§ (1) Where the Estates Commissioners have, otherwise than at the instance of the owner, made a proposal for the purchase of an Estate or untenanted land, and the owner objects to the proposal on the ground that adjoining lands belonging to him have not been included in the proposal, if the Estates Commissioners refuse to withdraw the proposal or to amend the same by including therein such adjoining lands the owner may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken upon the proposal.
§ (2) Upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the said adjoining lands would be substantially depreciated in value by the purchase of the estate or untenanted land as proposed, order that no further proceedings be taken for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land upon the proposal unless within a time to be named in the order the Estates Commissioners amend the proposal so as to include the said adjoining lands or such portion or portions thereof as, in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner, ought properly to be included.—[Mr. Birrell.]
§ Mr. BIRRELLThis new Clause has been framed to meet the point raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, namely, that the Estates Commissioners 2272 might make proposals for such portions of an estate as were best suited for their purpose without any regard to the effect their selection might have on the portion of the estate that was left. It was agreed that this danger should be guarded against by a provision to prevent the Estates Commissioners selecting portions of an estate without any regard for the part of the estate that is left; that is, to prevent them, if I may use the expression, "picking the eyes out of it." With this object this new Clause which I now move has been framed. The machinery provided in this Clause puts it within the power of the landlord, whose land or part of whose land the Commissioners are desirous of acquiring, to apply to the Judicial Commissioner to decide as to whether the Estates Commissioners should be required to amend their original proposal by including the whole of the adjoining land or such portion as the Judicial Commissioner thinks ought to be taken. The same applies also to the Congested Districts Board who are by this Bill invested with the same right of acquiring land in this manner. This Clause, I hope, will be found to meet the points raised during the Committee stage.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. MOOREI do not deny that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has tried to meet some of the objections raised during the Committee stage on this question of severance. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter he will not consider the criticisms I am about to make unreasonable. Supposing a man has an estate in his own hands, and the Estates Commissioners propose under their compulsory powers to acquire two-thirds of it, the unwilling vendor comes to the Judicial Commissioner and says, "By taking that two-thirds you are injuring the one-third that remains." What is the remedy which 2273 this Clause gives? The landlord knows that he is only going to get a small sum for this two-thirds, and he is left with the one-third on his hands. His only remedy is that he can apply to the Judicial Commissioner to have the remaining one-third taken over at the same price. But the price to be given by the Estates Commissioners is not the market price. Consequently you are taking compulsorily two-thirds of this man's land under the market price, and the only remedy this Clause gives is really to increase the wrong by taking the remaining one-third under the market price. I think it would be much more reasonable that the Judicial Commissioner should say, "I am not going to increase the hardship by forcing you to sell the remaining third at lower than the market price. I will myself assess the damage the severance creates, and leave you the option of keeping the third and the money for the damage the severance does, or of giving the third up as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman." I do say you should give that option, otherwise you are leaving the hardship still unredressed. I hope the Chief Secretary will further consider the matter.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYThere is nothing in the Bill, as it is framed, to prevent the Estates Commissioners acquiring land from a tenant purchaser who has already bought his land. There are cases of men holding their land in fee and working it as ordinary farmers. I think it would be very hard if any part was acquired from them compulsorily. When this matter was under consideration I understood the undertaking of the Chief Secretary applied to those cases as well as to the cases in the Amendment. I would ask why one undertaking is carried out, and why the right hon. Gentleman has not. covered those other cases?
§ Mr. CHERRYI think the question the hon. and learned Member has referred to rose quite separately. We are dealing by this Clause with the subject of untenanted land, and on the definition of untenanted land the question arose as to whether land which had been acquired by a tenant under the Land Purchase Act—
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYThis is untenanted land.
§ Mr. CHERRYWe provide for that matter of untenanted land when we come to the Definition Clause.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYThere is no Amendment on the Paper.
§ Mr. CHERRYThere is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the definition of untenanted land: "Land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act, be deemed to be untenanted land."
