§ (1) The Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land—
- (a) in respect of which a final offer has been sent by them and has not been accepted in manner provided by this Act; or
- (b) in respect of which they have received a requisition under this Act from the Congested Districts Board
§ (2) A copy of the final offer and of the aforesaid notice shall as soon as possible be served in the prescribed manner by the Estates Commissioners upon all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the estate or untenanted land.
§ (3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with 2316 the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply by way of objection to the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land.
§ (4) The Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise the powers conferred on the Land Commission by Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section forty-eight of the Act of 1881, and his decision on any question other than one of law shall be final.
§ (5) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act on any question of law and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
§ (6) Subject to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, the price named in the final offer or fixed under this Part of this Act as the case may be shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall within the prescribed time be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be, by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase-money into the Bank.
§ (7) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Section shall be at the discretion of that Commissioner, who may if he thinks fit order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
The CHAIRMANI have to rule out of Order the Amendments to leave out Part IV.; also that to leave out line 8 ["Compulsory Purchase"] standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. W. Moore).
§ Mr. W. MOORESuppose line 8 is not altered in any way, would a subsequent 2317 Amendment to leave it out be in order, seeing there will still be the heading "Compulsory purchase"?
The CHAIRMANThe heading does not affect me in any way in my consideration of points of Order. I now call on the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale).
§ Mr. MOORE, in the absence of the hon. Member, moved the omission of Sub-section (1). I may point out that up to the present the Committee have had no opportunity whatsoever of discussing what may be described as the subject-matter of this Bill—that part relating to compulsory purchase. This is raised by the Sub-section I am proposing to omit. Let me deal with the problem as it affects the Bill. In the first place it is very important, and I shall be glad to have some information from the Chief Secretary as to how this Clause will operate. It affects all land in Ireland except that specified in a later clause—namely, land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a demesne, garden, pleasure ground, or home farm. It is, apparently, not restricted to agricultural land, but it is the whole of the land of Ireland which is affected, with the exceptions which I have mentioned. I think it is only right there should be an opportunity of considering this Clause in that light. This House did pass an amending Land Act for the purposes of the evicted tenants, and that was the first time that compulsory powers were made part of the Irish Land Code.
§ 4.0 P.M
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that your discretion is not in Order on this point, as you are not entitled on this Clause to raise the principle of compulsory purchase, but only the question of procedure. This is a procedure clause, and we have passed the principle of compulsion, and therefore I submit it is only the question of procedure which can be discussed, and that the hon. Member is limited to it.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGMay I submit to you, Sir, on that point of Order, that the same question arose and has been put to you before, and you have been good enough to decide on other parts of the Bill, and have laid down from the first that when we are acting under Closure by compartments it is obvious that there must be some wider latitude given to our discussion than under ordinary circumstances. On this particular point of compulsion 2318 there has been no discussion, and I submit to you whether it would not be in order, in discussing the machinery of compulsion, for us also to discuss compulsion itself. Is it not essential that the two things should be discussed together?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI submit that the argument of the right 'hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that we ought to take up the time which has been allotted to us quo ad machinery by discussing the question of principle, is not in Order.
§ Mr. MOOREI do not intend to discuss the question of principle. I recognise the decision of the Committee on previous clauses, but I am discussing the effect of the machinery which has been devised under this Clause. I intend to discuss the hardship which that machinery would involve and its unfitness from the nature and the kind of property it would affect. I do not intend to discuss the advisability or the extent of compulsion, although I very much object to it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I point out that the only question here is whether the Estates Commissioners shall publish in the "Dublin Gazette" the notices containing particulars of the offer of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be.
§ Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAMOn the point of Order, Sir. I submit to you that we have not only to deal with the machinery of compulsion in this Clause, but we have in the very first line of the Clause to decide whether that machinery may be applied. That is a matter of very vital importance, which can be discussed without discussing the principle of compulsion, but which cannot be discussed without bearing in mind that compulsion is to be applied.
The CHAIRMANI do not think that the first Section of this particular Clause does raise in a satisfactory way the question of compulsion, because it applies to the action of the Estates Commissioners in regard to notices which they' are to publish. There is another section of this same Clause—Sub-section (6)—which, I think, does raise the question of compulsion. As to whether compulsion is already in the Bill, I have had a good deal of difficulty in making up my mind whether it is in the Bill or not. So far as I can see in Clause 39, Sub-section (4), it states that the Estates Commissioners may, in certain circumstances, "if they think fit, proceed to 2319 acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in the manner provided by Part IV. of this Act." Then, of course, in Clause 57, which deals with the action of the Congested Districts Board, it states in Sub-section (4) that "the Congested Districts Board may, if they think fit, send to the Estates Commissioners a requisition calling upon the Estates Commissioners to take steps to acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in manner provided by Part IV. of this Act." Therefore, to some extent, I think we have settled the question of compulsion. The hon. and learned Member, who is going to move the omission of this Section, I understand is only going to discuss machinery. I must hear what he has to say, and decide whether he is in Order or not.
§ Mr. MOOREI think I understand your ruling, Sir, and I shall endeavour not to transgress it, and I may draw attention to the fact that, in acquiescing in your ruling, the Committee will remember that they have passed this principle of compulsion in the earlier portion of the Bill without a single word of discussion. I hope that will not be lost sight of by Ministers, I do not care of which party, when they come to consider what is the effect of guillotine Resolutions. This Bill would be worthless without compulsion, and it has been discussed up to the present without a single word being said about it or its merits, but of course I am not going into that, as this is limited to machinery, and hon. Members below the Gangway seem to be delighted that it is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] When hon. Members below the Gangway address the House, I think, there is never an interruption from these Benches, but as soon as an Ulster Member gets up there are running commentaries made by hon. Members, which are consistent with good manners but are inconsistent with fair play. We are restricted to the machinery provisions of this Clause, but I may point out that it applies to every acre of land in Ireland, except that which is subsequently excepted, such as demesnes, home farms, or pleasure grounds. I think it is important to consider that when you are considering your machinery, because a great deal of the discussion as to what machinery is requisite will depend upon the scope for which it is to be used. The land in Ireland outside these restrictions is necessarily tenanted or untenanted, though the Estates Commissioners can call anything they like an estate for the purpose of rein- 2320 stating an evicted tenant. They can call two or three holdings an estate for that purpose, and therefore nothing turns upon the word "estate" because that is what the Commissioners choose to make it. But all land is tenanted or untenanted, and the question I wish to ask of the Chief Secretary is this: Is land which has already been bought up under the Purchase Acts and which is the subject of a purchase agreement—of course, I mean untenanted land—is it untenanted land within the meaning of this Clause?
I hope the Chief Secretary will throw some light upon that, because it affects the interests of purchasers all over Ireland. There is a very general impression, perhaps owing to the position which the right hon. Gentleman took up, on the Evicted Tenants Act, that land which is subject to a purchase instalment, once it has been bought out, can never be acquired compulsorily, although as a matter of course it is untenanted land. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware, on this point, of the evidence which was given before the Dublin Commission, where a leading—democrat is hardly the word—but I will call him a leader of popular opinion in the West of Ireland, was very loud indeed in his insistence on having what he called "the ranches" broken up. One member of the Commission said to him, "Have you got any considerable amount of land yourself?" At the time the point was raised there was not enough land to go round, and this Gentleman admitted that he had a farm of 300 acres and another farm of 400 acres, or 700 acres altogether, but he snapped his fingers in the face of the Commissioners, and said, "You cannot take my land, because it is the subject of a purchase instalment." I think it is most important that we should have a declaration from the Government as to whether it is intended that untenanted land in the hands of tenant purchasers, who are the owners of the fee, is to be acquired under this Act or whether it will be exempted.
This is the second time that we have had machinery brought into a Bill for acquiring land compulsorily for some of the purposes of the Land Acts, and I do think that the Committee are entitled, and it would be of the greatest advantage for them, to compare the difference between the machinery now advocated and the machinery which was adopted by the House, for the purpose of these Land Acts, under the Act of 1907 for restoring evicted tenants. The Act of 1907, for which the corresponding machinery was devised, was described in 2321 this House as specially framed to meet a special case. The right hon. Gentleman, in this House, expressly declared that its provisions were not to be taken as a precedent. That was said again and again by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by Lord Crewe, who was in charge of the Bill in another place. The Government pledged themselves that those provisions for taking land compulsorily were not to be looked upon as a precedent for future legislation. In defiance, or, it may be, in forgetfulness, of the speeches which were made upon the Evicted Tenants Bill and the machinery which was put into it, when we look at this Bill we find that there have been very considerable changes in that machinery, and that every change is a change to the disadvantage of the owner from whom the land is to be taken. The Government have cut off one notice to him and one inquiry before the Estates Commissioners. They have deprived him of two of his rights of appeal, and I can say from my professional experience that the one thing that at present the Estates Commissioners are most anxious to avoid is to come before the Court of King's Bench. They will settle any matter rather than be haled up on a certiorari or a mandamus. Under the Evicted Tenants Act, when these compulsory powers were given, there was to be an appeal to a King's Bench judge, either in Dublin, where a rota was to be fixed, or to a King's Bench judge as a going judge of Assizes. That was not arrived at hastily. It was the result of a considerable compromise and negotiation between the two Houses over that Bill which was not to create a precedent. The reason was, as Lord Crewe explained, that it was undesirable that there should be an appeal from the Land Commission, who took the land, to the Land Commission who were paying the price, because, as was frankly admitted there, although the Chief Secretary always denied it here, it was really making them judges in their own cause.
The CHAIRMANWe must discuss this matter one way or the other. It is surely agreed that the question of compulsion is already in the Bill, and we cannot discuss it now. I think it would be very much better in regard to this matter not to discuss the whole of this Section on the omission of Sub-section (1), but deal with the matters seriatim as they arise.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMy submission was that the only point of the Section is—shall a notice in the "Dublin Gazette" be published and what shall it contain.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMWhether or not the question of compulsion has been decided, two questions have not been decided: one, the machinery by which compulsion is to be exercised, and the other as to where compulsion should be applied. That is a very important point and I trust you will not exclude discussion on it.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELLThe opening words of the section are, "The Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land." Therefore we are dealing with machinery which it is proposed to put in operation when it is intended to purchase compulsorily an estate or untenanted land. Surely it is vital and relevant to that discussion to consider and discuss the extent and nature of the land which forms the subject matter of the notice.
The CHAIRMANThe Motion is to omit Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) in this case does not raise, as Subsection (1) often does, a wide point of general principle. It is very restricted in its application, and as to the question of what kind of land is to be included in this, if it can be raised on an Amendment Which is in Order I do not see that it can be raised here.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMYour objection will be entirely met if, instead of leaving out the Section, we leave out the words "estate or untenanted land," but that would debar me from bringing forward a matter which cannot be discussed except in view of where this machinery applies. Estate and untenanted land are not loose verbiage. They are terms of art, which have a meaning under the Act of 1903, which is profoundly modified under this Bill. It is impossible to discuss this measure unless we consider what it is to which we are applying it.
The CHAIRMANSurely if that is the question it can be raised on an Amendment to leave out the words "or untenanted land."
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI wish to invite the attention of the Committee to the word "estate," as well as to the words "untenanted land." There are points of great substance, raising very far-reaching consequences, in this proposal to apply compulsion to an estate and to untenanted land, as the meaning of those words is modified by this Bill. The House ought 2323 not to propose to apply this machinery of compulsion to land covered by these two phrases without understanding what it is that these phrases cover.
