§ MR. GINNELLI beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that the Treasury has intervened in a number of cases under the Irish Land Act of 1903 in the interest of the landlords and against the apparent interests of the tenants and of the public; that in several of these cases the contention of the Treasury has been overruled by the courts; that in the large number of cases now being ruled without trial, in accordance with the decision in King Harman and Hayes, the Treasury, though asked, refuses to intervene; if he will take steps to have effective intervention granted at the earliest possible date; and if, pending the result, the Treasury will withhold provisionally a portion of the purchase money and bonus in each case.
§ The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
§ MR. GINNELLTo ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that it has been judicially declared by the land judge in Ireland that embarrassed tenants are not free agents in purchase negotiations; that most Irish tenants are embarrassed; that by the combined effect of this embarrassment and the abolition of inspection by the Land Act of 1903 the gross price of holdings has been inflated by five years purchase more than under previous purchase Acts; and that the bonus of 12 per cent, is calculated upon and added to this gross price; and, if unprepared to introduce land legislation this session, will he have the power of the Treasury ascertained, and if necessary enlarged, to limit advances of public money to bona-fide transactions, and by that means restore value to its proper function as a measure of price.
§ ME. GINNELLTo ask the Prime Minister whether there is any class of 198 transactions other than those under the Irish Land Act of 1903 which the Treasury recognise as sales though nothing passes in exchange for price in which the Treasury advances that price to the alleged seller and makes the alleged I buyer responsible for repayment of the amount with interest, though the corpus was all along the buyers' own property; and, if no other like transactions are similarly dealt with, will he have immediate attention given to the relations of the Treasury to those Irish transactions.
§ MR. GINNELLTo ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the transition from dual ownership now proceeding in Ireland landlords are receiving from public funds a price and a bonus calculated upon the entire value of holdings; and whether he will take steps to empower the Treasury to refuse any advance in respect of the tenant's part of the property on the ground that this part has not been sold.
§ SIR. H CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe hon. Gentleman has put down a series of Questions on a highly technical and a highly important subject, and if he I will allow me I will endeavour to grapple with them in a single Answer. He complains, if I understand him aright, of three things. In the first place, he complains that the price paid to the landlord is too high, that it is in fact so excessive as to include in certain cases the value of the tenants' occupation interest as well as the landlord's proprietorial interest. In the second place, that in the cases described the bonus of 12 per cent, on the purchase-money is paid to the landlord in respect to the tenants' interest as well as his own. And in the third place, that the Treasury are not sufficiently vigilant in checking these proceedings. Well, Sir, nobody denies that the price agreed to—voluntarily agreed to—is sometimes a high price, but that is not the fault of the Government or the Estates Commissioners. I do not say that it is anybody's fault. It is the result of legislation passed in 1903, and if the system of voluntary purchase is to be altered nothing but legislation can alter it. If a case be made showing any collusion which is in the nature of a fraud on the Act that will be a matter for the Estates Commissioners to deal 199 with. But if it be a case of calculating the bonus on any price voluntarily settled between the parties, and sanctioned by the Land Commissioners, that is not a matter in which the Treasury can interfere. As to the censure on the Treasury implied in the Question, I believe it to be founded on a misconception of the powers of that Department. The Treasury do not make the advances. They are made by the Commissioners in pursuance of the statutory provision contained in the Act of 1903 as judicially interpreted. With respect to the hon. Member's inquiry as to recent judicial decisions, it is true that the Treasury have applied for judicial decision in several cases coming before the Estates Commissioners, but it is not to be assumed that their intervention was necessarily taken, in the cases to which the hon. Member probably refers, in the interests of the landlord, inasmuch as the interests of the taxpayer are involved in these matters. In some of these cases the Judicial Commissioners and the Court of Appeal (in one instance) have ruled that the interpretation of the law regarding which the Treasury raised a question was correct; in other cases the Treasury on fuller knowledge have withdrawn their objections. In one important case a decision became unnecessary, because a regulation made by the preceding Government was withdrawn by His Majesty's present Government. The case of "King Harman" Hayes" did not raise any point in which the Treasury was interested, and consequently the Treasury did not move in that case. If the tenants or other parties interested or the Estates Commissioners find it desirable to have the issue in that case more fully considered, Section 23 of the Act of 1903 provides a simple procedure whereby the matter may be judicially tested.
§ MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)asked whether the prices were not six or seven years purchase in excess of the prices paid under former purchase Acts.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThat I do not know. I am very sorry if they are.
§ MR. GINNELLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point, 200 which was that the Commissioners had not approved of the prices.
§ MR. FLAVINasked whether the price under the former Acts was seventeen years purchase, and that under the last Act was twenty-four years purchase, with three years bonus added.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANSo much the worse for the Act. It is not an administrative matter, and I must ask hon. Members to have a little mercy for one who is after all poaching on other people's ground, and has not all the facts before him.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI did not say so.