HL Deb 16 July 1897 vol 51 cc287-95

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and report:

  1. To what extent the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge in Ireland (exclusive of cases where the tithe rent-charge has been purchased for cash) are reasonably entitled to a reduction in the present annual amount of such tithe rent-charge (including the amount of outstanding annuities in cases where the tithe rent-charge has been commuted), having regard (1) to the fall in the amount of the tithe rent-charge in England during recent years; (2) to the fall in the market price in Ireland of the articles on which such tithe rent-charge was originally fixed; (3) to the reductions of lay tithe rent-charge which have been made on this basis in Ireland; and (4) upon any other grounds.
  2. 2. Whether, and to what extent, such ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge could be reduced or extinguished at the present time (or at some future date) without material prejudice to the security of the loans at present charged upon the Irish Church Estate.

*THE EARL OF ERNE

said that on Monday night Lord Belmore entered into the history of the Question somewhat fully, and it was therefore only necessary for him to supplement what he had said by a few remarks on points he left unnoticed or touched upon but briefly. The Act of 1872 was really the origin of the grievance and the cause of this complaint before the House. By that Act the septennial revision of tithe was abolished, the existing scale of prices of wheat and oats on which the charge was fixed was stereotyped; and that scale of prices remained to this day. He could not imagine how it happened that the matter slipped through both Houses without discussion. But in 1872 agricultural prosperity in Ireland had reached its zenith, and there was no idea that the fall in prices which occurred a few years later would come about; and perhaps, therefore, the landlords did not think it worth their while to oppose a Measure which was stated to be necessary on financial and actuarial grounds. How ever that might be, the Bill was passed, the rent-charge was fixed on the scale of prices then prevailing, but rents (out of which the tithe rent-charge had to be paid) were not fixed, but had since been considerably lowered. He wished to bring two salient facts before the House. One was that the average price of wheat had fallen since 1872 45 per cent., or nearly half, while the average price of oats had fallen 22 per cent., or nearly a quarter. The other fact was that four years hence, in 1901, the sum of £328,000 per annum would be set free from the Irish Church Funds by the termination of the Sinking Fund, which was in 1874 created to meet the life interest and claims of the Irish clergy. The Irish Church Act in Section 68 directed that the surplus from the Church Funds should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in the manner Parliament should thereafter prescribe. In consonance with those directions millions had been expended for the relief of the tenants, Acts had been passed for the relief of distress, for dealing with arrears, for the advancement of fisheries, for the congested districts and for the distressed unions. Was it, therefore, too much to ask that the landlords who had been so hard hit by the series of legislation, of which the Irish Church Act was the beginning, should have some measure of relief granted from the Church Fund in pursuance of the policy of this Act? They were not asking for generosity, but only for mere justice. If they had been tenants, and had been able to resort to those time-honoured methods of redressing grievances, real or imaginary, which had been so prevalent in Ireland, nobody could doubt that this injustice would have been removed long since. But as they were only landlords, very sparsely represented in the House of Commons, with no political influence in the country, they found themselves still asking for a measure of justice, the reasonableness of which was admitted nine years ago by the Minister then responsible for Irish business in that House, who was now the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and yet no steps had been taken in the interval to remedy the complaints then laid before Parliament. He ventured to say that was a state of things which did not do much credit to the much-vaunted British love of justice and fair-play. A Motion was brought before the House by Lord Inchiquin some time ago, in which the noble Lord asked for compensation to Irish landlords for losses they had suffered through the operation of the Land Act. Lord Lansdowne then pointed out that to give direct compensation would be a very difficult, if not almost impossible, matter. He, to a large extent, coincided with that view, but here was a method by which indirect compensation could be granted, and at the same time a glaring and patent wrong remedied. What they asked was that the Act of 1872, which had led to all this trouble, might be repealed. From what Lord Denbigh said the other night, he seemed to think there would be a difficulty from the Treasury point of view in the repealing of this Act. But the noble Lord went on to say that further concessions might be possible in the direction of reducing the number of years' purchase on which the redemption price of the tithe was now calculated, and putting it at a less amount than 22 years' purchase; amid there might possibly, too, be a re-consideration of the interest now charged. He hoped before the Debate closed they might have some more definite assurance that this matter would be dealt with in no grudging way. If the annual repayment of these instalments were lessened so as to correspond with the fall of price in wheat and oats since 1872, the Government would have gone a considerable way towards meeting what they asked for. He hoped they would shako off that Treasury bugbear which seemed to paralyse the well-intentioned efforts of all Governments, be they strong or weak, and nerve themselves for doing some slight justice to a long-suffering and very hardly treated class.