§ Mr. MOOREIf I withdrew my Amendment, would a discussion of the whole machinery be permissible on the question that the Clause stand part?
The CHAIRMANOf course, the whole Clause can be discussed there. I stopped the hon. and learned Gentleman from discussing later sections which did not seem to arise on Sub-section (1). With regard to the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), if the points which he desired to raise can be raised on an Amendment to this Section, let them be so raised; if not, and they can be properly raised on this Motion, let them be raised on this Motion.
§ Mr. MOOREI should much prefer to say what I have to say about the machinery when the whole Clause is put to the House, and I understand that will be permissible.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThat will involve that this Amendment must be negatived, for I would be no party to allowing it to be withdrawn. Then the result would be that we should have wasted three-quarters of an hour because the hon. Gentleman has not been able to say what he wants to say. The place to say what you want to say is the right place. This is the wrong place. There is nothing whatever in the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham). The word "untenanted" is a mere adjective in that case, and I will read it as if it did not exist. "The Estates Commissioners, in any case where they propose to acquire land, shall publish in the 'Dublin Gazette' a notice containing particulars of the final offer unless within the prescribed time an application is made under this part of the Act to the Judicial Commissioner by any person interested in the land." Then when you go to the Judicial Commissioner Clause 59 provides that the untenanted land to be sold is to be of a particular kind, and then, "If on any such application the Judicial Commissioner is satisfied that the estate or untenanted land includes land to which this Section applies, and that such land is not the main portion of the estate or untenanted land, he may exclude such land from the purchase." So far as machinery is concerned the only point before the 2324 Chair, and the only point which can be discussed, is whether a notice ought to be inserted in the "Dublin Gazette" advising all parties concerned whose land is going to be taken compulsorily, that they are to get so much money for it, and that if they want to maintain their land as garden ground, demesne ground, and so on, they have a right of access to the Judicial Commissioner, and it does not matter whether the land is untenanted land, demesne, or any other land.
§ Mr. MOOREI think I had better not move my Amendment on the understanding that we are allowed to discuss the whole machinery when the whole Clause comes to be put.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe gist of the point of Order raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) is that, having accepted compulsion as a principle without discussion, we are now to accept the application of compulsion to any land in Ireland. That is a subject of immense moment. There are complicated provisions in the Act of 1903 limiting the intervention of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board; there are many provisions in this Bill limiting them which we do not understand, and there is a new clause by the Chief Secretary bearing upon the scope of the operation of compulsion. If a question of that magnitude is to be dismissed, proceedings are reduced to the last degree of futility. I wish, therefore, to move to leave out the words "an estate" in order that the Committee should know from the Government what they mean. I want to ask the Government to what lands in Ireland they mean to apply these compulsory powers?
§ Mr. MOOREOn a point of Order. You rule that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) was not in its right place, but surely it will have to come in before any Amendment of the Clause could be moved? It is in order to save his right that I raise the point now.
The CHAIRMANI understand that the hon. and learned Member asks where that Amendment should come in. I said it was not in the right place here. I think it should be a proviso at the end of the Section. "Provided that this Section shall not apply until after the voluntary sales of estates under the Land Act of 1903 have been settled for."
§ Mr. WYNDHAMHon. Members will be ill-advised if they believe that this matter, although technical, is merely a technical matter. The phrase "an estate" is a term which occurs in the Irish Land Act of 1903. It does not mean the property of a particular owner who happens to be possessed of what is called an estate. The only definition of an estate is that given in the Act of 1903. There "an estate" is defined to be any land, to put it vaguely, which the Estates Commissioners may declare fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act. Is that what the words "an estate" mean here? Are the Commissioners to select any land in any part of Ireland and say, "This is an estate, and therefore in any proposal we make for the purchase of that land, be it a field of 4,000 acres, an orchard, or moor land, it is an estate for the purpose of this compulsory purchase." That is a point upon which we are entitled to hear the view of the Government. What is the scope and purport of the words "an estate" I meant to deal also with the question of untenanted land, but I will deal with one thing at a time. I invite the Government to inform the Committee as fully and clearly as they can what they mean by "an estate" for the purpose of the compulsory provisions of this Bill? There is no new definition in the Bill, and the definition in the Act of 1903 has not proved a very simple matter. It has given rise to a great deal of difficulty, and there has been at least one important law suit based on the definition of the words "an estate" The words occur in Clause 98 of the Act of 1903, which has no meaning at all apart from the other provisions in that Act. The words will have no meaning apart from the new provisions in this Bill, although in law "an estate" is any land which the Commissioners may say is fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purpose of the Act of 1903. The Clause in the 1903 Act will be amended, but it will not be repealed by this Bill. What we call estates fall into two categories. There are estates of the ordinary character, where sales take place under Clause 3 of the Act of 1903. In that case the landlord sells the property which he possesses. Then there is the second category of estates, which fall under Clause 6 of the Act of 1903, where the Estates Commissioners purchase the estates. I am going to leave the first out of account, because the second is obviously the far more relevant to that which we have now to con- 2326 sider. We have to consider the case where the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate, and I submit to the Government that the words "an estate," as they occur here, are governed by the words in the Act of 1903, which are not specifically repealed. We ought to come a little nearer the definition. We should have it clearly in our mind, in order to ascertain what kind of compulsion is to be applied in regard to an estate so defined. This Bill does modify the words "an estate," as contemplated in Clause 6 of the Act of 1903. That clause contemplates the purchase of estates by the Estates Commissioners with the consent of the owner. The consent of the owner is now eliminated. I am not going to criticise that. It is a question of policy in which the Government may be right or wrong. But there are other provisions in Clause 6 of the Act of 1903 which define the manner in which an estate is to be purchased by the Estates Commissioners. Under that Clause, if the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate they have to certify that it is desirable to purchase it in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it. That is not repealed by this Bill. I wish to know whether under the Section we are now considering the compulsory powers which are to be used by the Estates Commissioners are or are not to have regard to the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon the estate? Is it still obligatory upon the Estates Commissioners to certify to the Lord Lieutenant that it is desirable to purchase the estate in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it? I would point out also that, under Sub-section (5) of Clause 6 of the Act of 1903, which is not repealed, an estate which they do certify as desirable for purchase and resale in view of the wants and circumstances of the people upon it, must fulfil certain conditions. These conditions are modified. It used to be that not less than one-half should consist of holdings not exceeding £5 in rateable value. Now it is to be £10.
§ The ATORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry)That applies to "congested estates"
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI was just coming to that point. I invite the Committee to follow this rather closely. I want to know whether the Section as it stands really bears the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy)? 2327 Does it mean that without repealing those clauses in the Act of 1903 you can go and buy an estate without having regard to the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it, and without limiting the loss which may accrue to the taxpayer in the purchase and sale of the estate? We are entitled to know that. I gathered from the Attorney-General's observation that, in his opinion, the Section now before the Committee is so wide as to give the go-by to all those limitations. Well, but does it? The Attorney-General said that the provision to which I was referring applied to "congested estates." There are two clauses in this Bill which refer to congested estates. The important Clause 21 really defines what a congested estate is. Is all that surplusage and meaningless? The Committee is entitled to know whether, if we pass this Section, compulsory powers may be applied to estates which are not congested, and may be applied also to estates without any regard to the amount of loss which is to accrue in the purchase and resale. If that is the policy of the Government, why do they leave the Clause of the Act of 1903 unrepealed? It is proposed to amend it. Why do they bring in the important Clause 21 dealing with congested estates, and why do they impose the restrictions stated in Section (2) of Clause 56? It is clear that the question as to whether an estate is congested or not has been present to the Government. We want to know whether they are going to give compulsory powers of purchase, irrespective of the wants and circumstances of the tenants on an estate which hitherto we have had more particularly in view. Are they going to ignore the definition of a congested estate as amended by themselves? Are they going to ignore in these purchases the wants and circumstances of the tenants who are situated on the most unfortunate estates of Ireland which require first the assistance of this House? That is my first question. My second question is this. In respect to congested estates under the law as it now stands, a loss on resale might be incurred within the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, but that loss was limited by Clause 44 of the Act of 1903 to 10 per cent. In the Schedule of this Bill you repeal Clause 44. I wish to know whether the Estates Commissioners, buying wherever they choose, may incur any loss, however great that loss may be? The Government are giving the go-by to all the conditions which were carefully imported into the Act of 1903 to 2328 protect the interests of the tenants of Ireland, whose lot is most unfortunate, and they are giving a roving commission that purchase is to be indulged in at a loss to the taxpayer, however great, and without consideration of the wants and circumstances of the tenants, however small.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'an estate' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWhen the author of the Act of 1903 asks the indulgence of the Committee to state his views on the question of Irish Land Purchase, no person would deny him that right, although he was expressing abracadabra. Let me ask the Committee what would be the effect of the Motion he has just made? This Section provides that when land is to be taken compulsorily, notice shall be given in the "Dublin Gazette," and the actual effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that if the land should consist of "an estate" the owner of the land should get no notice. Therefore what he has moved is contrary to all the principles that when land is being taken compulsorily in a certain case, the owner of the land shall get notice of the fact that the land is to be taken. The grievance of the right hon. Gentleman is the grievance of the Closure, the grievance of the guillotine, the grievance of the Act of Union, the grievance created by Lord Castlereagh 105 years ago; but it will not be remedied by moving an Amendment the only effect of which is to exclude; the man who is entitled to notice from getting any notice. If I were to go into this matter I could tell the right hon. Gentleman of a more startling effect in connection with this Section. You can not only take an estate or untenanted land, but land which has been bought under the Ashbourne Act, and the question arises whether a man who has bought under that Act is going to get notice if it is decided to acquire the land compulsorily. After all, we must assume that every Gentleman has knowledge of the effect of the prior clauses we have passed. We have passed prior clauses dealing with compulsion, and, having passed them, we come to purely machinery clauses, and this Clause is no more than if we said this: "The Land Commission shall give notice in the prescribed manner to the persons whose land is being compulsorily acquired." It assumes that the land is being compulsorily taken, and the only thing you are doing with your so-called Victim is to let him know whether he gets notice by registered 2329 letter or by notice in the "Dublin Gazette," or through a bailiff, or in any other way. This Clause is all purely machinery. The other clauses we have passed are the marrow of the matter, and, having passed these, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has wept over the wrong grave.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI do not understand why the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) is so anxious to prevent discussion on this Section. Even if his technicalities—which I intend in a moment to show are wrong—were right, one would have thought in a grave, important question of this kind, vitally affecting as it does the interests of so many persons in his constituency and the interests of the people, that he would have been the last person to have attempted to prevent legitimate discussion. His suggestion is that because under Clause 39 you have empowered the Estates Commissioners to acquire by compulsion an estate, therefore they would be able to do that without the power contained in this portion of the Bill. That, I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman, is a ludicrous contention. If you give power of compulsory purchase and do not provide the machinery your Bill would be inoperative, and this portion of the Bill is as essential in order to enable the Estates Commissioners to exercise their compulsory powers as is the section already passed conferring those powers upon them. But there is one most important consideration that I wish to press upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in connection with these words "an estate." Of course, he knows as a lawyer that you can have an estate in the popular sense. An estate in the popular sense is the entire land that the individual owns. That is what we commonly understand—an estate held under the one title. A man may have several estates; but what we mean when we speak of the landlord's estate is the land in a particular place held under one particular title. If that is the meaning of it under this Clause, many hardships and many cases of injustice one has contemplated would not arise; but it is not the meaning of it, or at any rate, whether it is or not, would have ultimately to form the subject of some very costly litigation in the case of some unfortunate owner or some unfortunate tenant. Therefore, I think it is essential that there should be a definition or otherwise that this difficulty 2330 should be cleared up at this stage, because, as I venture to prophesy, if that is not done, we will have a repetition, only on a larger scale, of the litigation that was caused by the ambiguity as to this expression already under the Act of 1903.
