IRISH LAND PURCHASE.

HL Deb 01 July 1907 vol 177 cc272-311

*LORD CLONBROCK

rose to call attention to the increasing delay, uncertainty, and loss entailed upon landlords and tenants by the present methods of administering the purchase provisions of the Irish Land Act of 1903, and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they proposed taking to secure a more effective working of the Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to put the Question which stands in my name I am somewhat emboldened by the hope that the object of this Question at least may commend itself to the sympathies of His Majesty's Government, for I am convinced that they are as anxious as I or any noble Lord on this side of the House can be that the Purchase Act of 1903 should work smoothly and rapidly. This Act has been most successful in one respect, namely, in the number of people who have shown themselves anxious to avail themselves of its provisions. Applications representing are amount of nearly £51,000,000 have been received, but of these only applications to the amount of £18,000,000 have been disposed of since the Act has been in operation—that is, just over three and a has years. Now, if it has taken over this and a half years to dispose of £18,000,0 it is quite clear that it will take se years at least to dispose of the remaining £33,000,000. This is a most serious outlook for all parties concerned.

The vendor of the property only receives interest on the purchase money at a less amount than his present rent, but he has to continue in the interim, between the time when his application is received and the money paid over, to meet the full interest on all mortgages, family charges, and so forth, and also on all temporary charges, such as, for instance, the tithe rent charge. In the case of people who have commuted at least one-half of the tithe rent charge is at present paid off, and therefore when the vendor receives the purchase money for the estate he can dispose of it on very easy terms, whereas in this interval he has to pay the full amount of interest and sinking fund calculated on the original capital. The same thing occurs in the case of what are known as Board of Works loans.

The tenants also suffer from the delay, for the interest that they have to pay on the purchase money, though less than their former rent, is higher than the annual instalments they would have to pay for their purchase. Solicitors and agents also suffer, for solicitors do not receive their fees until the matter is closed, and agents no not obtain compensation for the loss of their services until that time. This is so serious a matter to all persons concerned, that I would urge His Majesty's Government to do all in their power to expedite the working of the Act. Mr. Finucane, in his evidence the other day before the Royal Commission on Congestion, said— If you were to raise £30,000,000 to-morrow we could pay it all away in two or three years. It is a mere matter of increasing our staff for inspection. He was then asked— Then I may take it for granted that the block is due to the fact that the money is not there? and Mr. Finucane replied— To absolutely nothing else but to the want of money and staff. He added— The three Estates Commissioners, as they stand, given sufficient staff and office accommodation, which hitherto we have not had, could, without the slightest trouble and without over working, get through £10,000,000 or, possibly, even £15,000,000 a year, I think. This, therefore, my Lords, is a mere question of money and staff, and I hope His Majesty's Government will give their most earnest consideration to it. Of course, it would be very unfair to blame the Estates Commissioners for the block that has taken place on this account. There is an old Irish saying that, ''Samson was a strong man and Solomon was a wise man, but neither of them could pay money when they hadn't got it," and that is the position the Estates Commissioners are in. As to the insufficiency of the staff, there ought to be no difficulty in procuring suitable candidates for these appointments, as there are a considerable number of land clerks now thrown out of employment by the sale of estates who would be thoroughly competent to discharge the duties under the Estates Commissioners.

But while this want of money and want of staff may explain the reason for the block in the sense of the large sum represented by the amount of the applications to be disposed of, it does not explain why the proceedings under the Act should take longer than they did at the outset, which undoubtedly is the case. After the Act came into operation large properties were disposed of in seven or eightmonths, but now properties which do not offer any further complication than those take about two years at the least. This apparently can only proceed from some changes in procedure or defects in organisation. The same complaint exactly was made by the Commission presided over by Sir Edward Fry in respect to purchase under the former Acts. The Commissioners then pointed out that although every succeeding Act had endeavoured to remove technicalities and small points of complexity, yet the working was slower than it had been at the beginning. The Act of 1903 was specially directed to removing unnecessary complications, and yet we find that the proceedings take very much longer than they did in the early stages of the working of the Act.

