judge's Court. and through the operation of the bonus and of British credit made a profit of £7,000 or £8,000. He contended that the intention of Parliament ought to be carried out He thought he had made himself perfectly clear. His object was to show that on this insolvent estate the price of the land had been raised to the tenants.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not see how the hon. Member was entitled to go into these details. Were the hon. Member's remarks relevant to the question before the Committee?

MR. TULLY

said he wanted to show how they were relevant.

MR. WYNDHAM

, on a point of order, said that Sub-section 4 of Section 48 of the Act of last year provided that no bonus should be paid in respect of insolvent estates. The hon. Member was seeking to go into detail in regard to insolvent estates for which provision was made.

MR. TULLY

said that was an entirely different question. The object of his Amendment was to see that the law was carried out. He did not object to the bonus being paid on solvent estates. He was dealing with the case of the hon. Member for Waterford, who was able by a financial operation, and the bonus and British credit, to take £7,000 or £8,000 out of which he had not sixpennyworth of interest. This was an insolvent estate.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that, as far as he understood it, the estate could not have been insolvent or no bonus would have been paid. The hon. Member was seeking to go behind the decision of the Courts.

MR. TULLY

said that he wished to have the intention of Parliament carried out. This estate would have been sold for nineteen Years purchase before the Wyndham Act, but immediately after the price jumped up.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said the Court must have found otherwise. He did not see the object of the hon. Member going over this ground.

MR. TULLY

said that he was being hampered in bringing the case forward. This estate, which before the Act would not have realised £23,000, the amount of the mortgages, fetched £40,000.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was not entitled to go into these elaborate details with regard to this one case, upon which the Court had given a decision.

MR. TULLY

said he was anxious that this should not fall on the tenants. He would not take up any more time, but moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, at beginning, to insert the words 'In the case of a vendor whose estate has not been withdrawn from the Land Judge's Court since the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and one.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WYNDHAM

said the effect of the Amendment would deny the bonus to solvent estates. There were many estates in Court owing to accidental circumstances—a Chancery action or a thousand other matters. This Amendment would make nonsense of a great part of the Act of Parliament. He really did not think the time of the Committee should be taken up with it.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'said percentage,' and insert the words 'percentage mentioned in the said section forty-eight.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'provisions of' and insert the words 'enactments contained in the proviso to Subsection 1, and in."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'of the said section,' and insert the word 'thereof.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TULLY

said that the whole policy of this clause was to give an advantage to the tenant for life although he might not have a sixpence worth of interest in the estate, which might be mortgaged up the lips.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

said that this clause had nothing to do with that question.

MR. TULLY

said he was quite sure that it had something to do with it. The tenant for life was getting far too much money under this clause. He preferred the good old Ashbourne Agreement. He begged to moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 13, after the word "entitled," to insert the words "provided the purchase annuity created under this Act payable in respect of the advance will not be more than forty-two and one-half per centum below the existing rent."—(Mr. Tully.)

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words, "same trusts as those," and insert the words "trusts (if any)."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TULLY

said he wished to move the next Amendment standing in his name because he believed that this was a landlords' Bill and should not be allowed to go through without protest.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the words '1890,' to insert the words 'provided the purchase price does not exceed the average paid under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, and the Land Purchase Acts, as certified by the Land Commission.'"—(Mr.Tully.)

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of the last-preceding section.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 22, to leave out sub-section (4) and insert the words 'provided that where the vendor is a person exercising any power or sale on behalf of a lunatic, person of unsound mind, or infant, or where the vendor is a lunatic or person of unsound mind selling pursuant to any order made by the Lord Chancellor, the percentage shall be held for the use and benefit of the same persons, or upon the same trusts as the case may be, as if the lunatic, person of unsound mind, or infant, as the case may be, were not under any disability.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 3, before the word 'where, to insert the words 'Provided also that.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

said that in referece to the Amendment standing in his name, his object was to place the land clerks in the same position as the land agents with reference to the payment to them by the Land Commission.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, at end to insert the words '(6) With the consent of the vendor or vendors a portion of the said percentage or bonus, namely, a sum calculated at the rate of one-half per cent. on the gross amount of the purchase money and bonus, may be paid by the Land Commission to the land clerk or land clerks of the estate office, on the sale of an estate under The Irish Land Act, 1903; and if there be more than one land clerk in the estate office, the said sum shall be distributed by the Land Commission to the land clerks in joint proportion to their salaries and years service as land clerks in Ireland: Provided that, in case it is arranged by the Estates Commissioners and the vendor that the said sum shall be paid to the land clerk or land clerks of the estate office as part of the costs connected with the sale, payable out of the purchase money of the estate by Section 23, Sub-section 12, of The Irish Land Act, 1903, the amount shall not be payable out of the percentage or bonus.'"—(Mr. Sloan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that if the Amendment were accepted the land clerks in Ireland would obtain more than had been given to the land agents. He, therefore, was unable to accept the Amendment. His hon. friend, however, might take consolation from the fact that the word "agent" in Clause 23 of the Act meant any person who was employed by the landlord; and, there-fore, if a land clerk were so employed, he would be included in the provisions of the Act.

MR. DELANY

asked why the landlords should not compensate their clerks, instead of asking the public to compensate them.

MR. SLOAN

asked if the word "agent" in Section 23 of the Act included land clerks.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the technical definition of an "agent" was a person who acted for another.

MR. SLOAN

said that in the circum-stances he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word construed,' to end of clause, and insert the words' and shall take effect from the date of its passing as if this Act had then formed part thereof.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

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

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that, as the House knew, he and his colleagues took the gravest objections to the Bill, and had emphasised in the strongest possible manner their objections to it, which prevented them from moving Amendments which they believed to be essential to the success of the Land Act. They had not attempted to interfere at that time of the session with the Amendments, however important Amendments might be. They preferred to take up the attitude they adopted at the beginning, when they demanded that an opportunity should be given to discuss larger Amendments.

MR. TULLY

said he wished, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, to draw attention to the fact that opportunity of moving Amendments had been neglected. The Bill was a landlords' Bill and would enable them to put up prices to be paid by the poor tenants. He protested against it.

Question put, and negatived

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3, 4, and 5, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]