On the other hand, so far as I can pronounce an opinion upon it, I think an estate in this Clause means an estate as defined in the Act of 1903, and that seems to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, if one may judge from his assent. If that is the meaning of it, let me point out to him that nothing can be more unfair or more unjust than a provision of that kind, because that means that the Estates Commissioners in any part of Ireland may walk in and acquire not the man's estate, but any portion of it, small or great, that they may choose to pick out for their own purposes, leaving on his hands the rest of it. Conceive for a moment what that means. A man has a piece of property, some of it good, some of it middling, and other portions perhaps bad; some parts suitable for tillage, some parts suitable for tenants, and other parts unsuitable, perhaps waste or wild. Are they going to take from the unfortunate landowner by compulsion the only portion of an estate that is fit for cultivation, and put that in a ring fence and define it to be an estate and leave upon his hands the worthless portion that may be of very little value for agricultural purposes? What condition is he going to be left in? Let any hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite realise for a moment what that would be if it were applied to his own case. Suppose he has property—some 400 or 500 acres in a ring fence—everybody knows that in ordinary land those 400 or 500 acres are almost certain to contain a small portion, greater or less, unfit for or, at any rate, not worth cultivating as a practical farmer. But, nevertheless, this portion has to be kept up, and sometimes, as we know, it can be worked cheaply, because it is worked in conjunction with the major portion which is profitable. If the State is going to come in and take away that man's property, surely it ought to acquire the whole of it. On what possible principle of justice or fair play should you empower the State to walk in and say, "We will take your good acres and leave you the worthless portion of the estate"? The thing could not be, and would not be, tolerated in any civilised and fair-minded community, but if that is to be the definition of an estate under this Clause, then I say 2331 it must of necessity have that operation and effect, and surely we are entitled to have some explanation upon this point from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have said many hard things about him, but I cannot believe yet that his ideas of fair play and justice with regard to owners of property in Ireland have reached such a level that he proposes under this Bill to enable an outside body, a public body, to walk in upon the estate of any landowner and say, "You have got 1,000 acres here. Six hundred of them are quite capable of being worked and tilled at a profit by agriculturists; the rest is worthless for that purpose. We will take the 600 acres, we will declare that to be an estate, and we will buy it by compulsion, leaving upon your hands the remaining 400 acres," which in his position would be utterly useless for any purpose. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, if that is going to be the effect of this Clause, that the sooner it is amended the better, and that there should be words for the purpose of these compulsory Clauses defining an estate to be the entire of the land held by the owner under the same title. I can conceive cases even in that instance where there would be very great hardship and injustice; but the adoption of this suggestion would certainly get rid of the injustice, that otherwise would be palpable, of compelling an owner to part by compulsion with that portion of the estate which can be profitably managed, and leaving on his hands the unprofitable and useless portion. I think that is a point, in addition to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover, which is worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. JOHN DILLONI have not the slightest desire to prevent the fullest possible discussion upon the principle of compulsion in this Clause; on the contrary, I think it extremely desirable that we should have an opportunity of discussing fully the principle of compulsion under the Clause when the Clause comes to be put from the Chair. I am quite sure that the Chairman will allow that.
§ Mr. DILLONThe hon. Member was stopped when discussing it on the omission of Sub-section (1), but so far as we are concerned, we are extremely anxious that there should be a full discussion, and we trust that we may be able to 2332 secure it. With regard to the speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, may I say that there was no point whatever in it. He seemed to me to have got inextricably muddled up in his head the question of a congested estate and an ordinary estate. There is no connection whatever between the two matters in relation to this particular Clause. The meaning of the Clause is of course quite clear. It proposes to give machinery to carry out compulsion as regards all estates, and what put it into the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that it is governed by the definition of congested estate in Section 6 of the Act of 1903, I cannot conceive. It is not governed by that definition of congested estate unless the estate is defined to be congested, and the provisions dealing with the definitions of congestion have been somewhat modified and somewhat enlarged. But subject to that modification those words remain just as they were in the Act of 1903, as I understand it; and I do not think that the liability of the State to loss on the sale of estates purchased by the Estates Commissioners is qualified by this Clause at all, or by this Act, except in so far as the definition of congested estate is extended by any previous clause that has been already passed. The point raised by the right hon. Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell) is a very different point. His contention is that this Clause would give power to the Estates Commissioners to go to the landlord and say, "We will pick the eyes out of the estate," as used to be done in the States of Texas and Colorado by the ranchers, "and we will leave all the worthless land on your hands." It is an extreme assumption that the Estates Commissioners would ever dream of doing that.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThat is what they want.
§ Mr. DILLONThat is a very extreme assumption. Speaking as a layman, I am not qualified to give an expression of opinion on that matter, but so far as we are concerned we have not the slightest atom of objection, if there be substance in the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member, to having it remedied. It is perfectly easy to do that. There are two ways of remedying it. One would be the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member. The other would be, in my opinion, a much simpler remedy. It would be to 2333 give a right to the landlord, in case he so desired, to require the Estates Commissioners to purchase the whole of his estate. If such an Amendment as that were made by the Government, or any Member of the House, it would meet with no objection and no opposition from us. Our desire is to see all the land of Ireland sold. There was no point whatever in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and he was labouring under a misconception, although he appears to be a very great expert on the interpretation of the Act of 1903; but all I can say is that, so far as we are concerned, we are exceedingly anxious to have a discussion on the general principle of compulsory sale under this Clause.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. Gentleman has criticised my statement, and I must be allowed to reply. I find very great substance in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with every word he says. He put forward the case of the landlords, who are protected in part by this Clause; but there is no protection in it of the interests of the tenants on congested estates. In the case of congested estates a certain number of conditions have to be fulfilled; a certificate has to be issued, and only a certain amount of loss can be incurred. Under this Clause, to which I take exception, on no other estate are there any conditions to be fulfilled, nor are there any limitations as to loss; and there is a direct incentive to the Estates Commission and to the Congested Districts Board to purchase estates favourably situated rather than those which are not favourably situated. That is a point of substance to which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) might well direct his attention. From the point of view of this congestion, it is a mistake to leave unrepealed all those limitations which make it difficult to cure congestion.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThere are 23 Amendments standing in the names of Members of the Unionist party, and if we have 23 Divisions we will never get to any discussion of the Clause; and, more than that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) expressly disclaimed the idea that they would withdraw any of the Amendments; on the contrary, he said they would fight all the Amendments, and, therefore, it will be impossible to get to a discussion of the principle. I would respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General for Ireland that if 2334 effect were given to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover this Government would be spoken of as that abominable Radical Government who passed a clause providing that a man's estate might be sold without any notice being given to him at all.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMWhatever hon. Members below the Gangway may say, I have put two clear questions to the Government, and I am entitled to an answer.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry)Very pertinent questions have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. If he reads the Clause he will find what the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said is perfectly correct, namely, that the only effect of the Amendments being carried will be to deprive the owner of notice of the sale of his estate.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI really cannot sit under that imputation. It is entirely owing to the ruling of the Chair that I moved the omission of those words in order to get an answer from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that I want to leave out these words.
§ Mr. CHERRYThe right hon. Gentleman has moved to leave them out, and I was only pointing out, as had already been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that the effect of carrying the Amendment would be that notice would not be given to the owner of an estate when it was to be sold, and that would be the only effect.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThen let us discuss "The Dublin Gazette" and nothing else.
§ Mr. CHERRYI really must protest against these interruptions. I do not trouble the Committee unnecessarily, and I think I ought to be allowed to answer the questions which have been put to me without these repeated interruptions. What is the scope and purpose of the words "an estate," contained in the 58th Clause of the Bill. I think that question can be answered by referring to the 63rd Clause, which provides that Parts I., II., and IV. of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts and may be cited with those Acts. So that it is perfectly clear that the words "an estate" occurring in the 58th Clause in the Bill have the same meaning as they have in the Acts of 2335 1881, 1885, 1891 and 1903. The meaning of the words is the same as in earlier Acts, namely, "Such land as the Commissioners desire to purchase." When you come to the Act of 1903 the meaning of the words "an estate" is slightly extended, because it applies not only to land required by the Commissioners, but to land sold by the landlords directly to the tenant. Previous to the Act of 1903 the word "estate" was a term of art; it was not used with reference to the sale of land by a landlord directly to his tenant; it was only used in the case of the purchase of land by the Estates Commissioners. Therefore, in dealing with that case, it was necessary to make the definition more complete, and, as we know, the definition was that an estate should mean whatever land the Estates Commissioners decided should be acquired. That was a definition, however, which caused a great deal of trouble and litigation. I really think that we ought not to blame the authors of the Act of 1903 for that. It was a very difficult thing indeed to define the word "estate" in any way that would not cause great difficulty. In my view, rightly or wrongly, the words "an estate" have the same meaning in this Clause as they have in the Act of 1903.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThe Chief Secretary told me the opposite.
§ Mr. CHERRYI did not hear him.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThis is quite a technical point, and I am sure the House wants a satisfactory explanation. The Chief Secretary nodded assent to me when I construed the words "an estate" as meaning such part of the land as was defined by the Estates Commissioners to be fit to be acquired under the Act of 1903. The right hon. Gentleman nodded assent to that.
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLVery well, I accept that, but now his colleague the Attorney-General has pointed out that it is entirely wrong.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, no.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General will bear me out—I want to have the matter cleared up—when I say that his reply was that the same meaning was running through all the Land Purchase Acts up to the Act of 1903 in regard to the general expression "an estate," and that under the Act of 1903 that had been narrowed 2336 down or extended, whichever way you like to put it, by giving the Estates Commissioners power to define what is meant by an estate. My right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the University of Dublin asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite what he suggested was meant by the words "an estate," and he replied that the same meaning attached to them as they bear in all the Land Purchase Acts. Therefore it cannot be the same as an estate to be defined by the Estates Commissioners. That is exactly what I was told or led to believe. I do not for one moment wish to pin the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to it, because it is a secondary matter, and probably has not been looked at by the right hon. Gentleman, who may be at liberty to change his view; but he most frankly gave me to understand, by nodding acquiescence, that the meaning of the words "an estate," in the Section now under discussion, is the same as an estate defined by the Commissioners to be an estate. I only intervened because I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General disagreed with his colleague.
