HL Deb 16 August 1907 vol 180 cc1777-91

Read a(according to Order).

THE EARL OF MAYO, on behalf of Lord Monteagle of Brandon, moved to leave out Subsection (6) of Clause 2, which, he said, was inconsistent with Subsection (10) inserted on Report.

Amendment moved— In page 3, lines 24 to 20, to leave out Sub-section (6) of Clause 2.—(The Earl of Mayo.)

* THELORD PRESIDENT OP THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)

This Amendment is really consequential on what your Lordships have already done. I must not be taken as accepting it, but the subsection clearly ought not to remain in the Bill.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said it would be inconsistent if it did.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD ASHBOURNE moved to make clear the scope of the appeal sub- section by expressly allowing an appeal on any question of law and fact to a new tenant whose land had been compulsorily acquired, and to a landlord whose untenanted land was likewise taken. He thought these appeals were given as the amended Bill stood, but there should be absolute clearness on the point by mentioning the sections. Section 7 had become Section 6 in the new drafting. His Amendment, therefore, would name Section 6 and not Section 7, as it appeared on the Paper.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 2, after the word 'order' to insert the words 'including any question of law or fact under Section 1, Subsection (3) and Section 6.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The Amendment as it affects the old Section 7, now Section 6, carries out the engagement which I gave when the House was considering this Bill on Report; but, so far as regards Section 1, Subsection (3), the House will remember that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that it appeared that under the Amendment inserted on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord Robertson this particular kind of protection was given. However that may be—and it is a point which I do not wish to argue, chiefly because I am not competent to argue it—I do not oppose the insertion of the words here, on the understanding, of course, that the general question of appeal, except so far as I have definitely stated to the House what we are prepared to do, must be considered still to be in the hands of my right hon. friend in another place, and that I must not be taken as accepting the Amendment so far as it applies to Section 1, Subsection (3).

* LORD ASHBOURNE

said that he did not think there was any substantial difference of opinion between himself and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the question of law. He was of opinion that disputed facts undid the right of appeal and that if the facts were admitted it might be that the Courts would say whether the Act had been violated.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DUNBOYNE

said the object of his first Amendment, and the three others which immediately followed, was to secure consistency of wording. Clause 18 provided that this Act might be cited as the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and should be construed as one with Part I. of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1903," and might be cited with the Land Purchase Acts. But throughout the Bill the Act of 1903 was variously described, and his Amendments were to secure uniformity in the drafting.

Amendment moved— In page 5, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'Purchase of Land (Ireland).'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved an Amendment to provide that if questions under petition had been determined "in such a manner that the Estates Commissioners would be entitled under the order of the Judge of Assize, or of the King's Bench Division, or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, to acquire the said lands," a binding agreement should be deemed to have been concluded between the parties. He appealed to the noble Earl the Lord President to meet them on this point. These proceedings might extend over three or four years, and under the arrangement in the Bill the owner would suffer great hardship from the uncertainty as to whether at the end of that period the Commissioners were going to purchase or not. The argument of the Lord President against this Amendment was, as he understood it, that the price eventually fixed on appeal might be prohibitive. Surely if they were to have entire confidence in the Estates Commissioners, the Commissioners on their side should have confidence in the Court of Appeal. It would appear that the Estates Commissioners mistrusted the Court of Appeal, otherwise why should they want the power to withdraw from a bargain after the decision of the Appellate Court?

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 42, after the word 'determined' to insert the words 'in such a manner that the Estates Commissioners would be entitled under the order of the Judge of Assize, or of the King's Bench Division, or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, to acquire the said lands.'"—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)

* THE EARL OF CREWE

My noble friend always argues his points with great fairness and in a most persuasive manner, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord says that the Estates Commissioners apparently do not trust the Court of Appeal. On the contrary, I should have thought it was rather that they mistrust their own judgment in certain cases compared with that of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal might find that for some reason the land which the Commissioners desired to purchase was of an extremely valuable character. Supposing, for instance, that during the interval a valuable bed of gravel was discovered on the property for which a prohibitive price would have to be paid. Under this Amendment the Commissioners would be compelled to acquire the land at any price that might be properly put upon it; and in this case-they might find themselves saddled with a piece of land which under no circumstances could they resell to a tenant to be worked as a farm. It seems to me reasonable that the Commissioners, having to deal with public money, should have a chance of withdrawing if they have made a definite mistake, which the-Court of Appeal would correct, instead of finding themselves landed with property which they are unable to part with for the purpose for which the Act is passed.