It certainly is the opinion of men who are most competent to judge, and who have had considerable dealings with the Estates Commissioners, that grave defects in organisation exist. It is complained that the correspondence is very irregularly conducted, and that important documents, such as maps and so on, are sent to the office of the Commissioners and are then apparently pigeon-holed and forgotten, for it takes a considerable time before they can be found when wanted. Again, to show the delays that take place for want of organisation, there is the case of a noble Lord, a Member of this House, who informed me that an inspector was sent down to go over his estate. This went on for some time, and there was very little more to be done. A couple of additional days would have settled the whole business, when it was suddenly discovered that the inspector was over age. He was then recalled. One would have thought that they need not have been so extraordinarily particular, and that a couple of days more would not have made much difference. But this case was hung up until the inspector came back some months afterwards, the Commissioners having apparently decided in the meantime that he was not too old for his work. In another case the tenants' agreements were all completed in the year 1905 and lodged, and the estate provisionally declared an estate by the Estates Commissioners; but since then nothing has been done. The landlord has written frequently to ask when he may expect further progress, and the reply has always been that it will be concluded shortly, but for two years the case has been hung up altogether.

It would look as if the Commissioners do not approve of direct sale to the tenants, and wish to have the sales made to themselves in order that they may break up the lands and divide them as they please, taking in evicted tenants, or migrants from the congested districts, or something of that kind. Both of the cases I have mentioned are from the province of Leinster. It might be imagined that a poor Connaught man like myself might not complain of landlords in the west being given priority over Leinster men, but I like to see fair dealing all round, even in the case of Leinster landlords. There is another case where delay has been interposed by the irregular and, I should think, illegal action of an inspector. I have in my hand a letter from a large firm of land agents in Dublin, who state that they have been in communication for some time for the sales of some property in Galway to the occupying tenants. The property contains some grass land, and in order to meet the wishes of the tenants this firm arranged that the sale should be made to the Estates Commissioners. But prior to this they agreed upon the terms at which the occupying tenants were to buy their holdings. The property was inspected on three days lately by the Estates inspector. He ascertained from each tenant the amount of his yearly rent and his valuation, and then inquired from each individual whether he was satisfied to purchase on the terms he had agreed to, or whether he would leave to the Estates Commissioners the settlement of the amount to be paid. Of course, the tenants agreed to leave the settlement to the Estates Commissioners, for they knew that they could not be made to pay a greater sum than that which the landlord had arranged with them to accept, but there was a chance that the Estates Commissioners would name a lower sum. The writers of the letter submit that this action on the part of an official is most unjust to the interests of the landlord. But apart from this such action must lead to uncertainty and delay. There is no proof that this inspector acted in accordance with the views of the Estates Commissioners; if he did not, it only shows how loose is their system of organisation. It is the opinion of people most competent to judge that great disorganisation exists, and the one way of remedying it would be by the appointment of a chief of the staff to regulate the employees, because the secretaries and the other high officials are evidently so hard worked that they are not able properly to supervise and arrange the matters with which the inspectors have to deal.

But apart from this want of organisation, changes in procedure have been recently introduced, and very considerable changes too. They are set forth in the last Report of the Estates Commissioners—a rather remarkable document, for if it is read it will be observed that Mr. Wrench, one of the three Commissioners, and the one who has certainly had the most experience, disagrees on five separate points with the instructions drawn up by his colleagues, pointing out that in some cases they are unnecessary and injurious and in others illegal. Now, I will take one especially, which certainly will be a great source of delay. In all non-zonal cases—that is to say, in all cases that do not come under Section 1 of the Act of 1903—the valuer sent down by the Estates Commissioners is directed to estimate what the fair rent of the farm may be, and he has to make this estimate and to allow or disallow improvements on mere hearsay. Mr. Wrench objects to this strongly, pointing out that the Estates Commissioners have neither the machinery nor the jurisdiction for fixing a fair rent.

