SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AND OTHER LEGAL DEPARTMENTS IN IRELAND. (Hansard, 17 March 1911)

§ Lord BALCARRES
I will take this opportunity of asking the Patronage Secretary what he proposes to do now? I understand this Vote is to be postponed, not, I may remark, at our request; I understand, also, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to postpone the Irish Votes in Classes IV. and V., and then to begin with the Old Age Pensions and to go on with the International Exhibitions, and then the Post Office Vote, and, finally, the Ordnance Vote.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
We must have the Excess Vote after the Post Office Vote.

§ Lord BALCARRES
We have made no request, but, of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, it can be done.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I understood it would be for the general convenience of the House if we to-day discuss those Estimates which were not discussed in Committee, and it is for that reason, and for that reason only that I suggested the course of 2605 procedure read out by the Noble Lord. It is a matter of perfect indifference to us which Votes are discussed, but we thought it would be for the convenience of the House to take those which were not debated in Committee.

§ Dr. HILLIER
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will really give an opportunity for a few minutes' discussion on Class V., Vote 6?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I shall be very glad to come back to that after the other Votes have been disposed of.

§ Dr. HILLIER
I do not know that that will give an opportunity for discussion.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I hope there will be an opportunity for discussion.

§ Lord BALCARRES
I understand that the Votes which will be taken are the Irish Votes on Class IV. and Class V., Old Age Pensions, International Exhibitions, Post Office Vote, Excess Vote, and Ordnance Vote.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Yes.

§ Mr. LONSDALE
I should like some explanation of the deficiency in estimated receipts and falling off of the duty on sales in the Land Judges' Department. Is that to be attributed to the general block in land purchase which has been brought about by the Land Act of 1909. The right hon. Gentleman has already had his notice called on more than one occasion to the complete stoppage of purchase which that Act as brought about in Ireland and is this falling off in the duty paid into the Land Revenue Department in Ireland due to that cause. I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to it, and perhaps he might at the same time be able to assure us that some effort will be made by administration in Ireland to assist the working of the Land Acts, not only the Land Act of 1909, but that of 1903. I understand that the stoppage of the working of the Land Act of 1903 is mainly attributable to financial reasons. We all admit the great difficulty there was in raising the money to carry on the work of the Act, but we hope that some effort will be made by the Treasury in view of the enormous importance of this question to find the necessary funds to carry out land purchase. There is no more burning and vital question in Ireland. I venture to say 2606 then the completion of the land purchase settlement, and if the Government are to continue year after year allowing the Acts to remain a dead letter, and the land sales in the Land Courts, and under the Estates Commissioners to continue in this congested condition without any real effort to remove that congestion, I venture to say that we cannot hope to find in Ireland any large cessation from these agrarian outrages which are allowed to prevail throughout the country. I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation of these items will be able to give us some assurance in the direction which I have asked for.

§ Mr. REDMOND BARRY
I am glad to say that the deficiency is not in relation to the operation of the Land Acts. It is due to three causes. The first is the diminution in the sales in the Land Judges Court, as distinguished from the Land Commission, and no duty is payable in the case of a sale to the Land Commission. The second is that in the Land Judges Court in the case of the sale of an insolvent estate no duty is payable on the purchase money. The third reason has relation to the working of the Land Commissioners Court and the Land Judges Court, but the deficiency has no application whatever to the Land Acts or either of them.

§ Mr. LONSDALE
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it has no application whatever to the block of land business?

§ Mr. REDMOND BARRY
I think not.

Captain CRAIG
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the loss which has occurred here is as to practically one-third owing to no duty being charged by the Court to the Land Commissioners. Is that right?

§ Mr. REDMOND BARRY
Yes.

Captain CRAIG
That is to say, that if the Court sells an estate or a parcel of land to a private individual he has to pay more for it than the Land Commissioners?

§ Mr. REDMOND BARRY
In the Land Judges Court.

Captain CRAIG
That is to say, there is a differentiation between the Land Commissioners and the private individual in Ireland, in so far as the duty is concerned. That seems to me rather unfair, and if 2607 the private individual buys from the Supreme Court or the Department involved in this particular transaction for the convenience of the Court which wishes to get its estates wound up in order to do that the private individual is charged more than the Commissioners. They surely ought to me on the same ground, but here one Department of the State is in unfair competition with the private buyer. There is something wrong about the Attorney-General justifying such a transaction. The corporate body should be treated exactly the same as the individual, and no differentiation should take place.

§ Mr. REDMOND BARRY
I am told in the case of sales made to the Land Commissioners by the particular vendors, no duty is payable. That is the explanation given to me, and I have no doubt it is an accurate one.

§ Mr. FELL
I should like some explanation how it was that the Estimate of £450,000 was found so much too small that this additional sum of £200,000 is required. I should like an explanation as to what exactly the money is for. We know generally that it is owing to the removal of the pauper disqualification. There are only fourteen days left in the financial year, and we are asked to provide this £200,000. I cannot imagine that it is required for additional expenditure on old age pensions for the remaining fourteen days.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The answer is a very simple one. It was necessary to put down a Supplementary Estimate because we propose to take over from the boards of guardians payments which would, under the original proposal, have fallen upon them for the maintenance of these pauper pensions. If the proposal which is contained in the 2608 Revenue Bill had not been brought to the notice of the House there would have been no occasion to take this sum. The charge would have been borne by the guardians, and no charge would have fallen on the Treasury, and no Estimate would have been presented to the House.