LORD ATKINSON

said a gross injustice would be inflicted on the owner if the Commissioners could recede from their bargain after the appeal had been determined and after all the expense the-owner had incurred in fighting his case. They practically bought the laud, and the only question referred was the amount to be paid for it. If the Estates Commissioners could in the end throw the-land back on the owner's hands, the landlord would be the subject of public odium in the district as the person who by the declaration of the Estates Commissioners, stood between the men who were to be relieved and the acquisition of the land. No more unfair proceeding could be imagined. If the Estates Commissioners did not want to buy the land at the higher price fixed by the Court of Appeal, they should confine themselves to the ordinary powers of acquisition by agreement.

LORD DUNBOYNE

said that Parliament could, of course, do as it liked; but he would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether any such unilateral contract could be enforced in any Court in England, and it was hard that in Ireland landowners should be bound by laws which would be considered inequitable in this country.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no doubt that under the Lands Clauses Acts a notice to treat is an irrevocable transaction by statute. That is the only analogous case which has been referred to. I do not know why it necessarily follows that in an Act of this kind the same course should apply. Speaking for myself, I do not think the provision in the Bill at all unfair.

LORD DUNBOYNE

said that this was a contract by which one party was bound and the other was not.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understand the landlord would not be bound. There is an appeal, and I understand that it is not until after the appeal that anything is finally settled against the landlord.

LORD DUNBOYNE

disagreed. If the Estates Commissioners thought the compensation fixed on appeal too high they could withdraw from the transaction, but the landlord was bound to carry it out under the order of the Court.

LORD ASHBOURNE

asked what would be the position of the owner in the event of the Commissioners receding from their bargain after the appeal. Would he be refunded the expense that he had necessarily incurred in instructing solicitor and briefing counsel, etc.? If not, a great injustice would be inflicted.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

As regards the point which has just been raised by the noble and learned Lord, I would refer him to Clause 5, Subsection (3), which provides that— All costs and expenses in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner necessarily and properly incurred by any petitioner in respect of a petition under this Act.… shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission to the person who incurred such costs or expenses. One of the great objections we made to the whole question of appeal was that the cost fell upon public funds. I wish to submit this consideration. Supposing those very high prices have to be paid, the money has to come from somewhere, and it clearly must endanger the Guarantee-Fund. Although we shall not divide against the noble Lord's Amendment, I cannot accept it, partly for this reason—that what I said about the £100,000 to be taken from the Purchase Aid Fund would have to be withdrawn or qualified if there is a question of very large losses being incurred in this manner on resales.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD ASHBOURNE moved to amend Clause 7, by inserting words to make it read— The owner of any land proposed to be acquired under this Act may offer to sell any other land as an alternative in lieu thereof, and the Estates Commissioners shall consider any such offer. He said it would be remembered that he had inserted a short Amendment giving option to the owner to offer an alternative site. It was desired that he should amend it in the way indicated in this Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 20, after the word 'owner' to insert the words 'of any land proposed to be acquired under this Act,' and to leave out the words 'an alternative site which' and to insert the words 'to sell any other land as an alternative in lieu thereof and'; and in line 21, to leave out the words 'fully and fairly,' and after the word 'consider' to insert the words 'any any such offer.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Will the noble and learned Lord consider whether it is necessary to insert "as an alternative" and also "in lieu thereof"; will not one do?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he had a lingering affection for the word "alternative," which was to be found in section after section of the Labourers Act dealing with this topic. But if the noble Earl thought the words as they stood interfered with any one's peace of mind, he would delete "in lieu thereof."

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

* THE EARL OP CREWE

had a number of drafting Amendments on the Paper to Clause 11.