We have often objected to what we considered the arbitrary way, the uncertain way, in which rents were fixed by the Assistant Commissioners; but anyhow they were then fixed on. sworn evidence, and there was an appeal from them to the Land Commission, who again heard the matter on sworn evidence. In this case it is merely to be done from the opinion held by the valuer on hearsay evidence. Not only that, but the rent when fixed by the Assistant Commissioners was fixed for fifteen years, and there was a chance—a remote chance, I admit, but it was a chance—that some future Land Commission might take a more reasonable view of the farm; but now it is fixed for ever, and it is on this one single man's verdict, formed only on hearsay evidence, that the amount which the landlord receives is to be assessed.

Moreover, in the instructions given to the valuer the Estates Commissioners seem to have, to a certain extent, reverted to what was condemned by the Commission presided over by Sir Edward Fry as one of the worst features for valuation. It was so strongly objected to by the Commission that it led to an alteration in the instructions given to valuers. I mean that they seem to direct the valuer to rest his estimate solely on what the Fry Commission called technical as against popular evidence. Technical evidence, of course, is what a man from his knowledge of agriculture and the nature of the soil believes to be the gross produce of the land, coupled with the cost of production. Popular, or what I should prefer to call local, evidence would be the conditions of the neighbourhood, the amounts that are paid for tenant right for similar land, the rent which has been paid without difficulty for a number of years both on that and on adjoining land, and the state of prosperity or poverty of those who have been paying it.

I had once an illustration of the difference between these two methods of valuing. On one occasion a sub-Commission came down to the county of Galway, and as I live on the extreme end of the county some cases on my property were among the first batch that came to be dealt with. They did not do much harm. They confirmed the existing rents in several cases and reduced the others very slightly; therefore I thought I had nothing to complain of. But about a fortnight or three weeks afterwards my agent came across the sub-Commission, who had gone further west, and asked one of them how they were getting on. The Commissioner replied— At the rate we are going now we ought to have raised Lord Clonbrock's rents. Apparently they had gained experience as they went on as to the conditions and circumstances of the county, and I was a sufferer through my geographical position. I never was before sensible of any inconvenience from living so much nearer Hyde Park Corner than my neighbours in the county, but in this case I lost by it. There you have the difference between the technical and the popular evidence.

There is a further objection to the instructions given to the valuers—that although the Commissioners do draw a distinction between the price paid for the land and security for the land, they nevertheless seem to take the rent in a certain way as a measure of the security. The rent is a measure of the landlord's interest, and therefore may perfectly be taken as a basis of what the purchase annuity ought to be, but that only represents the landlord's interest in the farm. There is, in addition, the tenant's interest, which is exceedingly valuable and which is often sold for five, ten, and up to fifteen years purchase, and in small holdings up to twenty years purchase. That shows what a large interest there is in the farm in addition to the landlord's, and therefore it is perfectly illusory to take the rent as a measure of the security which the Government wish to have. I quite concur that in dealing with public money the greatest care ought to be taken that money is only advanced on adequate security, but at the same time this appears to introduce an apparently needless complication and will have the effect of delaying any matters that are pending.

There is a further point. The Estates Commissioners have taken to limiting the amount advanced for any single farm to the sum of £3,000. Before the Act of 1903 the limit laid down by Parliament was £5,000. By the Act of 1903 it was raised to £7,000, with a view to expediting sales. But now they have refused to advance more than £3,000. That, again, can only be taken as an indication that the Estates Commissioners are anxious to discourage the purchase of large farms by the sitting tenant, and to insist that he should be satisfied with a slice of it, and that the rest should be bought by them for splitting up for evicted tenants and others. This must lead to friction and delay, and possibly to the stopping altogether of negotiations. There is another cause of anxiety which, however, I will not go into now because it is the subject of legal proceedings in Ireland—I mean their habit of postponing, till so late a period, the declaration that an estate is a separate estate for the purpose of purchase. There is also the delay in giving an absolute undertaking whether they will purchase or not, until they ascertain that they will be able to dispose of the land profitably. They make a sort of provisional bargain, which is not. the usual way in which people deal when they are buying and selling, and they sometimes find they cannot dispose of the land, and then throw it back on the vendor's hands.