I think it was agreed at that time that land in the possession of a person under the Land Purchase Act, so long as the annuity was paid, should not be taken. If the annuity had been paid off it might possibly have come under this Clause. But still that point hardly arises, as the Clause deals with an entirely different matter— it deals with the right of the landlord, a portion of whose land is to be taken to insist on the whole being taken. Take the case of a landlord to whom the Estates Commissioners say, "We wish to buy certain farms, but certain other farms we do not intend to buy." Under this proposal the landlord is to have the right to say, "If you take a portion of my land you must take the whole. If you do not want to do that then you must withdraw your application."
§ Mr. MOOREBut suppose he wants to keep a quarter of the estate for himself? You have made no provision for that. Are you going to compel him to sell that which he does not want to sell?
§ Mr. CHERRYThat question does not arise at all. That is a matter of compulsory purchase. If we are seeking to take only that portion of the land which the landlord is willing to sell, the question cannot arise. The point of the Clause is not the question of compensation, but rather that of unreasonableness The point discussed was: Was it a fair thing to take a portion of a man's land and leave him the rest? When this was debated the question of injury was not dealt with. I speak from recollection. The question was raised by the junior Member for the University of Dublin, whose objection was that it would be an unreasonable thing for the Estates Commissioners, to take only a portion of the land and leave on the landlord's hands the bad part of the estate and inferior tenants. But if a landlord wished to keep his own demesne, the point did not arise, for that was excluded from the compulsory powers. The Commissioners were not to be allowed, under the Act, to com- 2275 pulsorily acquire demesne lands. What injury could be done to the demesne land by taking the tenanted lands? It is possible some injury might be done in the case of tenanted land if some were taken and others left. Assume the case of a tract of 200 acres of land, at one end of which was a good water supply for the cattle. If the Estates Commissioners were so unreasonable as to take one hundred acres with the water supply and to leave the other moiety without water the latter would certainly be injured. Under our proposal the landlord will have his remedy. He will be able to go to the Commissioners and say: "It is unfair to leave me the 100 acres without water, for they will now be valueless. You must, therefore, take the whole 200 acres or none at all." I am sure the Commissioners would fall in with his view. We were not then dealing with the question of compensation. It was, so far as I remember, not even raised or suggested; the only question was the unfairness of taking part and leaving part, and that we have dealt with in the Clause before the House.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGI think I was present throughout the whole of the Debate, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point was not limited to the minor question to which he has alluded. But I will take his own illustration as proving the case of my hon. Friend behind me. The right hon. Gentleman puts the illustration of the Commissioners taking out of an estate of 200 acres the 100 acres which contain the water supply, but, if the other portion contains the residence of the owner, which he does not want to sell, they have rendered it valueless to him because the other 100 acres are taken. You do not meet that case by compelling the Estates Commissioners to buy the 200 acres. Nobody can contend that justice is met if you set up compulsory powers to enable the Commissioners to take the whole of the estate. I was present during the whole of the Debate, and probably have had as much experience as anybody in the House in Debates upon compulsory powers, because during the last 20 years various kinds of compulsory powers have been placed upon the Statute Book under different Acts of Parliament. It is extremely difficult to avert a right to compensation when you have once given compulsory powers. I have always contended myself—I do not 2276 pretend to understand the law of the question—I have always contended that there was only one just principle if a. central or local body are empowered to use compulsion in order to take a man's property which he does not want to part with, and that is to pay him a fair market-price for what you take and also to pay him for any damage you do. My hon. Friend suggests that there should be a reasonable and fair method by which compensation should be given for the damage that you do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replies to that by saying we have got an Amendment under which we compel them to take all the land, but if a man does not want to part with it that would not meet the case. I do appeal to the Government on this point.