* THE MARQUESS OP LANSDOWNE

Before the noble Earl moves his series of drafting Amendments to this clause, may I ask a question with regard to the effect of the clause. I understand that under it the farming stock with which the reinstated tenant is provided is given immunity from proceedings under the Bankruptcy Acts. Is that immunity confined to the stock given to the tenant in the first instance? Let us assume that he is given six cows. These six cows are, of course, immune. But does the stock of that particular tenant after the six cows have gone where the good cows go enjoy immunity? Are these tenants to be given immunity for all time in respect of their old debts, or is it limited to so much of the stock and chattels as are granted to them at the outset?

* THE EARL OP CREWE

I confess this point had not occurred to me, and I am loth to give an answer offhand; but my impression is that it would be only the stock actually supplied by the Commissioners that would be immune.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

There would be no hereditary immunity?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I think not.

LORD ATKINSON

said the point could be easily met by substituting the word "purchased" for the word "provided."

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend Clause 13, which provided that— Any land acquired under this Act which is not required for the purposes of this Act may be sold under the Land Purchase Acts to any person mentioned in section two of the Act of 1903, by leaving out the word "may" and inserting in its place the words "after having been offered to the person from whom it was acquired may if the offer is not accepted by him within the prescribed time." He believed this Amendment was now in a form which would be acceptable to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He did not pretend that noble Lords from Ireland had got all they wanted in this matter, but he recognised that there were practical difficulties in the way of fully meeting their wishes.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 16, to leave out the word 'may' and to insert the words 'after having been offered to the person from whom it was acquired may if the offer is not accepted by him within the prescribed time.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am much obliged to the noble Earl for having put his Amendment in what I consider a very reasonable form.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE,

who had the following Amendment on the Paper— To leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause: '18. The provisions of this Act conferring powers for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies shall continue in force for three years after the passing of this Act,' said: My Lords, I now come to the last Amendment. It is to Clause 17. As it appears on the paper the Act is to continue in force for only three years. That was the decision of your Lordships' House. I did not accept three years, and I am now going to move the new clause with the limit altered to four years because I do not wish it to appear that I have actually moved "three years." My Amendment will no doubt be negatived by your Lordships and the Bill will go back to the House of Commons with the limit of three years.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 17 and to insert the following new clause:—(18) The provisions of this Act conferring powers for acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies continue in force for four years after the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

THE EARL OP MAYO moved to amend the Amendment by substituting "three years" for "four years." He thought three years would give ample time, and it was the period which, after a division, had been decided upon by their Lordships. He originally desired the limit to be two years, but the Government asked that it should be four, and their Lordships, having split the difference, should adhere to their decision.

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment— To omit the word 'four,' and to insert the word 'three.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

suggested "December 31st, 1910." That would give time to decide upon the rules of procedure and establish the staff, and three clear years for working the Act.

* THE EARL or CREWE

I am afraid that what I thought was a harmless proceeding has caused more difficulty than I imagined. I moved four years, assuming that noble Lords opposite would reduce it to three years. I did not want the Bill to go down to another place with three years moved by myself.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

* THE EAEL OF CREWE

My Lords, before I formally move that the Bill do pass, perhaps it would be respectful to the House that I should say one or two words on the general course of the debate, but our dealings with it have been so recent that it is not, I think, necessary to make a speech of any length on this occasion. What I may call the atmospheric condition of the House has been favourable during the progress of this Bill, unusually so, perhaps, for a Bill connected with Ireland, and particularly one concerned with Irish land. I do not know how entirely to account for that fact. Perhaps that is partly because other portions of the United Kingdom are somewhat more disturbed. I might say, to continue the metaphor, that a large and deep depression lies over the whole of Scotland, with the centre of the cyclonic disturbance at Edinburgh. But, however that may be, I desire to express to noble Lords opposite my gratitude for the manner in which they have carried on their share of the discussion that has taken place.