§ Mr. CHERRYIf the right hon. Gentleman had done me the favour to listen instead of interrupting me with a long speech, he would have understood what I was putting forward. He has entirely misrepresented me in what I said, as my right hon. Friend near me, and as Members on the opposite benches will agree. I said the words "an estate" had the same meaning in all the Land Purchase Acts, and that the definition in the Act of 1903 is only referred to because the direct sale between landlord and tenant was for the first time brought under the words "an estate." Those words under the Act of 1903 mean that "an estate" is whatever the Commissioners may regard as an estate, and, if they are purchasing, of course they themselves will define what they consider to be an estate. That meaning is the same in all cases, and is applied where there is a direct sale between landlord and tenant as defined under the Act of 1903. If the Commissioners are dealing with an estate, then those words must mean whatever land the Commissioners chose to buy, and they will not buy what they do not like. When dealing with a direct sale between landlord and tenant the land must mean whatever land the Commissioners declare to be an estate. I see no ambiguity whatever about the words "an estate" in this 2337 Clause, and I think no lawyer would see.any difficulty about them. Suppose the landlord holds under one conveyance a congested estate in Connemara, and a large tract of land in the county of Meath, and suppose the Estates Commissioners desired, in order to relieve that congestion, to purchase the land in Connemara: Would it be a reasonable thing or a proper thing that they should not be able to do that without also purchasing the land in the county of Meath? The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin has described this Clause as most unfair and unjust, and as one which would not be tolerated in any civilised community. Every clause in this Bill that has ever been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the discussions we have had in the last few months have been described by him in exactly similar terms. It was the worst clause ever suggested by the ingenuity of man, even the ingenuity of the devil; it could not be tolerated for one moment. He exhausted all his superlatives, and now we have still more superlatives as regards this Clause. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that compulsory powers are at present exercised all over the United Kingdom. If a railway company wishes to construct a line it has not to take all the land of the landowner, but such portion as it wants cutting through the estate. Yet we do not hear that this compulsory power is a thing which could not be tolerated in any civilised country. Take the case of the Labourers Act in Ireland. It has been in force for a great number of years. A scheme can be framed for the provision of labourers' cottages and land can be compulsorily acquired for that purpose. The Estates Commissioners are not fools. I know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) about the Estates Commissioners. He has given it to us again and again. The Estates Commissioners are public officials, discharging public duties, and is it likely that they will be so unreasonable as to say, "We will not take all your land; we will only take that bit"?
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThey do it every day, and are bound to do it.
§ Mr. CHERRYThe Estates Commissioners discharge their statutory duties cast upon them, and I am quite sure discharge them fairly and impartially. Where lands are separated, and, geographically, in different counties, they will not, of 2338 course, buy one portion because they have bought the other, but if lands all lie within, a ring fence, I can scarcely believe that any public official, buying for the purposes of this Act, would be so unreasonable as to go and say: "You must give this farm and that farm and the other, because they are good, and you must keep the others that are bad." When they came to fix the price before the Judicial Commissioner, I think he would have something to say on conduct of this kind, if they were so unreasonable. We are not to discuss this merely upon the assumption that the Estates Commissioners will do everything unreasonable, or seek to annoy the landlords. On the contrary, they have been seeking in every way to oblige the landlords of Ireland, and, I believe, taking all the landlords, there are not 10 amongst them who will say a bad word of the Estates Commissioners. I have talked myself to landlords again and again. Did the hon. and learned Member who laughs find them very unreasonable when he was selling his estate? Has he any complaint to make? [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty-one years' purchase."] I do hot know what price he got, but is there any landowner who has a complaint to make? We have complaints from lawyers sitting on the benches opposite, but have we any complaints from the landlords themselves? I have not heard any complaint from a single landlord in Ireland. Any landlord who has ever dealt with them has been fairly well satisfied with the way he has been treated. If this is so very unreasonable, may I ask why no Amendment has been put down? The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said he would have no objection to some provision which would require the Estates Commissioners, if they took portions of lands, that they should take the remainder. I think that ought to be confined to land in continuity. If a landlord has two estates, one in Antrim and. the other in Kerry, I do not think the Estates Commissioners should be compelled to buy both estates. I think it will be a reasonable thing—an exceedingly reasonable thing—that all the land within a ring fence should be so treated. No Amendment of the kind has been suggested, although it is a long time since this Bill passed the second reading. We heard about Committees to consider the question of Amendments; we read of their meetings, but why is there no Amendment on the Paper? Although I have been in 2339 contact with the Bill since its introduction, no single soul has ever mentioned this point, and I never heard of it until I heard of it from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham). I know the Amendment was moved not for the bonâ fide object of having it carried, but to provide discussion.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI am sure he does not wish to be offensive when he says the Amendment was not moved bonâ fide. Does he deny that I moved it in order to elicit information? It is a very ordinary course in this House, and one which the Government has usually allowed.
§ Mr. CHERRYI apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I only meant that he did not bonâ fide wish to strike out the words "an estate." He moved that Amendment, as he himself said, to give him the opportunity of discussing other questions. I have endeavoured to say that "estate" has the same meaning in this as in the previous Acts, and the scope of purchase by compulsory power is precisely the same as the scope of purchase of the Act of 1903, that the Estates Commissioners may put in force compulsory power in every case in which an estate could be sold either directly to the tenant or to themselves under the Act of 1903. There are two other questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to congested estates, and asked whether the Government were prepared to ignore the definition of congested estates appearing in the previous Acts. The answer to that is the Bill is to be read as one with the previous Acts, except so far as this Bill amends the previous Acts. The definition of congested estates will remain. One of our clauses amends the definition of congested estates in the earlier Act, and suggests another independent definition. Thus there will be two definitions side by side of congested estates if this Bill becomes law; one is the old definition as amended by this Bill, and the other the new definition introduced by this Bill. Then there was another question as to the loss on resale of the estate, and he referred to Clause 6 of the Act of 1903. I think there was a misapprehension about this section. Section 6 deals with the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of any estate which they may require for themselves. As a general rule, what happens is, if the tenants are anxious to buy and the landlord is willing to sell they simply go to the Estates Commissioners and ask them 2340 to make an offer. The fourth section of Clause 6 provides: "In the case of a congested estate as denned by this Section, if the Land Commission, with the consent of the owner, certify to the Lord-Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon, the Land Commission may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and in such case the condition in this Section as to resale without prospect of loss may be relaxed to such extent as the Lord Lieutenant may determine." The right hon. Gentleman asks me will that apply if this Bill passes, and my answer is "Yes." May I remind him that the congested estates will not as a general rule be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, for this simple reason, that congested estates are mostly in the portions of Ireland that would be under the Congested Districts Board, and the question would arise as regards the Congested Boards and not the Estates Commissioners. The remarks I make may not be applicable to purchase by the Congested Districts Board; I am not quite sure as to what the provisions are as regards that. As to the question whether this provision as to loss on resale would apply, my answer is "No." The reason is a very simple one. The Land Commission, acting under Clause 6, are dealing with voluntary vendors up to the present, and they know before they take any steps the exact price they will have to pay, and they can, at all events, conjecture what price they can secure from the tenant. Therefore they can calculate to a nicety the amount of the loss which they will sustain by the purchasing of an estate, the improving of it, and the resetting of it. If they proceed according to their compulsory powers they can only make a final offer, and if that final offer is not accepted the price will be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and may be a great deal higher than they were willing to give. So that, under compulsory powers, they have not got the same control over the amount of the loss as they have under the voluntary sale. For that reason we leave out in the Bill any reference as to provisions as to loss. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is an objection to the Clause. Possibly it is, but it is one of the difficulties one has to meet when you introduce compulsory powers. We use it as well as we can. We quite appreciate the difficulty, we considered it most carefully, and we decided the best thing to do was to omit this reference to 2341 10 per cent. loss. If the loss is larger than is anticipated the only thing may be that unfortunately the Land Commission may be hampered from want of funds, and may be prevented from dealing with as many estates as they would wish. But you cannot nave compulsory powers without being prepared to pay, and the amount of money that is to be paid can only be ascertained when the transaction is completed. Until you know your price you cannot have the slightest idea as to what the cost and expenses will be. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite I daresay would say that that is an argument against compulsion. It is an argument which lies on the surface, and it applies to all cases of compulsion, because whether it be untenanted land or land for labourers' cottages, or land required by railway companies you will always have expenses, and you must be prepared to meet the expense. I think I have dealt with all the points, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in anything I said I did not in the least mean to be discourteous. What I meant was that this Amendment was not moved for the purpose of having it carried, but with the object of ascertaining the opinion of the Government.
§ Sir E. CARSONI am afraid I shall find it very difficult in any view of the particular Amendment which we are discussing to become hysterical over this point. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) that what we are really discussing at the present moment is the "Dublin Gazette." Although I have been now some years absent from Ireland I take a great interest in the "Dublin Gazette," and I think a discussion on the "Dublin Gazette" would tend greatly to elucidate the different points of this Bill, but although we are en the "Dublin Gazette," we are trying to discuss something that really is more important I suppose than this, and that is compulsory purchase. The reason of it is that it simply means that the Government purposely put down the compulsory purchase principle as the last Clause, and have fixed the guillotine in order that we may not have any opportunity of discussing it The hon. Member for East Mayo, who is usually quite honest, thinks that under the circumstances we ought to have as much latitude as we can get on any form of Amendment.
§ Mr. CHERRYI raised no objection to the discussion, I was only anxious I should keep myself in order.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe right hon. Gentleman commenced the first portion of his speech by pointing out that the whole of this was out of order, and what is more, he charged my right hon. Friend with not putting forward this Amendment as a real Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said, "Here you are with this grievance, and yet you have not put down an Amendment." What is the good of our putting down Amendments? How do we know whether we will ever get to them? Since this Bill came on in Committee we have been allowed to discuss five Amendments, and we are now on the 58th Clause.
§ Mr. CHERRYFive Amendments in five days.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONAnd then the right hon. Gentleman says, with all the enthusiasm which he has for assistance in framing his Bills and for giving judicial consideration to the, points put forward, why have we not put down Amendments, in order that he may guillotine them.
§ Mr. BIRRELLWe could meet them.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThe object of this Bill is not to have Amendments, but to have the guillotine.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNot at all.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONWhen you give us an hour and a half to discuss five or six clauses, as you did last night, and then do not allow us even to reach them, because the Divisions on the previous compartment have not been completed, what is the good of chiding us for not having put down an Amendment?
§ Mr. BIRRELLOh!
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThe Attorney-General told us, as I understand, that this word "estate" is to have what he called the vague meaning which it has in the Act of 1903. He is perfectly satisfied in this Bill with what he calls that vague meaning. He told us that it had caused a good deal of litigation, and he is going to perpetuate it in this Bill. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory way of legislating in relation to a cumbrous procedure of this kind where you are setting up compulsory purchase. I submit to the Chief Secretary that it would be far better to define what is meant by an estate in relation to compulsory purchase, apart from the Act of 1903. In that Act you were dealing with an 2343 entirely different state of affairs, namely, voluntary sale and voluntary purchase, where none of the objections now raised to the term "estate" could possibly arise. The point referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) could not arise under the Act of 1903. The Attorney-General seems to think that it would be a very improper thing for the Estates Commissioners to go to a man and say, "We would like to take some of your good land." Why should it be? I think it would be a very proper thing to buy good land and not bad land, if you could, and it seems to me that it would be more easy to dispose of good land to tenants and people in the neighbourhood. This point is one which requires to be dealt with. The Attorney-General also said that this was a thing that was being done every day in England, Scotland, and Ireland. I do not think he can have said that with much consideration, because he knows very well that it is not the case. He quoted the case of railways. Does he think that that is really an analogous case? Every inch of land taken under a railway Act is denned by Parliament after full investigation by Committees of both Houses of its effect on other portions of the land; and under the Lands Clauses Act, when you proceed to take a piece of land severed from other land, compensation has to be paid for the very severance. The Attorney-General always says the first thing which comes to his mind, whether it bears upon the subject or not. He further stated that operations under the Labourers Acts afforded an analogous case. I forget for the moment how much land can be taken for a labourer's cottage.