Hon. Members below the gangway, honestly say, not always here but always in Ireland, that they want to drive the landlords and landowners out of Ireland. They want to get rid altogether of those who have been owning large portions of Ireland. Is that what the Government want? Because that is what they are doing by this proposal. If you will not compensate the landowner for the damage that is done, the only remedy you give him is to compel him to sell the whole. I say without fear of contradiction that there is no precedent in any of the compulsory powers on our Statute Book for this, although we have all kinds of compulsory powers varying in many ways. There is no precedent for this kind of policy, where the owner does not want to sell and you force him to sell pro bono publico, where you damage his property by taking a portion, and you compel him to sell the whole. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their position, although I admit that the circumstances are different now, and that different circumstances require different treatment. I entreat the Government not to take this-step from which there is no going back. The decision they arrive at here is irrevocable. In the other place no alteration can be made in this part of the Bill. So far as this House is concerned you are arriving at a very serious decision. I appeal to the Government not to place on the Statute Book laws in regard to the compulsory acquisition of land which would be in themselves so monstrously unjust that I believe you will create a reaction altogether in regard to these compulsory powers, and people will begin to feel that we have gone too far, and have acted without due consideration. 2277 This is in itself a very grave injustice. I believe it will effect very grave injury to the agriculture of Ireland, and I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was quite new to me. It cannot ever have been very clearly stated, because if it had been I should at once have raised the point where is the fund to come from out of which the man is to be compensated for the land he does not sell. I cannot answer that question, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of land purchase in Ireland. I thought all I said was that I was quite prepared on the Report stage to put down an Amendment to secure that the Estates Commissioners should not arbitrarily take the best portions of an estate contrary to the wishes of the owners. I agree there is no wrong in the Commissioners wishing to get the best land, but it is only reasonable that the owner should intimate to the Estates Commissioners that they are taking the best part and leaving a part of small pecuniary value. That is all that was in my mind, though I daresay hon. Gentlemen opposite had other points in their mind. I am sure they cannot have particularly called my attention to it, because I should at once have seen, even recognising some force in their observations that having regard to the fact that I have no fund at my disposal, that there was great difficulty in the way of meeting the point.
But I do not think substantially there is any particular grievance in this matter. We leave out houses, demesne lands, and all the amenity of park or garden surrounding a man's house, because these cannot be taken under the compulsory Clauses at all. The Estates Commissioners say, "We want so much of your land," and the man says, "That is not fair, because it depreciates the value of what is left; but none the less, I would like you to take what yen want and leave me the depreciated part on condition that you make up somehow or other the value of that depreciated part." That is what we say we do. We say, "We recognise the force of your objection. We will take the whole of the part that you wish us to take." Then the right hon. Gentleman says we are going to cheat the owner in some peculiar way, because we are not going to pay him the value. But under compulsory purchase the value has to be fixed by a tribunal which did not call for any criticism 2278 at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Estates Commissioners have always this very delicate operation in their mind. They are appealing to Caesar, and Caesar determines what they have to give for the land, and it may very well be that Caesar's determination will be more than what the tenants will be prepared to give, and consequently they have to walk very warily in this matter. They cannot go about planting their eyes on any part of the country which they choose and say, "We will have this" or "We will have that," because all their operations are carried on having regard to the fact that they have to re-sell the land to tenants, and the price they have to pay for it is fixed by an independent tribunal, over which they have no control. However disagreeable it may be to have to part with any part of your estate compulsorily, when it has got to be done it is rather a point of refinement to say, "I agree you are taking the best part of my estate, but I am quite willing to keep what is left provided you give me a lump sum for the depreciation in value." That I am not in a position to do. I am not going to consent to any such proposal, because I have not the means to carry it out. I feel that the justice of the case is met. This does not apply to a man's house; it only applies to agricultural or pastoral land. It is only proposed to take so much as in the opinion of the judge represents fair dealing, and to pay the price which he puts upon it as just.
§ Mr. GORDONI do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties raised by my right hon. Friend. He must know that when lands are being taken there are two elements which are taken into account. One is the value of the land to be taken, and the other is the consequential damage which results from the taking of the land. We have got both of these elements here. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to treat fairly the man from whom we take these lands. In the exceptions there is included land used as a home farm. The Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary know that the phrase "home farm" has a very technical and well-known meaning in the courts in Ireland. A man who has a home farm may be working another portion of land with the home farm, which may be the smaller of the two. He has the farm buildings and everything arranged for the working of the entire area. If you take away a part of the land outside the home 2279 farm and give no compensation for the loss and damage he sustains by reason of giving him a smaller area to work upon, you do not treat him fairly. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman means that to be the effect of the Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the owner is to get compensation for what is taken from him. Must you not take, therefore, not alone the value of the land as a separate entity, but the value of the land as part of the unit he uses for some beneficial purpose for himself. I do not think it is any answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say: "We have no funds." If you have no funds, you must either get funds or not take the land.
