§ *LORD MORRISasked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been directed to claims made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for obsolete quit-rents, not demanded for over 60 years, notwithstanding the Nullum Tempus Act, which was obviously intended to meet such demands? He reminded their Lordships that the Nullum Tempus Act was in reference to lapse of time being pleaded in regard to Crown debts. As regarded Ireland, however, as long ago as 1808, an Act was passed providing that the King's Majesty should not sue for any rents by reason of any title which had not accrued for 60 years next before the time of recovery. That would cover all the claims now being made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. But there was an exception in regard to what was called in charge to Her Majesty. This, it appeared, meant quit-rents credited to Her Majesty 888 and entered in the rolls, but not received. In 1878, in consequence of that exception, an Act was passed (39 & 40 Vict. c. 47) providing as to rents for the space of 60 years before the filing of any action. The object was to put an end to the question of liability, where no money had been received for 60 years, though credited in the books as if received by Her Majesty. So matters had remained until within the last two years, when some ingenious Adviser of the Commissioners suggested that that Act, which was brought in for the purpose of clearing up any difficulty under the 8th George III. could also be evaded, and, accordingly, a claim had been made before the Land Commissioners for the moderate period of 170 years, no quit-rent having been paid on that estate for that time. Mr. Justice Bewlay said the intention of the 39 & 40 Viet. was to put an end to any dispute; but the words there— "held, enjoyed, or taken "—only applied to cases where somebody had received the quit rents. In that case the claim was for 171 years at £1 13s. l¾d.; but the Commissioners agreed to accept five years, and asked for no costs. It was thought not worth while, in those circumstances, to run the risk of an appeal, and having to pay 171 years' rout instead of five; and the Commissioners were now furbishing up quit-rent cases which had not been received for as long as 200 years, though it was both common-sense and good law that where no payments had been made for such long periods it should be presumed they had been bought up or in some way discharged. This, as might be imagined, would constitute a charge upon land in Ireland dealt with under the Laud Purchase Act, and owners found they had to pay some old claim upon a survey made in the middle of the 17th century. Many persons were being called upon to pay these claims which, though for small amounts, were a subject of great annoyance, which was not removed by their being told they were treated with great generosity in being called upon to pay only five years of those obsolete demands for 170 and 200 years' quit-rents. If they were to be persevered in it would be necessary to pass another Act, saying that the former one expressed what, in his humble judgment, it really did express.
LORD INCHIQUINthought, that these claims were being put forward as a mere game of brag by the Government, because he did not believe the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were at all aware whether the claims made were good or bad. They ought to have put forward the names of the gentlemen concerned in the different estates at once, whereas they had acted in such a way that it was unlikely that any individual, except one with a long purse, would try the question by appeal. He knew of one claim for 150 years, but, fortunately, the owner possessed documents going back to the time of Strafford, when, in fact, a great many of the quit-rents in Ireland began; and he was, therefore, able to show the Commissioners of Woods and Forests conclusively that the claim could not be substantiated. Whatever information the Government had got was evidently of quite recent date, and his point was that they were not taking the right course in the matter in making it absolutely impossible for these cases to be tried except, as he had said, by people with very long purses. He had no doubt that whoever had the courage to resist these claims would be successful.
§ *LORD KENSINGTONsaid, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had not, in making these claims, done anything beyond their absolute duty. These quit-rents and Crown revenues from Ireland wore not placed under the management of the Woods and Forests until 1827, when they were transferred from the Commissioners of Excise in Ireland. At that time the arrears of quit-rents amounted to about £114,000, of which upwards of £83,000 was described as "insolvent." The Commissioners of Woods and Forests encountered the greatest difficulty in the identification of the lands on which claims were leviable, but much information as to titles and otherwise became available in consequence of proceedings before the Laud Commissioners. Before taking any step the Commissioners of Woods and Forests obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was an opinion——
§ THIS MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMay I venture, before the noble Lord goes further, to point out to him that if 890 he quotes the opinion, he will have to lay it on the Table.
§ LORD KENSINGTONThe opinion of a Law Officer?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYYes. It would be contrary to all precedent to cite an opinion of the Law Officers in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLORWith all respect, it is constantly stated that action taken was on the advice of the Law Officers. I quite agree that the terms of the opinion may not be quoted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNot only not the terms, but the purport of the opinion even cannot properly be given unless the opinion is laid on the Table.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI venture to question that, because I can recollect cases in which it was stated that Her Majesty's Government had been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown in a certain direction. It has always been held that an opinion of the Law Officers need not be produced.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYQuite so: but you do not state the purport of the opinion of the Law Officers.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhen it is stated that after taking the opinion of the Law Officers a Government or a Department has done so-and-so, it becomes obvious what the purport of the opinion has been.
§ *LORD KENSINGTONwould be glad to know, without in any way stating the opinion of the Law Officers, if it would be in Order to mention the date on which it was given, and the names of the Law Officers.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is sufficient to state the course that has been taken by the Government.