The principle of compulsion, which is the pivot of this Bill, has been if not very cheerfully, at any rate distinctly, conceded by your Lordships, and also the fact that the measure is urgent. So much so, in fact, has that last consideration been present to your Lordships' minds that you have recently shown your determination that its proceedings should be concluded at even an earlier date than that which would have satisfied us. As regards the two main points at issue in the Bill, the question of appeal has been, in our opinion, in some degree bound up with the question of urgency. I pointed out that consideration in explaining the various reasons, of which this was one why we were not able to agree to the Amendment of Lord Atkinson, in relation to the possibility of issuing schemes, which he afterwards withdrew. We have freely said that we give an appeal on value, and we also give an appeal against what I may call any kind of gratuitous compulsion under what is now Clause 6 of the Bill. But we have not been willing to give an appeal on what I think my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack spoke of as questions of opportuneness—that is to say, whether compulsory powers ought to be applied in connection with any particular land. We have not conceded the application of the Land Clauses Acts in their entirety to these purchases; but we have maintained the position that a fair price ought in every case to be given for the article which is sold under this Bill.

The other matter on which controversy principally turned was the question of the planters. I think the case of the planters has been for many years past overstated on both sides. They are certainly by no means the collection of bravos which they have been described in some quarters. Speaking of them as a class, that would be quite untrue. On the other hand, I do not think they are exactly the collection of village Hampdens which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Robertson, would have us believe. Nor do I think that as regards the treatment that should be meted out to the planters under this Bill there is any fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. But we think that the manner in which your Lordships have amended the Bill goes too far; that it practically renders nugatory the provision as to new tenants. Your Lordships, on the other hand, consider that we do not offer sufficient protection in possibly hard cases; but I do not at all despair that it may be possible to reach some agreement on the matter which may be satisfactory both to noble Lords opposite and to ourselves.

There has been a certain degree of difference of approach between the two sides of the House on the whole matter, particularly, I think, during the earlier stages of the Bill. It was very obvious that a general mistrust of the probable action of the Estates Commissioners was expressed from the other side of the House. We, on the contrary, have all through expressed conviction that they will act like good officials and sensible men, and that they are not likely, certainly by intention, and we hope not by error, to inflict hardship upon those with whom they have to deal. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, expressed himself, at the end of yesterday's debate, somewhat disappointed that I had not been able to be more explicit on certain matters, particularly, I think, on the question of the composition of the Court to which appeal is to be made. I should have been very glad if it had been possible for me to deal so far finally with the whole question. But I have thought, on the whole, it was better not to attempt here to press home agreement on a point upon which we are approximately agreed.

The measure will now go down to another place. Your Lordships' Amendments will be considered there, and I hope that the final result will be the passing of the Bill. It has been, of course, very materially altered in some respects by your Lordships' House, and, as the House is aware, various Amendments have been made to which we have not been able to agree. But I hope the Bill will ultimately become law, and in a shape which will be fair to all Parties and will work well. I feel bound to say once more that I think it would be a profound misfortune if this measure were to fail. The natural fear in such a case of anybody who knows Ireland at all would be that its failure might produce certain outbreaks of disorder. That would be an exceedingly unfortunate result, but it would not, in my opinion, be the most unfortunate possibility in connection with the Bill. This Bill to some extent may be called an extension of the Act of 1903—a distinct widening, I admit, of that Act—and also, of course, of the agreement which was arrived at before that Act by the different classes interested in land in Ireland. What I should be afraid of would be that if this Act were to fail the whole question of the purchase of land by agreement in Ireland might be seriously compromised, and I should look forward with the greatest regret to any possibility of the kind. It is on that particular ground that I do not attempt to hide my anxiety that it should become law.