§ Mr. BIRRELLWhat I said was that we have no funds except to take the land.
§ Mr. GORDONMy point is that you should pay not only for the land you take, but also compensation in respect of the loss consequent upon the taking of the land. If you take the land from the man and thereby cause him loss you are doing him an injustice if you do not compensate him in some way. I know cases in which it would be a terrible injury to the man to have the land taken, and the courts would not allow it to be taken because it would have injured the working of his lands. If there was with this Bill the provision in the Evicted Tenants Act it would to a large extent help to get rid of the objection. The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would take care that the injustice should not occur of the Best piece of a man's land being taken. Are not you getting rid of only a part of the injustice if you leave what remains of less value than it would be if worked in connection with the part you are taking? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot offer compensation for the loss he ought in some way or other prevent cases of this kind arising.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI am afraid that the Amendment is entirely new to Irish legislation and to the Act of 1903. It applies to untenanted land, that is land of which the landlord has dodged the land laws, and while nominally untenanted he lets it to tenants from year to year, but he lets it on such terms as make it impossible for the tenants to get the benefit of the land laws. That is what I always understood as untenanted land. I understood also that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet the 2280 case of land in the hands of a bonâ fide farmer who owns the land and lives by their land, but who, though he owns the land, was not to be dealt with as if he was a person letting land to a tenant under a bogus tenure. These cases were raised at the time, and the learned Attorney-General said that that was dealt with in another Clause. I have read the Clause, and so far as I can see, instead of meeting the evil, it tends in the opposite direction. Instead of being a restriction, it is an enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman says you cannot deal with the case of tenancies subject to the Land Act because of the annuity. We cannot forget that there has been a recommendation by important people that no man should own more than £100 in valuation of land.
These tenants are farmers, at all events, and is the money of the State to be spent on evicting one set of tenants in order to give the holdings to another set of tenants? The Attorney-General for Ireland said that no tenant who has already bought under other Acts can now be expropriated where there is an annuity running. That is in Field and Butler. But what about the man who owns a small portion of land and makes his living out of it? Is that man to be turned out on to the road under this system? The man in that position has not at all the protection which this Section gives to the ordinary landlord. The ordinary landlord is guarded by a cocoon of protection, but the man who has been in the position nominally of owner is in reality a working farmer, because he knows that his land may be taken from him. The difference between one farmer and another does not appeal to me. I cannot see why a man possessing 50 acres of land should have different legislation from the man possessing 49 acres. I do not share the apprehensions of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway about the working of this Clause, though I think the right, hon. Gentleman has not met the case of the working farmer and the application of the Compulsory Clause.
§ Mr. DILLONWhat happened in relation to the present Clause was this: A certain difficulty was indicated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Campbell), and I interrupted him, stating that we on these Benches would offer no objection to having that grievance guarded against. The only grievance stated by the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College was that the Estates Commissioners would, 2281 under the Compulsory Clause, come down and select a certain portion of the estate of the landlord, the best portion, and leave, against his will, the worst part of it. That was the only grievance, and the Chief Secretary, in this Clause, has completely and entirely met that grievance. That is the case in the present instance. I listened to the whole Debate, and now you make this demand, an absolutely impossible demand, to start a wholly new system and to establish a compensation fund which was never heard of before, Find was never mentioned in the Committee stage. This Clause is perfectly simple. The question of the definition of untenanted land arises on a subsequent Clause, and is an entirely separate question. It seems to me this present Clause has entirely met the grievance which was brought up in the Committee stage, but the present demand is something absolutely new, and a new policy adopted that whenever the Government make a concession they are only to be met by having a totally different demand made.