This occurred in regard to the estate of the O'Conor Don. In the time of the late O'Conor Don the Commissioners refused to consider the estate on which he lived, and which he had purchased, as a separate estate, unless he threw in with it another estate, which he had inherited, ten miles off. They insisted that the two together could only form a separate estate, the reason being that there was a quantity of untenanted grass land on the further property of which they wished to get possession. After a considerable delay it was agreed to, and now the present O'Conor Don, giving evidence before the Commission on Congestion, stated that they had thrown a large portion of this grass land back on his hands because they did not know what to do with it. This, he pointed out, shows that in that part of the country, at least, the supply of untenanted land exceeded the demand, and that there was no necessity for compulsory purchase.

Anxiety and uncertainty prevail very strongly in Ireland, and this has been aggravated by another matter not immediately connected with he subject on hand, the very remarkable and unaccountable reductions of rent that have lately taken place, and also by the new method of appointing Assistant Commissioners, who are appointed only for a year, and without any examination to prove that they are qualified for the post. The anxiety has been so great that we have been urged to follow the line indicated by the Notice which has been placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Dunraven, and press for an inquiry into the working of the Act. We, however, thought it best to bring the matter in this shape before His Majesty's Government, reserving to ourselves to consider afterwards whether we shall follow up that plan by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

*THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

MY Lords, I at once wish to relieve the House of any anxiety as to whether I propose to make two speeches in the present week on this subject. I have placed a Notice on the Paper for next Thursday— To call attention to the working of the Irish Land Act, 1903. and to move that in the opinion of this House an inquiry into the subject is desirable, but I do not intend to proceed with it, and whatever remarks I should have made then I will endeavour to make now. At the same time I reserve to myself the liberty to reintroduce the Notice at a later date if I should think it necessary to do so.

I need not go largely or in detail into the financial question which my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has already put so clearly before your Lordships. Agreements have been made between landlords and tenants, and applications arising out of them for advances have been made to the extent of in round figures, £51,000,000. advances to the extent of £16,000.000 have been made, and I think there is £1,500,000 in the hands of the Estates Commissioners. That, my Lords, is shortly the story of three and a half years working of the Act, and the fact that the Estates Commissioners are in arrear to the extent of roughly £34,000,000 surely discloses a very serious condition of affairs, and one that will become infinitely more serious, because, unless the operations of the Act are cut short in some way or sufficient money is found to finance the Act, it is obvious that these arrears will go on accumulating, and that in the course of time a condition of affairs will arise which, on account of the unrest and confusion and friction that it causes, will become perfectly intolerable.

These £34,000,000 odd of arrears cannot at the present rate at which the Act is being financed be worked off under six or seven years. Will your Lordships consider for a moment what that means? It means that for an indefinite period some hundreds of landlords and many thousands of tenants will be absolutely unable to carry out their contracts owing to the inability or unwillingness of the State to fulfil its part of the obligation. What happens is this. The tenant ceases to be a tenant in the sense of paying rent, and in lieu of rent he undertakes to pay interest on the agreed purchase money at the rate of 3½per cent. The landlord ceases to be a landlord in the way of receiving rent, and neither tenant nor landlord knows what he is, or who he is, or where he is, or what is going to become of him in the future. The inconvenience to the landlord is necessarily very great, but the inconvenience to the tenant is, to my mind, greater still.