§ *LORD KENSINGTONsaid, without pressing the matter, he would then simply state that the question had been referred to the Law Officers on more than one occasion; and a case having at length come before the Land Court, and it appearing that the Nullum Tempus Act did not bar the claim, the Department felt bound to make it. The amount payable in most cases was small. The Commissioners had power to accept less than the full amount of arrears due, but 891 they had no power to relinquish the Crown rents to themselves.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that all over Ireland those claims were being made for very small sums in the hope that the people concerned would not be able to prove that they did not owe the money. The proceedings of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had been rightly described by noble Lords as "a game of brag and grab," and even a worse description might be given to them. It was a very questionable step altogether on their part, and he could not understand how any Law Officer could have recommended it to be taken. In the case of a claim made on his own estate, not one shilling had been paid for over 100 years; and when he showed fight the claim was quickly dropped. The Woods and Forests acted in a very extraordinary manner. They made claims for small amounts, trusting that the proprietors would not think it worth while to fight them, and thus they would get them yearly for the future. The Woods and Forests also attempted to bribe the proprietors by saying, "You will only have to pay, if you submit, five years' arrears and no costs; whereas, if you refuse to pay that, you will have to pay the claims for the last 170 years or so and all the costs." That was a distinct bribe, and he was reluctant to believe that any Law Officer would have advised anything of the kind. It was an outrageous thing that over all Ireland, in the present ruinous state of agriculture, such unjustifiable claims should be made, and he hoped that the Commissioners would stop making them in future.
§ *LORD LECONFIELDhad only a few words to say on this matter, in addition to the remarks which had been made by noble Lords on the policy adopted by the Woods and Forests Office. In the letter they wrote to him stating that his extract from Strafford's Survey clearly showed that their claim for a quit rent in default for 171 years could not be maintained, they added a quotation from a lecture delivered by a Mr. Harding in 1864 upon the Stratford Survey which was destroyed in a fire that occurred in 1711, to the effect that copies of that Survey might still be found in the possession of some of the larger landowners in Ireland. His extract showing that he was 892 in possession of at least a portion of that Survey, led them to ask to be furnished with particulars with regard to that portion. This, he thought, was very like Mrs. Bond's invitation to her ducks; and that if he allowed them to go to his office, and they discovered that quit-rents had been paid, but were 200 years in default, he might have to pay a very large amount. Consequently, he declined the invitation on the advice of his solicitor.
THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, after taking the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, believe that a debt is due to them, it is no longer a matter of discretion, but it is their business to see that the debt is paid. I do not see how the Commissioners of Woods and Forests could, in defiance of what they were advised, release the persons in question. But I would say that, in my opinion, if this is the law, it ought not to continue to be the law, as it is totally opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, and it is, I think, monstrous, if these cases are not covered by the Nullum Tempus Act, that they should not be covered by it. I am, therefore, heartily at one with the object of the noble and learned Lord who has brought the matter before the House. I hope the decision to which he has referred may, if it is wrong, be reversed; and if held to be right, that it may be counteracted, if necessary, by legislation.
§ *LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he felt sure there was not a single Member of their Lordships' House who had heard the temperate statements of Lord Morris and other noble Lords but would be shocked by the way in which this Board administered affairs by making these old demands in Ireland. Their Lordships ought, before the discussion closed, to have a clear understanding that the obvious intent of the enactments which culminated in the Nullum Tempus Act should be given effect to. Why should any man have to pay on claims which for a period of 200 years had fallen into disuse? He should be very much surprised if the opinion of any Law Officer could be produced to show advice that rights, even if given under a technical aspect of the law, should be asserted without qualification in all cases, and it appeared it was only of late years 893 that the claims had been made, from information derived during the sales under the Laud Purchase Acts. He did not think that it was quite fair to act on information obtained in that way when landlords, in working out sales to their tenants, had to disclose their titles. The only information that ought to be supplied was what was necessary for the purposes of the sale. No matter what decisions might have been given in the Land Commission Court, it was a harsh proceeding to pursue these old and obsolete claims, and he hoped that after the very strong expression of opinion embodied in the word "monstrous" uttered from the Woolsack—rare condemnation to come from a noble and learned Lord in that exalted position—no more would be heard of them.
§ LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he must protest against the principle that every Crown right, however old and obsolete, however unjust and tyrannical it might be to exact it, it was the duty of a Government to enforce. Speaking from his own knowledge as a Law Officer, many claims might arise which it would be extremely undesirable to enforce. An opinion of the Law Officers on an abstract question of the law might be a totally different thing from the point whether it was desirable or proper to deal with the matter in particular circumstances. The opinion of the Law Officers upon the matter of law was, therefore, no justification to the Department for enforcing obsolete and extravagant claims. The question here was directed rather to the administration of the law than to what the law actually was, and therefore whatever opinion was given afforded, he considered, no ground for the course pursued.
§ *LORD MORRISexpressed his satisfaction with the opinion given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and said he proposed after Whitsuntide to bring in a short Bill of two or three lines which would, with their Lordships' consent, put an end to all questions on the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLORHaving regard to the announcement of the noble Lord, and the course which the discussion has taken, I certainly do not think the Department would be in the least to blame, or be regarded as 894 neglecting their duty, if they were to shut their eyes for a time to the existence of these claims to arrears.