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI cannot accept the version of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to what has taken place. I think I can explain the misapprehension into which he has fallen. We are debating this Bill under very difficult conditions. Certain measures proposed, such as compulsion, never come directly before us, and on occasion as they arise we endeavour to point out that certain parts of the Bill we are not discussing will give rise to certain difficulties. That is what happened in the Committee stage. An illustration was given that under certain parts of the Bill we are not now discussing it will be possible to buy the best parts of the estate and leave the owner with the remainder. That was an illustration. I readily assert in the fullest possible way that the Chief Secretary has done his best to meet that point. That being done, it does not lie with the hon. Member for East Mayo to say that we are asking something new. Hitherto this Clause has been looked at from the point of view of the landlord, but it must also be regarded from the point of view of making a good job of the object which this Government has no doubt at heart as much as we had, of carrying out land purchase in Ireland, and of dealing with those parts of Ireland where it is difficult to carry out land purchase, because congestion occurs in an acute form. I do not think that this Amendment, brought in to meet one 2282 point raised in the illustration, covers that at all. I, personally, do not believe you can proceed with any hope of success on the lines the Government is following, and that has been confirmed by the speech of the Chief Secretary when dealing with this point, urged only by way of illustration, when he said the Estates Commissioners have got to buy what they can with the view of proceeding. They are not to buy land which is necessary to cause congestion, but to go into the market here and there under stress of circumstances. On that plan you never will deal with the problem of congestion or make a good job of land purchase in Ireland. The only possible plan is that they should take the whole of the spot they require, that they should act through their officers under the guidance of a Minister responsible to the House within certain definitions. It should be open to the man who owns the land and to the man who occupies it to say "Why do you come to me. You can cure this without taking this land," or to say "If you do take it you cannot cure it." He should have a locus standi, and there should be an appeal then only on price. If you worked on these lines I believe you would really be addressing yourselves to the problem of curing congestion; but that is not what is being done. What you are saying is: "We will give certain officials the power of compulsorily buying any land they like, irrespective of the rights of the landlord, the farmer, or the congest." You will not cure the evil of congestion in that way. This Clause, although well meant to meet one disability, does not really bring us any nearer a solution of the difficulties the Government want to solve. I despair almost of keeping in order, and certainly of contributing anything of value to such a Debate, conducted, as it is, under a Closure Resolution.
§ Clause read a second time.
§ Mr. MOOREmoved after the word "have" ["Where the Estates Commissioners have"] to insert the words "at the instance of a person interested."
This Amendment raises a somewhat important point of policy. One of the objections which we had to the whole inception of these compulsory powers was that, apparently, they could be started by anybody. Under Clause 41 the rankest outsider can write to a man, saying: "I want to buy your 2283 untenanted land," and the moment the owners decline to sell the Estates Commissioners have power to come in. That point has never been met. The Amendment will at least prevent undue outside interference, whether on the part of the local branch of the League or of anybody else who happens to covet any part of "Naboth's Vineyard." It is reasonable that only persons interested in the acquisition of the land should be allowed to set the Estates Commissioners in motion. If it is once brought home to the people that only persons directly interested in the sale of an estate, or who have some existing claim on the land, can set the Estates Commissioners in motion, it will make very much for the peace of the district, and it will be only common justice to the men it is sought to despoil under the compulsory Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWho would be "interested"?
§ Mr. LONSDALEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully appreciated the effect of the Amendment, because under Clause 40 the Estates Commissioners have power of themselves to originate proposals for purchase. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, the benefit conferred by this new Clause would not arise in the very important case where the Estates Commissioners had of themselves made proposals. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment, which is open to some objection on the ground of vagueness.
§ Mr. MOOREMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state why these words were put in at all if they are not necessary under Clause 40? If they were not in at all there would be no difficulty.
§ Mr. CHERRYThey are to exclude cases under Section 6 of the original Act of 1903. Under this Act, for the first time, the Estates Commissioners are given power to consider a proposal without any communication from the owner at all. In that case difficulty may arise.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe words, accepting the interpretation of the Chief Secretary, are unnecessary. Supposing you leave them out?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am inclined to accept that suggestion, but that is not the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: To leave out the words "otherwise than at the instance of the owner" ["Where the Estates Commissioners have, otherwise than at the instance of the owner, made a proposal for the purchase of an estate "].—[Mr. Birrell.]
§ Resolved, "That further consideration of the proposed Clause, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Birrell.]
§ Proposed Clause, as amended on consideration of the Bill (as amended in the Committee), and on recommittal, to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).