I can say with honesty that throughout the discussions I have endeavoured to place myself so far as I could in the position of those on that side of the House who conceive that their interests might be injuriously affected under this Bill, and so far as I could without agreeing to anything which to my mind destroyed the purpose of the Bill I have endeavoured to meet them. I hope that equally on the other side of the House noble Lords will, by giving up some of the things which they may value, contribute to their share of the settlement of this question. The number of persons and the magnitude of the actual interests affected by this measure cannot be very great, but the importance of the measure is, in my judgment, out of all proportion to the number or the magnitude of the interests involved, owing to those historical, and, if you wilt have it so, sentimental causes to which I alluded in the Second Reading debate and which are well known to all your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill do pass."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, we quite appreciate the spirit ill which the noble Earl has dealt with this question, not only during the long discussions in Committee, but also in the remarks which he has just addressed to the House. He dwelt upon the fact that during those discussions the atmospheric condition had, in his opinion, been of a favourable description. I think I can explain why that was so. Our position on this side of the House was certainly not that we approved of this Bill. We were extremely doubtful both as to the persons to whom it is intended to give relief and also as to the mode in which that relief was to be given. On the other hand, we recognised that the Bill was put forward by Ministers responsible for the government of Ireland, and it was put forward by them with the distinct statement that, in their opinion, it was a measure urgently called for, and without the passing of which they could not be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the country.

Well, my Lords, we had to look the situation in the face. We determined that we would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and we have therefore made it our endeavour in Committee not to introduce Amendments calculated in any way to wreck the Bill, but only Amendments which seem to us to be within the scope and intention of the Bill, and the adoption of which, in our opinion, was likely to improve it. The noble Earl recurred to the question of appeal. I am glad that he is still able to assure us that we shall get an appeal on the question of value, and also upon questions which will arise on what is now Clause 7 of the Bill. The noble Earl told us that in all these matters we were to look forward to obtaining a fair price for that which was surrendered. I need scarcely repeat what has been said so often, that the expression "fair price" is one which is capable of very various interpretation, and if we have shown anxiety it is because we were not convinced that at all points the Bill as introduced into the House did give either the owners or occupiers of land who were likely to be dispossessed under the Bill the prospect of obtaining a fair and honest price.

Then we have insisted strongly upon the need of extending whatever protection is given not only to owners of land but to that particular class of occupiers who come within the category of new tenants The noble Earl said a few words with regard to the character and antecedents of these particular farmers. I was glad that he went out of his way to say that he certainly did not regard them as, I think he said, mere bravos. I prefer the position taken up by the noble Earl to that taken up by the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Eversley), who told us last night that in his opinion these planter tenants could be described as nondescripts, actuated by sordid motives and scarcely worthy of being called farmers in the proper sense of the word. Like the noble Earl, we do not want to put their character and antecedents too high, nor do we want to put them too low. What we maintain is that there are many of them who are eminently respectable farmers and who deserve protection as such, and also because they are men who, at a time of very great stress and emergency, exhibited qualities of independence and moral courage which are only too rare in certain parts of Ireland.

Then the noble Karl said two or three words in defence of the E tates Commissioners. Speaking for myself, and I think for noble Lords on this Bench, I desire to say that we have never intended in any way to impugn the character and integrity of the Estates Commissioners. I am ready to believe that they have done their duty in accordance with their own convictions, and that they have been actuated by none but perfectly honourable motives. If I have ventured to express misgivings as to the manner in which they were likely to discharge their judicial functions, it is because I cannot help believing that they are men who in connection with this question have taken up the position of strong partisans of a cause; and for that reason their judgment is scarcely likely to be as calm and as impartial as would be the judgment of the kind of tribunal to whom we are usually in the habit of referring issues as important as these.

The noble Earl referred to the fact that this question of the reinstatement of the evicted tenants was very closely connected with the whole question of purchase under the Act of 1903. Let me express my hope that, as this House has done all it could to facilitate the policy of reinstatement to which His Majesty's Government are so deeply committed, His Majesty's Government will, on their side, do all that lies in their power to facilitate the operation of the purchase clauses of the Act of 1903. To my mind, no greater blow could be struck at the prosperity and welfare of Ireland than would be struck if the feeling were to get abroad that His Majesty's Government desired to throw needless obstacles in the way of the progress of purchase, or that they were ready to recast and revise the whole of the conditions laid down after so much thought in 1903, and with so much approval both on the part of the representatives of the landlords and of the tenants. I will only add that I shall await the result of that further consideration of the question which will take place in the other House of Parliament with some anxiety, but with a feeling of hope—I will even say a feeling of confidence—that the colleagues of the noble Earl in the other House will treat the proposals that we have made in the same courteous and considerate manner which the noble Earl has exhibited throughout these debates.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.