§ Mr. CHERRYOne acre for each labourer.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONWith an appeal in every case to the Privy Council.
§ Mr. CHERRYNot now. That was in the good old days.
§ Sir E. CARSONWith an appeal to the county court judge in respect of an acre of land. The right hon. Gentleman compares that with taking a whole estate as may be laid down by the Land Commissioners. Is the Chief Secretary prepared to meet the point which has been raised? It is no use our putting down an Amendment. Is he prepared to move an Amendment providing that where the 2344 Land Commission say that they are going compulsorily to take land, it shall not be left to their discretion to say how much they shall take, without any voice being given to the owner? Is he prepared to give us such an undertaking, or is he going to leave the Clause as it stands now, with this "vague" definition, as the Attorney-General describes it, which might and would lead to very disastrous results to owners of land where portions of an estate are taken and other portions left.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe right hon. Gentleman, I thought, came to business at the end of his speech, and I wish we could pursue that method throughout the whole of our discussions.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGYou might give us the chance.
§ Mr. BIRRELLChance! I remember the speech of the hon. Member yesterday, and I ask anybody who heard it what relevance it had to the matter under discussion? The right hon. Gentleman asks whether or not we will take into consideration the point raised by his colleague (Mr. Campbell), so as to avoid possible injustice in the exercise by the Estates Commissioners of their discretion under the Act of 1903 to declare what portions of an estate are an estate within the meaning of that Act. I am quite willing to consider that question. The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the good of putting down Amendments? I am no advocate of the guillotine by compartments; but everybody who knows anything about this Bill is perfectly well aware that we could have never got it through at all without some kind of guillotine. If a complete Session had been given for its discussion, the eloquence and powers of hon. Gentlemen opposite would have exhausted the whole of the time. There is one small advantage in putting down Amendments, and that is that they call the attention of the draftsman, or whoever is responsible, to oversights which may have been made, and that is the reason why my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cherry) referred to the fact that no Amendment had been put down on this point. If it can be done, and I have no doubt it can be in some way, but the words would require to be thought out, I am quite prepared by the Report stage to put down an Amendment to secure that the Estates Commissioners shall not arbitrarily pick out the best portions of an estate contrary to the owner's wishes. I agree that there is no wrong in 2345 the Commissioners wishing to get the best land; but, on the other hand, it is only reasonable that the owner should be able to intimate to the Estates Commissioners that they are taking the parts of the estate which are to him as the apple of his eye and leaving the parts of small pecuniary value. I will undertake to meet that point. If an Amendment dealing with it had been placed on the Paper, my attention would have been called to it, and I should at once have said that it was a a matter requiring consideration. I hope we may now proceed to the discussion of the rest of the Clause in the spirit in which the latter part of the discussion has been conducted.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGThe right hon. Gentleman informed us that he was no advocate of guillotine by compartments, and yet he is responsible for an example of guillotine by compartments to which no other guillotine that we have ever used has any resemblance whatever.
§ Mr. FLAVINThe Coercion Act.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGThe guillotine system under which we are working to-day has no parallel in the history of Parliament.
§ Mr. T. HEALYYes, it has; there are two parallels.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGNot only is the total time given absolutely inadequate, as everybody admits—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)Order, order.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGI submit, Sir, that there have been three speeches made on this subject already, and it would not be fair to preclude me from answering what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He claims credit for having given us sufficient time to discuss this Bill. I say that so far as the total time allowed is concerned it is absolutely inadequate; and that the way in which the schedule is drawn up—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe time allotted has been allotted by the action of the House itself, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to criticise it now.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGI am quite aware that in theory it is the case, but in practice it is done by the right hon. Gentleman. This question of compulsion, which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Healy) blames us for not having discussed, and which, to- 2346 gether with the question of the Congested Districts Board, is the most important point in the Bill, was carefully put by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the Clauses down for discussion, and now he tries to blame us for not picking out the particular parts of the Bill that he wants to have discussed. He wishes us to acquiesce in one of the most unjust actions ever taken by a large majority towards a small minority. When the Chief Secretary tells me that the speech that I delivered yesterday was irrelevant from beginning to end, I do not say anything except that that is exactly in keeping with the whole of the Chief Secretary's actions, and of the whole of his words in this House. I have great pleasure in leaving the Chief Secretary to himself for the moment, and going back to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I shall be able probably to discuss this question with them with somewhat less heat than in my discussion with the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Mayo, who is in a mood of sweet reasonableness to-day, says that he thought the suggestion of my hon. Friend was an eminently reasonable one, but he said there was no necessity for it, as the Estates Commissioners would, in every case where they could, take all the land they could get. The hon. Member has apparently forgotten the discussion we had the day before yesterday on Clause 35. The case we are dealing with to-day is a different one, and the tenacity with which the Government refuses to allow this to be struck out justifies us in assuming that in cases of compulsory sale that the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission, having compulsory powers, and consequently being in a much stronger position, will, unless some Amendment is made to the Act, only deal with the best parts of the land. I can only say further that the ease with which the suggestion of my right hon. Friend has been agreed to by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General suggests to me that they feel the powers which the Estates Commissioners will have of getting these lands compulsorily at a very low price, are so great, and the difference between the price of land compulsorily or voluntarily acquired is such that some such provision is needed. Whether that is so or not, it is a step in the right direction.
We are to have some modifications of the Clause, because it is clearly only fair that if a man has one portion of his land 2347 taken from him compulsorily that that part lying immediately or reasonably near it should also be acquired. Although my colleagues and myself have no reason to thank the Government for anything in this Bill, yet for the sake of pure Parliamentary form I thank the Government for the concessions which they propose in this respect. I would like to know when we may expect to see the proposals of the Government? Do they propose to put down an Amendment at the Report stage? If so, will they take care that that Amendment is put down at such a part of the Bill that we may have some reasonable expectation of reaching it? Every important part of the Bill up to the present, with the exception of the Congested Districts Clauses, has been put in such a position that there was no possibility whatever of getting near it. The hon. Member for North Louth chided us upon our action this afternoon in not getting on to what he called the important part of the Clause. I must remind him that he and hon. Members below the Gangway voted for the guillotine Resolution of this Bill, and surely, therefore, he does not expect us to fall in with the Government in their views as to how this matter should be discussed? That would be ridiculous. I desire to say that with regard to this particular Clause that we resent very greatly being unable to discuss at any length the principle of compulsion. The Government put that Clause in such a position that it was impossible to get at it. It was placed at the end of a number of other important matters which would, under ordinary circumstances, have taken up more than the time allotted. Take Clause 39, which contains the compulsory purchase provisions. It is entitled "Procedure of the Estates Commissioners on the failure of Negotiations for Purchase." I would ask any Member of the Committee if he saw that, and did not read the rest, whether he would have the slightest conception that the meaning of it was compulsory purchase pure and simple? The Government have done everything in their power to keep us from discussing this, and hon. Members below the Gangway have no right in the world to object to our discussing this Bill in whatever way we like. It is a Bill they want; the finest before the House; and it would possibly not have troubled them if they had got it without any discussion. In any case, we claim a right within the Rules of the House to discuss the Bill in any way we choose.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI desire to make a few remarks upon the guillotine from the French Revolution downwards. I propose, in the first place, to refer to the case of the late Mr. W. H. Smith in connection with the Parnell Commission.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThen, Sir, may I ask what is the question before the House?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe question before the House is to leave out the words "an estate or," and the discussion is with reference to leaving out those words.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI end my song as I began, and I respectfully say that the only question that is relevant to this Amendment is the question as to whether the owner of an estate shall get a notice by an advertisement in the "Dublin Gazette." I say that no other topic can, except by an extraordinary perversion of the Rules of Order, be introduced. In fact, I do not think there is any assembly in Ireland, Scotland, England or Wales that would tolerate the discussion that has gone on for the last couple of hours. The question is whether these words ought to be in the Bill. There is the whole case. The Land Commission buys land. They have put a notice in the 'Gazette" of what land they are going to buy and the price they are giving for that land. Here we are, after two hours, in which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College, the junior Member for Trinity College, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and many others in the Archipelago have been discussing every question except the question before the House. All I can say, Mr. Caldwell, is that my class of mind is wholly unable to grasp the condition of affairs in which every possible topic can be discussed except the topic which is before the Chair.
§ Mr. MOOREI want to make one or two remarks which I feel may be very much to the point after what the Chief Secretary has said. I think the Committee are under a definite obligation to the hon. Member who brought out that, as this line is drafted, it would lead possibly to the danger of severance. That is what it amounts to—without compensation. I think the Chief Secretary dealt very fairly with the House, although I entirely differ from his remarks about my colleague. The Chief Secretary dealt fairly with the House 2349 in saying that he would consider between now and the Report stage whether this can be avoided. This Section does for the first time give powers of severance. Would the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration when he is carrying out his undertaking?
§ Mr. BIRRELLWhat clause?
§ Mr. BIRRELLAll right, I will consider it.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MOOREIt is exactly contained in terms there what he wants to avoid. I agree that primâ facie the word "estate"—definition of an estate—would be construed by any court as under the Act of 1903. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General knows well that he must construe these things by the context, and when you come to look at this particular line with which the Amendment deals I think there is a great difficulty in holding that it must necessarily mean an estate as defined by the Act of 1903. The words are "an estate or untenanted land." Therefore, it seems to me that any court would say that an estate can only deal with tenanted land, and that untenanted land is not an estate within the meaning of what goes before—although you may have an estate which is entirely untenanted. It seems to me that in the distinction between an estate, which may thus be untenanted land or tenanted land, that there will be a serious difficulty when you come to this particular line. To make it clear between now and the Report stage, I think the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General will have to put "tenanted estate"—to make a logical sequence the word "tenanted" will have to be put before "estate," otherwise the line is incapable of being properly construed. I think the drafting is a little careless. People must buy, but the whole Clause is drafted as if people must sell, and not buy at all. It seems to me as if the difficulty I mentioned as to tenanted and untenanted land with regard to the meaning of an estate will have to be guarded against between this and the Report stage.
§ Mr. CHERRYI ought to have mentioned that this definition of an estate in the Act of 1903 is merely copied from an earlier Act so far back as 1881. There it is stated: "An estate means any land which the Land Commission may by order 2350 declare fit to be purchased as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act." This definition has been in operation for over 30 years, and I think it has done very well.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMEverybody knows that the definition of an estate was a definition adopted in the Act of 1903, but the purposes of that Act were very different from the purposes of the Act of 1881. The whole purpose was that money might be advanced on an estate not only for the purpose of purchase and sale, but for the purpose of curing congestion. That makes the definition a different one, and brings us into hard contact with the problem of congestion in Ireland. I shall not ask the Committee to divide under this Amendment. These are words which require a good deal of consideration. The Chief Secretary has stated that he will consider words between now and the Report stage and the propriety of protecting the landlords. I ask him also to consider the propriety of protecting the tenants whose wants need immediate attention. I gather from the Government that they consider that the definition of an estate was often wide in character. I anticipate that that is admitted, and that if it stood unchanged you would be differentiating in favour of the non-congested estate and against the interests of the congested estate. In the case of the congested estate, you take into consideration what the wants and wishes of the people are, and you have a money limit. Here you have an estate, and you need not take into consideration the wants and circumstances of the people, and you have no money limit. I think the Chief Secretary ought to put some words in that the Estates Commissioners should take the wants and circumstances of the tenants into account as well as the wants and circumstances of others. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. MOORE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or untenanted" ["the Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land."]