The great object of the tenant in purchasing is to become the fee simple owner of his land. The Act provides that he should be able to become so by borrowing a sum of money from the Estates Commissioners and repaying it by terminable annuities at 3¼ per cent., every annual payment, of course, bringing him one year nearer to the expiration of the term for liquidating his loan. As it is now, instead of 3¼ per cent. he pays 3½per cent. and these annual payments do not bring him one step nearer to the period when the loan will be liquidated. Those disadvantages are apparent, but I think there are other disadvantages to the tenant which are not quite so plain on the face of them. Irish estates, like estates in other parts of the United Kingdom, are mortgaged, and have many encumbrances upon them; and owing to the very heavy fall in rents in Ireland estates that were not unduly mortgaged at one time have become very heavily mortgaged indeed, and the interest on mortgage debt runs as high as 5 and 6 per cent. What happens if the landlord wants to sell? If he can get cash down he can invest a portion of the money at 5 or 6 per cent. interest in paying off mortgage debt. As it is now, he can only get3½percent., and has to continue paying 5 and 6 per cent. on his mortgage debt for an indefinite period. Therefore, a landlord is compelled to ask more for land than he would be glad to take if paid cash down. The lack of money to finance the Act is creating infinite confusion, great difficulties in the way of landlords, and much greater detriment to the tenant, for I am perfectly certain that the fact that there is not sufficient money promptly to pay cash down for estates must have had the effect of raising prices against the tenant.

There has been a great deal said of late that the prices ruling are too high and that the landlords are getting too much for their land. I should be very sorry to express any opinion upon that subject without very adequate data and there are no adequate data. As far as I can gather from the Estates Commissioners' Reports, the average reduction is 26 2 per cent. That is on all rents. But the Estates Commissioners do not discriminate between first term, second term, and non-judicial rents, so that it is absolutely impossible to tell whether the average reductions have been such as were contemplated by the Land Conference. The conference terms were fair and I abide by them; but two matters must be considered. The Act practically adopted conference terms as regards the landlord, it did not so fully carry out the conference recommendation in respect of the tenant. The Act does not provide for decadal reductions; and, owing to the fall in values, trustees can now invest more advantageously than was contemplated at the time of the Land Conference. The terms were fair and were generally accepted by the landlords of Ireland as reasonable terms. What they accepted was an average of 20 per cent. reduction on second term rents, or their equivalent. Landlords in Ireland accepted those terms as fair, and would, I am confident, have honestly abided by them if the Act had had fair play from the beginning. But that has not been the case.

A most ill-advised effort was made to persuade tenants that they ought to be guided by the number of years purchase at which land changed hands under the Ashbourne Acts—a most absurd idea. Bankrupt estates, absentee estates, and so on had all been sold out under the Ashbourne Acts, and the only object of the Land Conference and of the Land Act was to enable tenants to pay landlords better prices than had been paid under the Ashbourne Acts. Unfortunately tenants, to a large extent, were misled by this bad advice. You cannot have the thing two ways. You cannot have conciliation and fair and honest dealing on one side, and the spirit of making the hardest possible bargain on the other; and tenants, I am sure, have suffered as the result. But be that as it may, the one thing I wish to impress on His Majesty's Government is that I am perfectly certain that the lack of money to finance the Act has had the effect of putting the price up against the tenants. Of course, the shortage of money has arisen from the difficulty of raising money for the purpose of the Act, and, as your Lordships know, the loans have been floated at a discount as high as 13 per cent. —ranging, I think, from 8 to 13 per cent.

I protest against the losses on flotation falling on Ireland. Ireland is not responsible for the fact that British credit has declined, that a mistake was made in converting Consols to 2½per cent., that there is a great demand for money, or for faulty methods of finance, and I cannot see on what principle in justice these losses should fall on Ireland. There was not a word said about it during the passage of the Land Act through Parliament. And the thing is absurd. The county councils could not support the burden. In the first place, as your Lordships know very well, the county councils are limited by the Act of 1898 in the amount of rate that they can levy, and what would happen would be this. You would have the Local Government Board, acting as the agent of the Treasury, as it said it was the other day, compelling a county council to raise an illegal rate, and then, acting for itself, surcharging the members of the county council for having raised an illegal rate. Surely that is absurd. If the finance of the country does not recover, the total loss on the whole operation of the transfer of land in Ireland will amount to something like £15,000,000. This would place a burden of £500,000 a year on the Irish county councils, which is just one-third of the total rates that are raised all over rural Ireland; and I would ask your Lordships to consider whether it is not manifestly absurd to suppose that Ireland could support a burden of that kind.

