HL Deb 02 July 1883 vol 281 cc20-8
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH,

in rising to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the position, under the Trinity College, Dublin, Leasing and Perpetuity Act, 1851, of the grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act, and as to the position of the occupying tenants of such grantees and sub-grantees; and to inquire and report as to the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants, and as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations; and to inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act, said, he was in no way personally interested in this business—indeed, he had no property at all in Ireland. He had been asked, as an independent Member of the House, to bring forward the question by an enormous body of men who were the tenants and sub-tenants under Trinity College; and solely with the view of removing the hardships from which they suffered he submitted this Motion. The estates of Trinity College were very large, comprising some 200,000 acres. These had been for some hundreds of years let to about 40 or 50 tenants, who had afterwards sub-let them to several hundred other tenants. The original plan of the lettings to the head tenants was by 21 years' leases, renewable on the payment of an annual fine of 5s. 6d. in the pound. This fine was paid every year, so that the tenant always had a period of 21 years before him. The incomes of the Senior Fellows of the College were made to depend upon these fines, and it was alleged that they could not be altered because the Fellows would suffer thereby. Subsequently, these leases were corrected and altered by two Acts of Parliament—one was an Act passed in the Reign of Charles I., and the second in the Reign of George III. The old system continued down to the year 1848, the year of the Famine, when the tenants had difficulty in paying the rents; and the consequence was that the governing members of the College became alarmed, and made an application to the Government to change the constitution of the College, and enable these fines and rents to be paid into the College, and the Senior Fellows to be paid out of the general fund. The Government, however, refused to grant their request, as it would be unfair to the tenants, and enable the College, by abolishing the renewal fines, to run out the leases, and practically to amend them. They promised to see justice done. In 1850 a Bill was brought in by the Government, which was backed with the names of the Chief Secretary (Sir William Somerville) and the Solicitor General for Ireland. This Bill did not pass into law, but was followed the year after—1851—by a Private Bill, brought up practically by the Government, but which was not backed by the Members of Parliament then sitting who were tenants of Trinity College. It provided, amongst other things, that instead of 21 years' leases with the old annual fine, perpetuity leases should be given to the grantees on payment of an extra rent, and there was a covenant which bound the grantees to give perpetuity leases also to the occupying tenants. The immediate effect of the change was to increase the original rental of the estates by about one-fifth. The rents were subject to a decennial valuation based upon the prices of certain articles of agricultural produce; but among them potatoes and flax, two of the staple articles of Irish production, were omitted. He maintained that the valuation of the property, as authorized by the Act of Parliament, was unfair and unworkable. He did not mean it was unfair in the ordinary sense of the term, but that a very odd standard of valuation was adopted, which was one certain to increase the rent without having regard to the general prosperity of the country. The result of the valuation and the consequent increase of the rents of the immediate grantees was this—that if they should ask a proportionately high rent from the sub-grantees they would ruin the latter, and if they should refrain from asking a high rent they would be ruined themselves. Moreover, the fact of these persons being householders precluded them from receiving the benefit of the Land Acts; so that on one side of a hedge they might have a person with his rent reduced by the Act of the Land Courts, and on the other side a man whose rent was raised by the Act of 1851. The question did not affect merely a few persons, but an enormous number of people; the sub-grantees were several hundred in number, and their case was certainly one of great hardship, and ought to be inquired into. It might be suggested that inquiry was not called for, because if the grantees found themselves in a difficulty it was their own fault, as they had entered into a contract and they must abide by it. To that he replied that no proper contracts had been entered into by the parties whose cause he was advocating, and that the transactions which had occurred were such as did not leave them free to contract or not as they might wish. But though the tenants protested, they were advised to accept the conditions, and practically they had no other alternative. There were several other points which he would have liked to have entered into; but he would not trespass too long on the House. He appealed to their Lordships whether this was not a matter more or less for their consideration. The justice of the case, he thought, would best be met by the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the facts. He felt sure their Lordships would not be willing that injustice should be done to a worthy class of people, even if they were few in number, and much less so when they numbered hundreds. He therefore appealed with confidence to the House to agree to his Motion, which he should press to a Division.

Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the position, under the Trinity College, Dublin, Leasing and Perpetuity Act, 1851, of the grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act, and as to the position of the occupying tenants of such grantees and sub-grantees; and to inquire and report as to the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants, and as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations; and to inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act."—(The Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)

EARL CAIRNS

said, he must compliment the noble Lord on the clearness, and, from his point of view, the fairness of the statement by which he had supported his Motion. He was obliged, however, to dissent from the noble Lord's conclusions. It was very doubtful what could be the object of a Motion of this kind. The noble Lord asked for a Royal Commission to inquire as to the provisions of the Trinity College Act of 1851, and the positions of certain parties under it. But there was no need of any inquiry whatever. The Act of 1851 was as plain as any Act of Parliament that was ever passed; and there could be no possible dispute about the position under the Act, either of The grantees and sub-grantees in perpetuity of lands held under grants made in pursuance of the said Act," or of the occupying tenants, or about "the variations effected in the rents reserved by such grants made subsequently to the date of such grants," or "as to the provisions of the said Act regulating such variations. There remained only one other thing—and that contained the gist of the noble Lord's Motion—namely— To inquire and report as to the justice and expediency of further legislation to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the said Act. At first sight that demand seemed a very just and reasonable one; but, to those who looked below the surface, it was plainly a suggestion to Parliament to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of breaking certain leases made under Act of Parliament. Such a proposal was not likely to find much favour on his (Earl Cairns's) side of the House. It was the same as if it were proposed to have a Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of revising the conditions of any of their Lordships' leases. The property was chiefly situated in the North of Ireland, and was leased out. The rent which Trinity College received was £33,000 a year, which was considerably under the Poor Law valuation; and, therefore, the rents could not be said to be excessive. The Act of 1851, which was mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, had its origin, like many other Acts, both English and Irish, in the unthrifty and unsatisfactory dealing with property by ecclesiastical bodies. In old times, it was the habit of Ecclesiastical Corporations, when not restrained by law, to let their lands below their proper value, and to compensate themselves by the imposition of large fines. This course, however, was interfered with by legislation, which provided for the proper duration of leases, and ordered that the rent reserved should be at least half the value of the land. The result was the renewal of leases from year to year, on payment of an annual fine for renewal. In the year 1849 or 1850 considerable difficulty was experienced by Trinity College in obtaining payment of these fines; and, after an application by the Provost and Senior Fellows to the Lord Lieutenant, a scheme was arranged in accordance with which the whole question was settled by the Act of 1851. It was to be noticed that this Act contained many provisions extremely favourable to the tenants, and that it gave effect to many of the suggestions of those who acted for them in the negotiations. That Act laid down the conditions on which leases were to be granted; and, as the rents were partly based on the current prices of produce, permitted the revision of rents as the prices varied. Ten years after the passing of the Act, prices having risen very considerably, the College thought themselves entitled to a revision of rents, and a revision was made, the cost of which, amounting to £3,000, was paid by the College. The middlemen, having had their rents increased, passed on their increase, and required it to be paid by the occupying tenants; and, under the Land Act, the occupying tenants had come into Court against the middlemen, and had had their rents reduced. The middlemen, therefore, no longer received augmentation of rent from the occupying tenants. The College did not shrink from inquiry into the management of its property; but there was no necessity for it, for all the facts were upon the surface. This being the case, he could not support the present Motion.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, he thought the case was one for inquiry. The inquiry need not be a long one, but would be one attended with satisfactory results. There was no suggestion of any breach of faith on the part of the College; but there were many facts too complicated to be brought out in debate, and which ought to be inquired into. The whole case seemed to point to the expediency of the purchase, by a public authority, of the estates of Corporations in Ireland. He was a Member of one which, finding its income reduced, was obliged to withdraw many of the grants it had hitherto made to schools and for educational purposes.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, it was not his business to enter into the merits of the question as between Trinity College and the grantees. The Government did not think it their duty to advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission of Inquiry; that was the view of the Lord Lieutenant when the grantees addressed him not long ago, and the Government did not see any reason to differ from him. He did not agree that inquiry would be short and simple, and would easily dispose of the matter. The facts of the case were perfectly easy to ascertain, and were on the face of the documents that were always accessible to their Lordships. The real object of inquiry was not the desire to obtain additional information, but the desire to recommend fresh legislation for the purpose of obtaining the revision by Parliament of the terms of the Act of 1851, under which the arrangements were made between the College and the tenants. The Government did not deem it their duty to take a step which would involve them in such a responsibility on the application of one of the parties. They were told that the action of the Government in 1851, in introducing a Bill, was a reason why the Government of the present day should accede to this Motion. But he did not agree in that inference. There was no doubt the Government of that time did take a considerable part in the arrangements between the College and its tenants. But that action, which was in the nature of mediation, was taken at the request of both parties, and not upon the application of one party. The Government was now asked to proceed on different lines at the request of one party. A word or two had been said as to the bearing of the Land Act on this question. In his opinion, the Land Act and its operation had practically nothing to do with the question. He admitted that rather an unpleasant light had been thrown upon the standard of valuation under which the College exercised its powers of altering the rents. The College, under the provisions of their Act of 1851, did possess very formidable powers of increasing the rents of their lessees; but those powers had been exercised moderately. And, Land Act or no Land Act, it was clear that the occupying tenants would not have been able to pay the full rents. It must, however, be remembered that the tenants were not coerced at all to accept the arrangement. If there were any coercion at all it lay in the undesirable nature of the property, which was very different from that of land held in fee simple. Although the facts would not justify the Government in interfering in the way in which they were asked to interfere, yet those facts furnished a motive to the College for great moderation in the exercise of their powers—moderation which he was bound to say the College had thus far shown. It was impossible for the Government to assent to the Motion of the noble Lord.