§ I move this Amendment just for the same reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover moved his Amendment in regard to an estate. I do not think anyone would say that the discussion we have had was any waste of time. I think the Chief Secretary will 2351 admit that there is a great deal in it, and I think you will find on consideration that there is a great deal to be said on this question of untenanted land. Of course, I presume we shall not be allowed to discuss the policy, but these three words "of untenanted land" mean an extra expenditure of something like £18,000,000, because the £100,000,000 originally voted under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was to buy out the tenanted land, and this untenanted land means an extra expenditure of £18,000,000. From that point of view, of course, nothing could be more important. The land we have been considering in the last Amendment was tenanted land. This is untenanted land, and, under the land purchase scheme, as soon as a tenant has bought his holding he becomes the owner in fee of untenanted land. The tenant purchaser is the owner of untenanted land, and, therefore, he would come within this Section. Under the Evicted Tenants Act he is expressly exempt, and I ask the Attorney-General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland: Is it the intention of the Government to make the compulsory purchase Clauses of this Bill apply to the tenant purchaser? I did ask the Chief Secretary that question shortly after the introduction of the Bill. He gave me an answer saying it was not the Government's policy, but it seems to me—and I say this without any offence, for perhaps I did not make myself quite clear to him—that at the time he did not apprehend the point that the tenant purchaser would be the owner of untenanted land. Supposing it is not intended to make him subject to these compulsory powers, why is he not exempted? This is a very large class of people. If the tenant purchaser is subject to the compulsory clauses, £50,000,000 worth of land now bought out, and £50,000,000 more waiting in the balance, will be affected by it. If you went into a real congested area it might, in view of the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners, be a good thing to take 300 or 400 acres of land from a man who was bought out. But that man bought cut under State credit, and I think it would be a very unfair and a very unfortunate policy if the Government were to take these people's land compulsorily. If that is not the intention of the Government I ask them to say so in plain words, and to put words into the Bill which will safeguard the purchasing tenant by saying that land subject to the repayment of ad- 2352 vances under the Land Purchase Act shall be exempt. I beg to move.
§ Mr. CHERRYThe hon. Member has put an important question, and I will give him an answer at once. It is not the intention of the Government that land purchased under the Land Purchase Acts should be purchased under this Clause, but I really do not think it is necessary to have any exclusion clause, and for this reason. Land is only purchased by the Estates Commissioners under these compulsory powers for the purpose of reselling it under the Land Purchase Acts, and if land is to be resold under the Land Purchase Act to tenants or other persons entitled to buy, it is sold subject to an annuity. Under the Act of 1891 it is provided that no parcel of land could at the same time be subject to two annuities. An advance is made in reference to a farm, and until the whole of that advance is paid no further advance can be made for any portion of that land.
§ Mr. MOOREIf that is so why was it necessary to exclude this land under the Evicted Tenants Act?
§ Mr. CHERRYThere are a great many things in the Evicted Tenants Act to satisfy Gentlemen in another place. I rather think that this was one of the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."]
§ Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHHon. Members below the Gangway pressed strongly this omission.
§ Mr. CHERRYWe are not now dealing with the Evicted Tenants Act. I really forget what were the facts in connection with that provision; but, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member knows there is a provision in the Act of 1891 which provides that if a farmer has got tenants, and, having bought under the Purchase Act, he cannot sell to his sub-tenants. It was to meet that kind of difficulty that a clause was introduced into the Act of 1903 to enable the Land Commission to make a record themselves of these transactions. Land cannot be subject to two annuities—
§ Mr. CHERRYIf the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am coming to that very point. They buy from the Land Commission and they must pay their annuities to the Land Commission. If the Estates 2353 Commissioners bought a parcel of land on which an advance is paid, they would have to pay off the annuities, and that would be a most unprofitable undertaking. If the Estates Commissioners were the sort of people they are said to be by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would probably do that. The Estates Commissioners will not do that for the sake of getting a small parcel of land. Such a thing was never intended by this Section, and therefore it will not be necessary to deal with the particular case the hon. Member suggests. We use the words untenanted land in exactly the same way as they are used in the Act of 1903. There was a discrimination made in that Act which, I confess, I never could clearly understand between tenanted and untenanted land. There was a special Clause (Clause 8) dealing with that, and but for that Clause it would be far more easy for a bit of untenanted land to be sold like any other land than it is now, but the Clause was considered to be necessary by better lawyers than I am, and that being in the Act of 1903 we repeated it and followed it in this Bill. The policy of the Government in this Bill is to follow the Act of 1903, and the object of this Clause is to enable to be done compulsorily what the landlord could do voluntarily under the Act of 1903. There is no definition of untenanted land in the Act of 1903, and there has been a great deal of expense incurred in consequence. We would like, if we could really do it, to introduce the definition. We are considering whether it would be possible to introduce a definition of untenanted land, but it is a matter of very great difficulty. Strictly speaking, in law no land is really untenanted. We are in favour, so far as it is possible, if we can, to evolve definition of untenanted land that may be satisfactory.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMA distinction between untenanted land and other land is, I admit, one not very easy to draw, but it is rather financial than legal in its character, and the reason we advocate it separately is that in the case of tenanted land you presume a purchaser at once, but in the case of untenanted land you presume no purchaser until all arrangements are made, and the Treasury felt it necessary to place a separate financial limit upon that portion of the Bill (Clause 9) dealing with untenanted land, in which no immediate purchasers were presumed. In any definition of untenanted land it will be, I think, necessary to keep in mind the financial bearing as well as any other. That, of 2354 course, brings one to the purpose for which it is bought, and we cannot ignore the fact, that in the new Clause the Chief Secretary has put down the purpose for which untenanted land may be bought is extended, and the object for which untenanted land was bought under Section 8 of the Act of 1903 are not binding any longer. I urge upon the Chief Secretary that great danger will arise if he allows an express direction to the Estates Commissioners that they are to consider the interests of other persons than tenants without giving an express direction to the Estates Commissions that they are to have advances to the tenants in their mind. If we had an opportunity of discussing the new Clause I would urge that the whole tenor of our Debates have been, whatever view you take of landless men, that the "congests" should not be sacrificed to the landless men. This Bill as it stands is a suggestion in that direction, and it is against the interests of the congests. I hope, therefore, that the Chief Secretary will alter it.
§ Mr. DILLONI was glad to hear the Attorney-General state the policy of the Government on the question of untenanted land. Undoubtedly the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) has raised a very important question, and while I am glad to hear the answer of the Attorney-General, I think the question is not yet quite satisfactorily settled. I fully recognise that it would not be possible to-acquire compulsorily any untenanted land which was simply land subject to an annuity, but I do not clearly gather whether it might not be possible to acquire compulsorily land which had passed under the Land Purchase Acts of which the annuity was discharged.
§ Mr. CHERRYThat is so, if the advance is paid off.
§ Mr. DILLONThere is a great difference of opinion on this question. The Royal Commission reported unanimously, I think, in favour of giving power to the Estates Commissioners to purchase compulsorily certain classes of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts in certain quantities. I am aware that on this point there is in many quarters a great difference of opinion, and there is a difference of opinion even amongst my own colleagues. The Commissioners strongly reported in favour of it. Many of those familiar with the West of Ireland are very strongly in favour of it. I understand that 2355 in the Clause as it stands it would be competent for the Commissioners to acquire compulsorily land which had been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. I am entirely opposed to any such policy. I recognise the evils, and I know that men have succeeded by various devices in acquiring many farms and getting large sums of public money advanced upon them which this House never contemplated, and, while I should be glad to prevent these evasions of the law, I strongly hold that there should be some finality in this matter. Once the land has passed under the Purchase Acts there should be no more interference, and Ireland should be restored to comparative freedom in these matters in dealing with the land, with such wholesome restrictions as are in the interests of the community. Although cases have been brought under my own notice in favour of depriving large graziers of land in these Western districts, I maintain, if you once get it into the minds of the people in Ireland that you are going to break up this settlement, the moment it has been effected I do not know where you are going to be carried. A man pays a rental of £100 a year, and why should you stop there? Why not come down to £50, £20, or £10 a year? I have been told that I have advocated that Ireland should be sliced up into farms of uniform size. I may say that I have never advocated that; in fact, I have been almost all my life strongly opposed to it. I am in favour of small farms, but I would like to see an admixture of farms. So far as I am concerned I am strongly against interfering with the present settlement, and if you tear it up in this way the thing will become interminable, and there will be no limit to what you are called upon to do. I urge upon the Government that the proper way to deal with this matter is to put into this Bill a definition of untenanted land. This question as to what is untenanted land has been the subject of decisions in the Irish Courts, and it has become a regular Chinese puzzle. An owner of land, if he comes up for the purpose of selling his land, it is held by the courts to be tenanted land; but when it is going to be taken compulsorily for evicted tenants it is held to be untenanted land, and under other circumstances it is said to be untenanted land. When his land is to be taken away for the purpose of the evicted tenants he is the tenant, but when he comes to sell he is the landlord, and can sell under the Land Pur- 2356 chase Acts and get an advance. The court has actually held that the same man is one day a landlord and another day a tenant, and that for one purpose his land is tenanted land and for another purpose untenanted land. Therefore the Government ought to define clearly untenanted land, and the Clause ought to lay down that no land shall be held to be untenanted land which has passed under the Land Purchase Acts.