It is not for me to suggest what ought to be done in the matter. That is for His Majesty's Government. But I believe the only way, the only possible way, in which the matter can be dealt with is that the loss should be charged against the State. The sum of £500,000 a year is not a very pleasant addition to place upon the Estimates; but, at the same time, whereas £500,000 a year is, as I have said, one-third of the total rates raised in rural Ireland, it is only one-three-hundredth of the expenditure of the United Kingdom. Failing that, and if money cannot be found to finance the Act, I would say that, in my opinion, it would be better to limit the operation of the Act. Raise money at any cost to pay off the obligations that now exist, and limit the operations of the Act in the future. Acknowledge failure on the part of the State, admit that we cannot carry out our obligations, and limit the Act. Any thing would be better than indirectly limiting the Act, as now, by causing every conceivable sort of unnecessary delay, and clogging the wheels of the machine.

I believe want of money to finance the Act is the real cause of much, if not all, the difficulty that has arisen in respect to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and what is commonly called the uneconomic question of the West. Undoubtedly the Act has not fulfilled expectations in these respects. If you look at the debates which took place when the Act was passing through the House of Commons you will agree that the hopes of the people in Ireland were raised to a very high pitch as to what the Act was to do in ameliorating the conditions of the uneconomic West and in the restoration of evicted tenants. The Act to a great extent has failed in those respects, and undoubtedly has been the cause of great disappointment. I shall not say anything on the question of the congested portions of the country, because there is a Royal Commission inquiring into that subject; and I have nothing to say now on the evicted tenants question because a Bill has been introduced in another place dealing with it, except this—that I hope it will be settled, and settled quickly. It ought to be settled speedily for three reasons. In the first place, Parliament is practically pledged to settle it; in the second place, while it remains open a cause of disquietude remains which affects all the operations of the Act; and, in the third place, evicted tenants seem to multiply in an extraordinary manner.

When the Act was passing through the House of Commons it was roughly estimated that the whole question could be settled for £200,000, and that there were only some 400 evicted families. Now the claims of evicted tenants have grown to 8,000. There is some danger that every tenant in Ireland will be agitating to be evicted in order that he may be reinstated with a loan on easy terms or a free grant. Therefore, for all these reasons, I want this question to be settled as quickly as possible. I gathered from what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day that His Majesty's Government intended to do two things—to vindicate the law, and to deal with this question on fair and honest terms; and I entirely agree with that policy. I do not know whether it involves compulsion. As far as I am concerned I do not jib at all at the word compulsion, provided only I am satisfied that compulsion is necessary and that the property is taken on fair and honest terms.

What are we to understand by fair and honest terms? I should understand by that the natural value of the land under perfectly normal conditions. I take it that if you could imagine such a thing as a corner in land, and land raised to fictitious prices those prices would not be fair and honest; I take it, on the other hand, that if by any means whatever the value of land is fictitiously depressed those prices would not be fair and honest. Fair and honest terms mean the natural value of land under perfectly normal conditions, and I have no doubt whatever that that is the meaning which His Majesty's Government attach. I cannot find any evidence that sufficient land cannot be acquired voluntarily on those terms. I may be wrong, but I have seen as yet no evidence whatever to the contrary. The fact is that the Estates Commissioners are unable to offer cash. If you go to a man and say you want his property, offer a fair price, and are ready to pay cash down, he may deal with you. There is much magic in the jingle of a big bag of sovereigns. What you say to him now is that you want his property, but he may whistle for the money for six or seven years, and that is quite another affair. I should like, first of all, to be sure that land cannot be obtained voluntarily. If it cannot, I have nothing to say against compulsion except that I take it for granted the State would pay. If I am to be compelled to sell my property to the State I assume that the State will be in a position to pay me for that property.

