§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD(who, by consent of the House, was heard sitting) in asking Her Majesty's Government (1) when a landlord becomes liable under the 5th and 6th sections of the Public Works Loans Act, 1889, for such a portion of a loan made to a tenant as may be found at the time of the determination of the tenancy to be equivalent to the improved value of the land resulting from the outlay of the loan,—(a.) From what date does the 461 rentcharge become due by the landlord? (b.) For what period is it made payable? (c.) At what rate of interest is it calculated? (2.) Whether they will lay on the Table of the House the rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act in question? said: My Lords, before I put to the noble Lord the question which I have on the Paper, I should like to say a few words in explanation of the reason of it. Considerable interest is felt in this matter, because much uncertainty exists in connection with these loans. Certain points in the Public Works Loans Act are open to considerable doubt as to their precise force and meaning, and it is very desirable that some information should be given upon them. The Act was passed last year, and in it were two clauses which altogether altered the law in Ireland with regard to public loans. Up to that time, if a tenant had obtained a loan, he alone was liable. In fact, the question was tried over and over again from 1860 to 1884. In 1860 the Master of the Rolls in Ireland decided that the tenant alone was liable, and not the owner of the fee. In 1884 the Court of Appeal decided again in the same way; but in this Act the clauses I refer to make the landlord—the owner in fee—liable for a loan contracted without his consent, and probably against his wish, by his tenant, provided that the tenancy had become determined and the owner in fee had come into possession. That was the proposition when the Bill first came into another place, but it was felt to be a little too strong, and the clause was watered down, so that now it runs that the owner in fee is only liable for such amount of money as would represent the actual improvement to the holding. In the first place, I will mention to my noble Friend that in Ireland I hear at this moment the Board of Works are making application for the arrears of rent or rent-charge due upon tenants' holdings that have determined. And as in this Bill it says "on the determination of the holding," surely the owners in fee are not liable to anything before the determination of the holding. I think the Board of Works in Ireland are rather of that opinion themselves, because a form of 462 letter has come before me which is very curiously worded, in which the Board of Works ask the owner of the fee whether he considers himself liable, the writer stating, "I shall be glad to hear whether you dispute the liability." That is a very curious way of wording their demand, and I think they must really mean that they believe they have no right to make such a claim, and therefore one of the questions which I put to my noble Friend is, when this rent-charge really becomes payable and from what time it is meant to run. I believe there is a question as to whether tenants are included in this Act. It was stated, I believe, at the time the Act was passed that the tenants' loans were not included, but on reading the Act I should say that they were. Now, I am told that any tenants could get loans up to the time of the passing of the Act of 1881 if they had leases of 40 years to run; but if the tenants are included it would be a great question what the interest is to be. I believe it was stated originally when the Act was brought forward that the tenants' interest was not to be reduced, but apparently it will be reduced; and I wish to put this question—it is under the fifth and sixth sections of the Act—from what time does the rent-charge become due with regard to the land, and when it begins to run? This Act says it begins to run from the determination of the tenancy; therefore, surely the arrears cannot be collected. Then I want to know at what period it becomes payable after it becomes due, and at what rate the interest is to be calculated, because the Act reduces the rate of interest from 6 to 5 per cent. and from 5 to 4 per cent. Therefore, I ask whether the interest now to be paid by the owner in fee is to be reduced at the same rate that it would have been reduced if he had contracted the loan himself. Then the last question I ask my noble Friend is whether he will lay upon the Table the Rules made by the Commissioners of Valuations with regard to this point under Section 6 of the Act? I hope my noble Friend will be able to answer these questions satisfactorily, because there is a good deal of feeling and uncertainty as to these matters in Ireland at the present time.
§ EARL CADOGANI am not surprised at the feeling of uncertainty which the noble Marquess has described, for it certainly is not clear what is the exact interpretation to be placed on those sections of the Act to which he has referred. With regard to the question which the noble Marquess has asked upon sub-sections (a) and (b) on the Notice Paper, I have to say that they are questions which can only be answered by the interpretation of the law, which I am afraid it would not be competent or desirable for me to give in the shape of an answer in Parliament. I have, however, communicated with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will endeavour to obtain a legal opinion on the subject and give the noble Marquess an answer as soon as possible. With reference to subsection (c) of the question, the answer to that is that the interest is calculated at the same rate as before.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDThat is, calculated at the same rate as the interest provided under the Bill, because it was higher before?
§ EARL CADOGANThe interest under the Bill is calculated at the same rate as before.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDThen the interest to be calculated is at the rate under this Act of 1889?
§ EARL CADOGANAt the same rate as before the determination of the tenancy. Then with regard to Section 2, I have only to say that there would be no objection to lay on the Table of the House the Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, and if the noble Marquess moves for them they will be granted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDThen I beg leave to move now for those Rules.
Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act:" Ordered to be laid before the House—(The Lord Tyrone [M. Waterford]),
§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDI would ask whether the noble Lord thinks he will be able to give me an answer to the Questions (a) and (b) before Parliament rises?
§ EARL CADOGANI neither know when Parliament will rise, nor when the 464 lawyers will come to a decision. It was stated the other night that they do not always agree, but I will do my best to give my noble Friend the information he desires as soon as possible.