§ Mr. BIRRELLSo far as I am concerned my views have never varied on this matter. I know there was a report issued which recommended that we should be at liberty to take the land required to relieve congestion which had already passed under the Land Purchase Acts, subject to an annuity. That was a recommendation I would not make myself responsible for, and it forms no part of any scheme of land reform for which I have been responsible. No doubt a case could be made out for this course in the West of Ireland; for, it might be said, if you must have the land for the relief of congestion, why not take it from persons who have bought it under the Act of 1903, just the same as from persons who have bought it under the system of free sale. But everybody must agree that so long as this settlement is in course of operation, we ought to arrange that the person who buys his land under the Purchase Acts should feel himself free from having it taken away from him to be applied to the same object for which he had been allowed to buy it. We may take it as the settled policy of the Government not to interfere with or take away compulsorily land which has been bought under the Land Purchase Acts. So far as the legal difficulties are concerned, so long as the annuity is still payable, the legal difficulties are such that the thing really cannot be done. As to the second matter, I have no objection if it can be done to insert a definition of untenanted land. I think, for the purpose of compulsion, we ought to have a clear definition of our own. It would be a good thing if a definition can be arranged which will not interfere with the definition of an estate under the existing Land Act. But compulsion being a thing by itself it is sure to be interpreted with great strictness by extremists of all parties who are on the alert to look after their own interests. After taking legal advice, if it can be shown that it would be possible in this compulsory part of the Bill to have a definition of an estate and also a 2357 definition of untenanted land, I shall be willing to propose it. I think there is a general agreement as to what we mean, and we will try our best, and I shall be glad to have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. James Campbell). I believe we shall be able to arrive at something which will hold water and prevent the flood-gates of litigation from being opened too widely. Having regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover and others, I will do my best to see whether we cannot hit upon a definition both of "estate" and "untenanted land" for the purposes of compulsory purchase.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYI wish to express my satisfaction with the decision which has been announced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I rise to call attention to the fact that the matter is not quite exhausted when you have taken the case of the tenant who has already bought his farm. The matter is complicated by the exclusions which are contained in the next Section, which give colour to the suggestion that you might take by compulsion a farm which had been bought over. Under that Section you are prohibited from buying on the home farm but not in regard to other farms. As the Attorney-General for Ireland knows, home farm may have a technical meaning in Ireland which does not bear the construction, which a non-lawyer might bring to bear upon it, as being a farm on which you are not living as distinguished from a residential farm. The hon. Member for East Mayo has alluded to another case which will also arise, namely, the case of an ordinary farmer who holds his land under a fee-farm grant. Such a man may be an ordinary tenant farmer who has never had occasion to go into the Land Court, his rent being so low that there was no necessity for it. It would be perfectly competent for the Estates Commissioners to expropriate him compulsorily under this Act. I quite agree there have been some decisions, I will not call them contradictory, but which it is a little difficult to explain, of the Land Commission on this point. It appears, at any rate to me, that there is some danger that the owner of such a farm as I have indicated will be expropriated under this Act unless he is protected by some definition. I confess I think it would be almost impossible to arrive at a definition without unduly tying the hands of the Estates Commissioners on 2358 the one hand or giving them too wide a scope on the other, and I would limit their power by adding words to the next clause, so as to obviate the necessity of attempting any definition.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI entirely agree with the suggestion which has fallen from the hon. Member for Cork, and I would strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this matter by exclusion instead of by definition. With that view before me, I had already handed in a manuscript Amendment which would have given the power of exclusion in the subsequent clause by adding at the end of Section 5 the words, "Or if subject to a purchase annuity under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act." That would be a simple method of doing it so far as the question of land purchase annuity farms are concerned. Of course, there is the alternative method to be found in the Evicted Tenants Act of]907, Clause 1, Sub-section (4), which ran as follows: "No land can be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Act. "I think I may fairly claim for my colleagues and myself that, notwithstanding the efforts made below the Gangway to stifle this discussion, it has been very useful, and has shown we have hit upon an actual blot in connection with this Bill. I do not think we get rid of that blot by the use of these words without any limitation or restriction. I fear I may excite the wrath of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and have a tirade addressed to me suggesting I am attacking this and other bodies, but may I call the Chief Secretary's attention to this: The very same difficulty with regard to what the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) describes as the picking out of the eyes of the land, applies to untenanted land as well as to an estate. When I referred to that, it was at once said I was making a charge against the efficiency and the integrity of the Estates Commissioners, but the Chief Secretary pointed out that the Estates Commissioners would be acting not unfairly if, in the discharge of their duties, they were in the case I put to say to the landowner "Discard these unprofitable bits." Of course, there could be no grievance in that under the Act of 1903, because, if they took that course, the landowner would say: "I will not deal with you. If you are only going to take the good bits I will have nothing to do with you." Here, however, we are dealing by compulsion, and that alters the position. 2359 While, you have it the interest of the Land Commission to acquire only the good parts you have it the interests of the landowners to get rid of the whole thing if parts be taken. The Chief Secretary met this with great fairness and consideration. He is going to consider it with regard to an estate between this and the Report stage. I hope he will also consider it with regard to untenanted land, because the owner of an estate may be without a single tenant, and it may be just as much an estate whether there are tenants on it or not. These words, however, seem to suggest that you cannot have an estate unless there are tenants on it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me his assurance that in his contemplated proposal with regard to an estate he will bear in mind that he will have on the same lines to deal with untenanted land.
§ Mr. JOHN GORDONI want to call attention to the use of the words "home farm. "I am quite certain the Attorney-General will direct the Chief Secretary's mind to the narrow definition which has been given of a home farm. It would not apply to the case my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) has put. We have known cases of a man owning the land in fee who has no tenants at all, and is himself an ordinary farmer, although perhaps on a large scale.
§ Mr. CONOR O'KELLYI should like to ask whether all land purchased under the various Land Acts are to be exempt from the compulsory purchase? If that is to be the intention of the Government, the new body which it is proposed to set up will find itself very seriously handicapped in the discharge of the functions with which it is proposed to invest them. Has the right hon. Gentleman gone into the figures given in the final Report of the Royal Commission on congestion? It is there made perfectly clear that, if you were to-morrow to acquire every single acre of untenanted land in the nine congested counties you would still be short of relieving congestion by land of the annual value of £140,000, and, if you are not going to lay unholy hands on land already purchased under the Land Acts, and are not going to file down holdings of over £100 valuation, you are going to increase that shortage of land by an annual value of £98,000. Is that very encouraging to the body you are going to ask to deal with congestion? Does it give us any assurance that this is really to be the last word 2360 on the land question? We were told that the Act of 1903 was to be the final word on the land question, but it was not more than 18 months or two years before we were disillusionised.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs the hon. Gentleman any wider than any other hon. Gentleman who has spoken, including the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy)?
§ Mr. CONOR O'KELLYI am very sorry, and I apologise if I have been out of order. It is not a new or a novel suggestion that holdings of over £100 valuation should be filed down to that figure. It is already in one of the Land Acts dealing with a very similar case, that of crofters in the Highlands of Scotland. If you look up the Acts, you will find the Congested Districts Board of Scotland has the power, if they want to exercise it, to file down lands of over £100 valuation for the purpose of increasing the holdings of the crofters in the Highlands. I do not know that geography makes any modification in a moral law. It is all very well to say you are not going to interfere with existing contracts by which men have bought under the Land Purchase Acts, but it is as morally right, as defensible, and as just to acquire compulsorily from large farmers lands they have purchased with the aid of the State and with the money of the State as it is to acquire compulsorily lands held in fee by landlords. I see no difference between land purchased with the aid of the State and land held in fee by landlords. The Congested Districts Board will be. handicapped from the very beginning, and I do not envy the Gentlemen upon whom you are imposing this task. I believe, with a shortage of land of the annual value of £140,000 you are making that task hopeless and impossible from the beginning. When we are told this is going to be the last word on the Irish Land Question, there ought to be some courage shown, and it ought to be reflected in this Bill. We were disillusioned in 1903. I hope it will not be the case in 1909, but I am convinced that the last word on this land question will not be said if the timidity which is reflected in this Bill is not corrected before the discussions are over. I trust the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage will show no unwillingness to give power to the new Board to 2361 acquire land wherever it is needed for the purpose of putting an end to the evil of which we all complain, but in regard to which we all show so much timidity in trying to determine it.
§ Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGHThe hon. Gentleman who last spoke seems to anticipate the failure of this Act, because he fears that there is not sufficient land to go round to meet the immense number of congests and others who require it. I think the fear of that need not prevent him becoming a member of the proposed Board, because the ultimate deficiency is not likely to be realised in his lifetime. With the addition of the untenanted land proposed to be brought into this scheme of the land purchase, there must be something like £150,000,000 worth of property to be compulsorily acquired in Ireland, and, according to the estimate of the Chief Secretary, only about £77,000,000 up to the present has been bought. That leaves At least £70,000,000 worth of land to be acquired under this Bill should it ever, unfortunately, become law. The amount of money available for many years to come is not likely to exceed one million sterling per annum in order to carry out compulsory purchase, and, at that rate, no one here is likely to live to the period when there will not be land enough to go round. Perhaps these facts will mitigate the apprehensions of the hon. Member for North Mayo and induce him to give his services to this Board.
§ Mr. MOOREI only moved the Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Government, and I do not propose to trouble the Committee to divide. With the leave of the House I will withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment in order is that of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, to leave out Sub-section (3).Does he wish to move it?