LORD FITZGERALD,

in supporting the Motion, remarked, that the system of sub-grantees gave the College a better security for their rents. This was a matter involving the interests, not merely of 38 tenants—that might be a small matter for their Lordships' attention—but of an enormous number of sub-grantees also; for he knew that in one county alone—Armagh—the number of sub-tenants was 500. The decennial valuation based upon the price of produce was a most unwise power to have given the College. In justification for having used the word "unwise," he might quote from the inquiry by the Devon Commission the evidence of a witness who represented Trinity College, and who was one of the ablest men of his day—namely, Dr. Longfield. Being asked if he considered the prices of produce a fair test for the giving of rent, Dr. Longfield replied that he considered it perfectly impossible to form an accurate opinion of the proportion existing between produce and rents, adding, the political economists all agreed that there was no fixed proportion between them, and the rent must depend upon the state of the country at the time, and, at the same time, upon the state of the land. He (Lord Fitzgerald) had no doubt whatever the arrangements of 1857, as embodied in the 12th clause of the Act, authorizing those decennial valuations, was too liberal towards the College side. It might not have been unfair at the time it was made; but let them see whether subsequent and changed circumstances had not made it a great injustice. Up to 1870 there was no difficulty; but, since that Act passed, it had been impossible to exact from the occupying tenants the rents demanded by the increase which had been made. Since 1851, no less than 32 per cent had been added to the rental of the College. The College was entitled to exact the full average value of the land; but the value of the land did not mean now what it meant in 1851. This was not a private estate. It was an estate granted to Trinity College for great public purposes, and the whole community, as well as the immediate tenants, were concerned in the question. The tenants were not asking for any abatement or decrease of rent. They were not seeking to break any lease or perpetual grant. They asked only that these decennial increases should cease. He regretted the decision of the Government; but an inquiry must be held some time. It was obvious that an injustice existed. They were bound, in some way or other, to meet it; and the remedy ought to be preceded by a short inquiry.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he thought that, as everybody's holdings were being interfered with, and leases were frequently set aside, Trinity College ought not to be the only privileged body in Ireland.

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH

said, he felt bound to press his Motion to a Division.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 9; Not-Contents 29: Majority 20.

CONTENTS.
Lucan, E. Denman, L.
Fitzgerald, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) [Teller.] Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Stanley of Alderley, L. Ventry, L.
Zouche of Haryngworth, L. [Teller.]
Stewart of Garbles, L. (E. Galloway.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.) Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Braye, L
Richmond, D Carlingford, L
Clan William, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Annesley, E
Bathurst, E de Ros, L
Cairns, E Ellenborough, L
Derby, E Forbes, L
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Granville, E.
Kimberley, E. Lyveden, L.
Morley, E. Monson, L. [Teller.]
Redesdale, E. Sandhurst, L.
Sudeley, L.
Ha warden, V. Thurlow, L.
Truro, L.
Ampthill, L. Winmarleigh, L.

Resolved in the negative.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.