*LORD CLONBROCK

, rising to support the Motion, associated himself with the previous Speaker in expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government had more fully considered the question since it was last before the House, and would be prepared to grant a considerably larger extent of relief to the Irish landlords than that sketched out by Lord Denbigh. This was not a large question. That was one of the objections raised, when the claims of Irish landlords were before the House, and a very remarkable one it was. One would have thought that the greater the injustice, the more interets it affected, the more ramifications into which it extended, the more need there was for examination and redress. There was nothing intricate nor complicated in the matter, and the Government had announced, in fact, that there was no occasion for any commission of inquiry, as they were fully in possession of the facts of the case. It was a mere question of account, and, therefore, could easily be disposed of in one way or another. He would not go over the ground which had already been traversed, but he would like to allude to one point as to which they were promised a very slight modicum of relief. He referred to the price of the number of years' purchase of tithe rent-charge. There was a very remarkable coincidence, indeed, in the figures. It had already been pointed out, on the authority of Mr. Murrough O'Brien —who certainly could not be accused of any peculiar bias in favour of the landowners of Ireland—that before the passing of the Irish Church Act tithe rent charge was only worth 17 years' purchase, and by that Act it was raised to 22½ years. It was a very remarkable coincidence that that was precisely the amount by which landed property in the meantime had fallen. Landed property used to be worth from 22 to 23 years' purchase; it had now fallen to 17 and under. But taking it at 17 years' purchase, the two figures exactly coincided. That was to say that while 25 per cent. had been taken off the value of the fee simple of the land, the rent-charge upon that land had been raised by precisely the same amount. Therefore, when there was a question of buying, the unfortunate landlords had to pay 25 per cent. over the former market price, but when it came to a question of selling, he received 25 per cent. under. That was the effect of Mr. Gladstone's legislation, and yet surprise was expressed that Irish land-lords were dissatisfied with their position and complained that while Political Economy had been banished to Jupiter or Saturn, Justice had been relegated there also, or to some more distant planet. Though this was not a large question—and though any relief that could be given them by Her Majesty's Government would by no means be considered any sort of adequate compensation for their claims—yet it was a question which pressed very hardly on a great many small and struggling people in Ireland, whose cases were most deserving of consideration. He would earnestly implore Her Majesty's Government to pay more attention than they seemed now disposed to do to the claims of Irish landlords, both in this and larger matters. He could not describe the sense of utter discouragement, the absolute gloom of despair, that had settled down over the mind of, he believed, the largest class of their supporters, at finding the implicit faith they had formerly had in Her Majesty's Government so rudely shattered as it was by the legislation of last year; at finding that Government to whose accession to power they had looked forward so long and anxiously, ready to sacrifice them, their interests, and welfare, to the political exigencies of the moment. That feeling would, if possible, be intensified and strengthened if now, on a matter in which the justice of the claims of the Irish landlords was not disputed, when a case had arisen in which, in the opinion of their political opponents, the landlords would be entitled to compensation, they found that the Government confined themselves to barren expressions of sympathy, and were not disposed to lift one finger to help them in their misfortunes.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

could not help offering a few remarks, in the hope that the answer they should receive that night would be more satisfactory than that given by Lord Denbigh on the previous occasion. Lord Denbigh asked the Irish landowners to have a little more patience and trust in the sympathy of the Government. He would remind the noble Earl that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." In 1888 Lord Cadogan made them a promise of looking into the matter. On another occasion Mr. Balfour, in the House of Commons, expressed his sympathy with the Irish landlords, and his sense of the injustice that had been done. But up to this, nothing had been done for them. They were now in the year of 1897, and he trusted they should hear that night that something would at least be attempted in the direction indicated.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

had heard his noble Friends who had spoken upon this question with very great interest and attention, but it could hardly be expected that he should be in a position to go beyond what Lord Denbigh said as lately as Monday night last. The noble Lord spoke then the bonâ fide views of the Government in reference to this most important question, the bearings of which, he thought, they thoroughly realised, and in respect of which Lord Lansdowne spoke so recently in terms of sympathy. The hope had been expressed that there would be no indefinite postponement of the good wishes and intentions of the Government. There was no intention whatever of that kind. There was no intention whatever to recede from what was said by Lord Denbigh on Monday. ["Hear, hear !"] It was obvious, as he then stated, that the matter would have to be dealt with by a Bill, an Act of Parliament would be needed, and in the preparation of an Act of Parliament dealing with questions of finance and account—it was all very well to treat the Treasury as a bugbear—the Treasury had to he considered. He had no doubt that without any loss of time the minds of those who wereemployed in Irishadministration would be directed to these matters with the desire to produce a Bill within a reasonable time. ["Hear, hear!"] It was obvious that this would not be done in the present Session, but he earnestly hoped that the opportunity would be found during the Recess to prepare a Measure which next Session could be presented for the consideration of Parliament. His noble Friend Lord Denbigh, on the last occasion when this subject was under Debate had presented the views of the Government not unreasonably, and although it might be that many of their Lordships would have desired them to go further, it was impossible for him to say more than he had said.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN

said they were glad to hear the statement of his noble Friend, in fact they were always glad to hear his voice. But the other day when the noble Lord gave his answer, what he said only amounted to what might be done by the Government, and now their Lordships had heard what probably would be done. But they would like to know a little mere about the scope of the Bill to be introduced at some future period. Would it not he possible to introduce the Bill this Session? Time was short, but probable the Bill would be short also. It would contain matter of considerable interest and of considerable use to the landlords of Ireland. He ventured to hope that if the Government felt they were unable to introduce the Bill this Session that when it was introduced next Session some of the clauses would be retrospective. ["Hear, hear!"]

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

said he understood Lord Denbigh had admitted that the tithe rent-charge was at this moment redeemed at too high a number of years purchase. He believed that under the Purchase Act it was necessary that anyone who wished to sell his property should redeem his tithe, and he desired to point out this. If the Government gave an undertaking that they would next Session introduce a Bill which would have in its effect a reduction of the number of years purchase it would have a very serious disturbing effect, meanwhile, on sales of land. Why were those who had already gone into the Land Court, or contemplated going into the Land Court to pay at the existing rate of 22½ years' purchase to redeem the tithe, when the Government had practically pledged themselves for next Session to reduce this number of years purchase? He would therefore earnestly press upon his noble Friend that he would allow him, if he was not prepared to give an answer now, to put down a notice of a Question which perhaps he would be able to answer, as to how it was proposed to deal with the matter, for he thought the present condition of things would very seriously interfere with the action of purchase. ["Hear, hear!"]

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

said, in reply to the Duke of Abercorn, that the authority did not rest with him to introduce a Bill this Session. If he represented not only his own moderate individuality, but also the bugbear referred to, and were at liberty to speak for finance, policy, and everything, then he might be in a position to introduce a Bill without delay, but it would he impossible to introduce a Bill within, what he hoped, were the few remaining days of the Session. He hoped his noble Friends would be satisfied with the bonâ fide desire of the Government to direct their attention to this matter, with a view to introduce a Bill next Session. There was, he assured his noble Friends, no intention to avoid dealing with the question. As to what the Earl of Portsmouth had said, of course he would be very willing to give the best answer he could to a Question put upon the Notice Paper, but he would say this matter had been to some extent dealt with in the Purchase Clauses of the Act of last year. But he would be pleased to give an answer to his noble Friend's Question.

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN

thought his countrymen were a little sanguine. He had not quite made out that the noble Lord had promised a Bill. He had answered in words that might mean a great deal, but would the Government pledge themselves to bring in a Bill next year to deal with the matters his noble Friend had put before the House? The noble Lord said the other day, and it was with the utmost surprise he heard him say it, in relation to another matter that nothing could be done for the Act of 1881 because that Act was on the Statute Book. He had never heard a more extraordinary thing, and from a lawyer too!

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

The noble Lord must not understand me as accepting his paraphrase of my few observations.

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN

said he had heard the statement and coming from a Cabinet Minister most unsatisfactory he found it. Because an Act was on the Statute-book it was not to be touched, not to be altered! Why, what had been the history of the last sixty or seventy years? What did reform mean, but the wiping out and complete alteration of statutes? He desired a positive pledge that the Government next year would bring in a Bill dealing with the points so ably put forward by his noble Friend.

LORD MORRIS

thought the statement of Lord Ashbourne ought to be accepted as quite satisfactory. He did not know that the noble Lord ought to be addressed categorically and subjected to crossexamination. He conveyed to everybody who heard his statement, it was received with cheers which he accepted, that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill next year to deal with this pressing matter upon which the landlords had shown the patience of Job without the corresponding advantages. It should not be forgotten that if the Motion were carried it would only be for the appointment of a Commission, and he had been really afraid that the Government might have acceded to the demand and granted the Commission, a favourite mode of shelving an application. As he understood, their Lordships were getting something more, an undertaking that a Bill would be brought in dealing with the matter without resorting to a Commission. His Friends from Ireland would do well to accept this, letting the Motion drop.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.