§ Mr. MOOREYes; this now brings us to the question of machinery, which is very vital, because it provides the way in which the compensation to be paid to the purchaser is to be ascertained. I cannot help thinking, in regard to the whole machinery of this Clause, that it is most useful and illuminating to compare the procedure here with the procedure of the Government two years ago, under practically similar circumstances, in the 2362 Evicted Tenants Act. We were told that that Act was intended to meet an emergency, and the Government devised machinery to which objections were raised. Eventually a compromise was arrived at. That, however, now seems to have been lost sight of altogether, and we have come back to the same old clause. It was urged again and again that the proposal was in effect to leave the purchasers to fix the prices themselves. That was always strenuously denied by the Chief Secretary and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but when the Bill went to another place, those who represented the Government there frankly admitted it was the fact that the Bill was open to the unpleasant suggestion that the purchasers were being made judges in their own case, and, consequently, an elaborate system of appeal was introduced. I do not, however, think that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioners was looked upon as very satisfactory. Justice Wylie is the head of the Land Commission, but I do not know what is to be gained by leaving matters to him. He is not able to view the land. He necessarily depends upon assessors, and in all the appeals which come before him, when there is a conflict of evidence, he does what everybody else would do, and sends down a skilled valuer, upon whose report —and in this I am not suggesting anything derogatory to the learned judge— the ultimate decision is practically based. I do not see how that can be very satisfactory. It might be satisfactory if the proceedings were in the nature of an arbitration where the party was selling voluntarily. But here you are taking a man's land away from him by force, and the standard of compensation is not to be the value of the land at all, but it is to be the amount which the tenants are willing to offer for it. If you put into this Bill a provision that the price to be paid is only that which the tenants are willing to pay you may rely upon it that no tenant will offer more than six, seven, or eight years' purchase, and, if the compulsory powers are put in force, the landlord will not get anything like adequate compensation. I do not know how the matter will work out, so far as the bonus is concerned, but as soon as you make the machinery compulsory and leave the price to be regulated not by the valuers but by what the tenants are willing to give you immediately expose the vendor to the greatest 2363 unfairness. I think the Chief Secretary has himself admitted the necessity of being very circumspect in regard to the machinery in compulsory matters—more circumspect than is necessary in the case of voluntary sales. Of course, in the latter case, if the proceedings come to a stage which does not meet with the approval of the vendor he can at once withdraw. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that under this provision of the Bill it is the tenants themselves who really will fix the purchase price, because they are to be allowed to say what they are willing to give, and I do not think that that is calculated to secure public confidence in this policy. There seems to be considerable feeling that the Land Commission itself should assess the price. Why should it not be left to arbitration? Under the Act of 1887 there was arbitration. This, I take it, is a Bill to amend the Act of 1903, and surely, if the experience of nine years has disclosed defects in that Act we are not going to be tied down to its provisions. I may remind the Attorney-General that there was no compulsion in the Act of 1903. I do not think the Land Commission itself would offer any objection to arbitration in this matter. That would be very much better than leaving it to be dealt with in the haphazard manner now suggested. It would be much better to go back to the simple arbitration system which was provided for under the Act of 1887. I should like to see this Clause taken out of the Bill altogether, for then the Government might bring forward another measure by which, without casting any reflection on the learned judge, they would secure a more impartial system of arriving at a fair price for the land to be taken.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI think this is an Amendment which has been moved without any reason. Does the hon. Gentleman say that he is dissatisfied with the system of appeal from the Estates Commissioners, whom he detests, to another tribunal, and does he, as a lawyer, say that he prefers a tribunal of laymen to Mr. Justice Wylie? After all, he is a lawyer, and has practised in the courts, and I must remind him that Mr. Justice Wylie has given as high as 27½ years' purchase. Now the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is this, and let the Committee understand it: That you are to go down into the country and get Jack, Tom, 2364 Bill, and Harry on the. tenant's side, and George, Reginald, and Augustus on the landlord's side, and you are to put them, together, and I suppose then they will have in turn to appoint an umpire. And who would it be? I suppose an Ulster Member of Parliament. And that is the tribunal, which is to be substituted for the one within the purview of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee (hat one of the best things the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) did was that he abolished the system of arbitration. I have sat as an arbitrator; I have been harangued as an arbitrator, and you go out of the room, where you have hearer two or three people, and the people who have been haranguing you, are with or against you in the next case. Is that to be compared with the system of a judge who is removed from all these squabbles? And, after all, a judge against whom the hon. Member for North Armagh cannot say a word.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYYou could not.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThere is nothing to be said against him. But the point I wish to call attention to is, that here you have the Tory party, who occupied us [...]ree hours last night in going round and round until our heads swam, to-day withdrawing two of their Amendments because may were so absurd you could not vote for them, and now their proposal is to substitute some rustic and unlearned tribunal for a tribunal created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover himself.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am not surprised that we have had this Amendment, because, as I know, no more subtle question can be raised before anybody's mind than now you are to determine the value of an estate. All this Commission has got to do is to fix the price, and how is that to be done? All sorts of methods have been suggested for the purpose. In this country lawyers have grown rich, solicitors have grown rich, surveyors have grown rich under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I do not suppose any Act was ever passed which has put such enormous sums of money into the pockets of the professional classes. I remember the old toast which they used to give at the Surveyors Institution: "The Lands Clauses Act, and no Amendment." That 2365 Act has depleted the pockets of tens of thousands of respectable ratepayers and citizens. In the case of the jury, I never could understand the system. They seemed to think, rightly or wrongly, that railway companies, waterworks companies, and gas companies, and all that sort of undertaking were nuisances that ought to be taxed as much as possible, so as to make the profit of the people who invested in them for many years the lowest possible profit; and they were always anxious to give the landlord the highest possible price, and having given him the highest possible price, they clapped on 10 per cent., in order to satisfy the English citizen for having his land taken away from him. And then, on top of that, all the costs from the payment of the barristers down to the messenger boy—all the costs of these people—were piled upon the head of the public body who asked for the land. That is a plan which is not applicable to Ireland. The Irish jurors probably would not take the same view.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLOh, they would in regard to the tenant's interest.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI daresay that is so: and that is right; but nobody suggests that we should have transferred to Ireland the full benefit of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Then the hon. Member referred to arbitration, and I have been told that there are Irish arbitrations; but we have heard little about them just now. But about English arbitrations, I do know fairly well what happens, having been engaged many times, both as arbitrator and as counsel, and in long arbitration proceedings. I am told that in Ireland, and I am not surprised to hear it, that arbitrations are abominations in regard to the expenses that they cast upon the parties. Anybody who has been an arbitrator knows how an arbitration is conducted. You very seldom get two counsel there together at the same time, as one is in another room.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThat is in this country.
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes. and I daresay it is so in Ireland. But there everybody agrees that the cost of arbitration is enormous. It is not a court in the strict sense, and the worthy arbitrator consults the convenience of counsel, and counsel consult each other, and the cost is thrown upon the costs of the day. The time hangs on and the costs mount up. Therefore, whether on account of the expense of arbitration 2366 or the jurors' social position, and for various other good and excellent reasons, we cannot have arbitration. What are we to do? Everybody agrees that we want a tribunal. I quite agree that judges are faulty and have defects of temper, like everybody else; but, at the same time, it is a great thing to have somebody who, by his habit of mind and position, is perfectly certain, unless his own prejudices are violently excited, to take the very best and most rational view of the transaction. I think that for a person to preside over the fixing of the price you could not have a better man than a judge, and you could not have a better man than Mr. Justice Wylie.
Everybody agrees that he is as good a man as you can have, and there is nothing to complain of in regard to him. That is most wonderful, and everybody agrees also that he is capable of giving high prices. The hon. Gentleman says, however, there is not a word to be said against him, but he is connected with the Land Commission, and that is supposed to infect him with some kind of disease which will render him for some reason or another—I do not know why—unfit, and, it is said, it will make him a judge in his own case. Anybody who knows Mr. Justice Wylie knows that he is not the sort of man who ii likely to be affected by such violent partisanship. Even if anybody is a judge of the Land Commission, why should he want to cheapen the price of land? Why should he want to cheapen the price of land simply because he is head of the Land Commission? And how can he disregard his obligation to be fair between man and man simply because he holds that position? He is just like any other judge of the High Court, and he is not in the least likely to depart from his duty as a judge in fixing value because he is the head of that Department. Then, however, the hon. Member says that he has to employ assessors. Of course he has. If he were the Lord High Chancellor and the-Archbishop of Canterbury and everybody else rolled into one, if he had to fix the-price of a piece of land he would have to rely upon the advice of assessors and inspectors and others, who would tell him what the piece of land was like, what it used to fetch, what it was worth, what its possibilities were, what its unearned increment would be, and what would be its value stripped of everything. He cannot go into all those points by himself. He must have his mind informed. There- 2367 fore he is provided with assessors. I want to know what other tribunal do you suggest? You will not have a jury. You cannot have arbitrators. Everybody agrees that it should be a judge with a mind informed by proper processes; and, although other people may have their schemes—I do not want them, or invite them to tell me what they are at this late hour—I am convinced of two things, that in this matter the Government have done their very best to provide a perfectly impartial tribunal, and I am perfectly satisfied, if it is set in operation, after ten years there will not be a man who would be able to come forward and say that the man who fixed the price had disregarded evidence or treated him in any way unfairly.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI have given the question of the determination of the price every possible consideration, and I am bound to say that I have come to the same conclusion as the Chief Secretary. I do not think we can altogether put aside the suggestion that a member of the purchasing body should not be the judge, not that I think it will in any way, in the case of Mr. Justice Wylie, operate unfairly. I do not think it will. I have had the honour of his acquaintance for a great many years, and I think both landlords and tenants will be safe in his hands to do what is right; but it is contrary to our ideas of natural justice that the head of this same Department, which is made under this Bill the purchasing authority, should, under the Act, be the man who will fix the price. At the same time, I cannot see any different solution, and I think it will work all right, and I do not wish for one moment to oppose it. As regards arbitration, the account which the right hon. Gentleman gave of it in this country made my mouth water, because I did not recognise that it was applicable to Ireland; but it has so many objections to it that I could not think of putting it before the right hon. Gentleman. But, at the risk of incurring the interference of the Chairman, may I just make one suggestion to him. Amendments with regard to the cost of the proceedings have been ruled out of order, but I would ask him to consider, on the Report stage, whether he would not say that the price shall include a certain percentage, which should be fixed and limited, and which should cover the costs which the owner is to pay. In every piece of legislation I know of where land has been 2368 compulsorily acquired, the State has at least indemnified the owner, and you do not give the man what he is entitled to if you merely give him the value of his land, leaving the man himself to pay all the costs he may have to incur in getting that price. Therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is not fair and reasonable and right that in the case of this compulsory acquisition the person whose property is taken should be indemnified. I do not want him to make anything out of it, but I want that he should be able to put the price in his pocket and keep it without reduction. He has not got what he is entitled to if he does not get that, and he will not get it if he has to bear the cost himself. I know there is this difficulty about it, that any such provision might open the door to unnecessary and wasteful expenditure, and I would fix a maximum, and I would not even give him that in every case. But I would leave the amount to be awarded by the Judicial Commissioner, not to exceed a certain percentage. The Judicial Commissioner is to have the assistance of two specially qualified legal assessors. The hon. Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Annan Bryce) is no doubt already in possession of the names. He certainly gave us very valuaable lights as to the name of these two gentlemen who are to get these highly paid posts in connection with the Congested Districts Board. But I ask the hon. and learned Member not to persist in the Amendment, because I think, on the whole, the Chief Secretary has adopted, under very difficult conditions, perhaps the best possible tribunal available to him, and certainly I myself cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute.
§ Question, "That the words '(3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. CLANCY (for Mr. Dillon) moved, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words, "but no percentage on the purchase money shall be payable under Section 48 of the Act of 1903 or any Amendment amending that Section, nor shall any additional allowance be made to the purchase money in respect of the purchase being compulsory."
§ The Bill of 1908 proposed that no bonus should be given in the case of compulsory 2369 sale, and the words proposed to be added by this Amendment are practically taken from the Bill of 1908. They are omitted from this Bill, and I do not understand why they are omitted. The original idea of the bonus was an inducement to the landlords to sell voluntarily, and we are all agreed that a bonus for that purpose was a useful thing, and, as a matter of fact, the Irish Nationalist party have asked for a bigger bonus than ever has been agreed to by any British Government. That is a perfectly intelligible policy whenever the sale is voluntary, but to say that a man is to get a bonus also when he is compelled to sell seems to me to be the height of absurdity. I should like the Chief Secretary to say why he has changed his mind upon the subject. There has been a good deal of discussion on the question whether a landlord selling or being bought out would get enough money for his estate. Personally I believe he would get more than the value, no matter what tribunal decides it, and it is inconceivable to me, knowing all the tribunals in Ireland, that when he is being compulsorily bought out he should not get enough, and more than enough. The result of this, of course, is that a landlord will never sell voluntarily. He will get the highest possible price when he is being compulsorily bought out, but if there is a check upon his avarice, in the shape of the deprivation of the bonus, he might be induced to sell voluntarily. But when he is told not only that he will get the highest possible price when he is being compulsorily bought out, but that he will also get a bonus for refusing to sell voluntarily, no man in his senses will sell voluntarily. If the right hon. Gentleman has contemplated this contingency, it will be interesting to hear the explanation of his change of mind. That was not his mind last year. I do not think he can refuse to accept these words consistently with the principles I have heard him express. Generally speaking, I admit that the practice of valuers and arbitrators has been to give an additional 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, but up to a recent period there was absolutely no authority in the law for giving any such additional price. But, fortunately for the landlord, the Courts in Ireland, including the Court of Appeal, have decided in a well-known case that a sum may be added in respect to compulsory purchase. Here, again, it seems to me, to be the height of absurdity to allow anything of the kind in this case. There is no 2370 doubt that when the purchase is compulsory the tribunal would give the landlord as much as he is entitled to, and, as we believe, more. There has never been known a case in which a sufficient sum was not awarded. In addition to that, if you give him, not only a bonus, but 10 per cent, in addition to what he ought to get, you are giving him a double bonus, which was not contemplated by any supporter of the Land Purchase Acts. I would remind the Chief Secretary that in the Labourers Act of 1906, one of the proposals made by his predecessor in office, Mr. Bryce, was to deprive the landlord of any sum in respect of his purchase being compulsory. The House of Lords struck out that provision.