IRISH LAND (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 26 August 1907)

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, this is not such an important nor such a controversial measure as the one which we have just been discussing, and I hope to be able in a very few minutes to give a few details of the purport of what this Bill proposes to enact. Clause 1 is to carry out a section of the Act of 1903, and Clause 2 proposes to amend another section of the same Act. Now Clause 3, Subsection 3, of the Land Act says this— Or if any land comprised in an estate by the owner of an estate, there shall be reserved in the prescribed manner to the Commission the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals and digging and searching for minerals on or in that land, and the said right shall be disposed of by the Commission in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament. It was decided in a case tried before the Irish Courts that the Land Commissioners have no power to dispose of or deal with those rights until authorised to do so by Act of Parliament. That is the reason for Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with an entirely different matter. I am very much averse to saying anything that might hurt the feelings of any noble Lords opposite, and therefore I am very careful in passing any criticism on the Land Act of 1903; but I am informed that under it injustice may arise and has even arisen in some cases, and I must again inform your Lordships what the clause is. Subsection 4 of Clause 54 says— Every instrument, mortgage or charge on the holding executed after the commencement of this Act, other than a charge under any Public Works Act, shall be registered under the Local Registration and Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, as a burden affecting that holding, and, if not so registered within three mouths 86 from the date of execution by the mortgagor or chargeant, or, in the case of a charge created by will or codicil, within six; months from the death of the testator, shall be null and void. I think one probably requires to be either an Irishman or a lawyer, or probably both, to get a proper grasp of particular clauses in Irish Land Acts, but roughly what might arise is this: If people neglect to prove a will or the executors neglect to carry out their duties within a prescribed time the beneficiary under the will may fail to get the benefit to which he is entitled. I am told it might easily happen that a chargeant might not know of a charge in his favour and might lose it. It is proposed by Clause 2 to remedy this defect. Going back to Clause 1, I gathered earlier in the session from some remarks which fell from Lord Londonderry that he feared that the already very hardly worked Estates Commissioners might have further work put upon them by the provisions of the Bill. I have been careful to make inquiries on that point, and I am informed it is not contemplated that the ordinary staff of the Estates Commissioners will be employed in connection with the Bill, and that the regular officers of the Land Purchase Act will not be in any way interfered with. It does not confer any additional powers or duties upon the Estates Commissioners, and it is not expected that any additional staff will be required to deal with what will be enacted by this Bill. The Estates Commissioners will merely give prospecting or other licences to companies or persons proposing to take leases or mining rights. The powers conferred by Subsection 2, Clause 1, of making borings and other experiments will, it is expected, he carried out in association with mining companies. Therefore, I do not think any further duties will fall or any further demands of time be made upon the Estate Commissioners under this Bill. That is all I have to say except that, if there is no serious opposition or if there are no Amendments of a drastic nature contemplated, I trust you will allow me, not for 87 my own convenience, but for the convenience of the House, to take this Bill through all its stages to-night.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE

The noble Lord has clearly, fairly, and distinctly stated the objects of this Bill. I do not intend to offer it any opposition at all. By the first clause it is desired to develop and carry out the power of dealing with mines and mineral rights given under the Act of 1903. That was amended in the House of Commons at the instance of the Attorney-General for Ireland, I think with an anxious desire to do what was wished by those who criticised the clause. That is the more important clause, and I have no criticism to offer in connection with it. The second clause deals with a very technical matter, of which the noble. Lord had expressed much regret, because he was neither an Irishmen nor a lawyer, he could not give sufficient explanation. I am not satisfied with its present position, and, on a review of the position, I am not satisfied with the way in which it was left by the Act of 1903. I do not propose, however, to discuss that now. I think, under the drafting of Section 54 of the Act of 1903, it is possible that certain injustice may be done to those who have charges under wills and instruments. It is possible that some injustice has already been done. An honest effort is being made by the second clause of this Bill to try and make that clause in the Act of 1903 more careful and equitable. I am disposed to think those efforts are well meant and that to a moderate extent they may be successful, but in my opinion they are not adequate. I would have been very glad if there had been some time at our disposal and if I had had the opportunity of communicating with the Judge who is at the head of local registration of title in Ireland, and asking his opinion on the matter and what Amendments he would desire to make it more safe and work more accurately and with less liability to injustice; but that opportunity has not been afforded, and therefore I have arrived at the conclusion that the fairest thing 88 to do is to make a moderate Amendment, which I have no doubt the noble Lord will assent to, by increasing the six months to twelve months. The original way in which it stood when the Bill came in was that the chargeant claiming under a will should register his claim within six months of the death. Of course that was very drastic, because a man with a claim under a will might never have heard of the death, the will or the charge. It was therefore unreasonable to say that he should register his claim within six months of the death. I am of opinion that it is rather fine to say that he must register his claim within six months of probate; but the only Amendment I now suggest is to make the six months in the Bill twelve months. It is not a perfect period and I do not say it will not do injustice, but it will give a man a further opportunity of knowing what has happened before he is debarred from all his rights. I hope your Lordships will see your way to assent to all the stages of the Bill being taken to-night; I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment I have suggested. I think, however, that whenever a Land Bill comes up again this clause ought to be considered, because I am satisfied it wants more consideration and that more changes are required than are covered by the very small change I now propose. There is no reflection at all, I think, upon the Government in reference to this matter, except in the fact that the Bill is introduced at so late a period in the session. If I had time I would communicate with the Judge who is over this department and get to know his views, but I have no doubt that the authorities who put in the second clause did so with an honest desire to cure so far as they could what is a matter now of some injustice. They might if they had pleased have confined their attention to the first clause, which is the only part the Government is concerned in, but with a desire to meet criticism they have put in the second clause. I desire to make a small Amendment, and to indicate that when the matter comes on again that it will have to be more fully considered.