There are many minor difficulties connected with the Act of which I might speak, but I do not wish unduly to take up your Lordships' time. Some say that the Estates Commissioners' department is absolutely undermanned; other people tell me that it is terribly overmanned, and that the employees are tumbling over each other and have not got elbow room. I do not know the cause of the fact, but I know the fact that confusion amounts to a state of chaos, and it is impossible to get transactions put through. I know of most important cases dealing with the restoration of evicted tenants which have come to nothing simply because it was impossible, after the landlords and tenants had agreed, to get the transaction put through by the Estates Commissioners. I know the extreme difficulty of obtaining answers to letters or of getting any communications properly attended to.

In the Land Conference Report we stated in one paragraph that the executive machinery should be effective, competent, and speedy. The present machinery is not effective, it is not competent, it is not speedy, and if the Act is to work well steps must be taken to remedy that state of things. Of course, His Majesty's Government may be in possession of ample information on all these points. If so, I only wish they would give that information to Parliament and the country. If His Majesty's Government are not in possession of reliable data and sufficient evidence, I would suggest to them that an inquiry into the working and the machinery of the Act would be advisable.

The Act itself, in my opinion, requires Amendment in various ways. Some of its clauses are very nearly inoperative; but in no way does it require amendment more urgently than in defining, within reasonable limits—but still defining to some extent—the duties and the powers of the Estates Commissioners. As it is now, the. Estates Commissioners are guided by rules formulated for them, and rules can be formulated which practically amend the Act and even go further and repeal portions of the Act. When the Bill was in the House of Commons a pledge was given that the rules and regulations of the Estates Commissioners would be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. That pledge was broken, it was not put into the Bill. I do not know why, but it was not; and, as a matter of fact, it was not until after considerable pressure that the first rules and regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners were placed on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Since then, other rules and regulations have been formulated, and, I believe His Majesty's Government have in contemplation further rules and regulations. I have no doubt that they will be good ones, but I protest against the inordinate amount of power which is thus given to the executive. The executive can practically repeal portions of the Act and amend it in any way they like; and that any executive should have such powers is anomalous, and, to my mind, most unwise. It creates endless confusion in Ireland and any amount of mistrust and distrust. Nobody knows the principles on which the Estates Commissioners will act next year and the year after, and they exercise their powers in a very curious manner.

I daresay your Lordships will remember that the Estates Commissioners, not having any legal functions whatever, took upon themselves to act judicially. There was a case where they objected to the regulations which were framed for them by the Lord-Lieutenant, and Mr. Commissioner Finucane looked into the matter and pronounced, as it was called at the time, judgment that the regulations of the superior authority were illegal and ultra vires, and Mr. Commissioner Bailey agreed with the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Finucane. Is it not preposterous that any two men, with no judicial experience and no judicial functions whatever, should take upon themselves to pronounce judgment upon the rules and regulations furnished for their guidance by the King's representative in Ireland?

Take another case in the opposite direction. I remember that in the case of an estate in county Antrim, sold to the Commissioners, one of the tenants desired to have a fair rent fixed. The Commissioners threw every obstacle in his way, and issued an order for sale to compel him to buy. The matter came before the county court, and the Judge decided that the Commissioners had acted illegally and a fair rent was fixed. It is not right that power should exist in the Estates Commissioners to act judicially and to decide matters in this way. The Act of 1903 is a great Act. It has not broken down, but it is in imminent danger of breaking down, to the satisfaction of those who desire a condition of perpetual unrest, unless the Act and the administration of the Act and the whole agrarian question is approached in the broad spirit of conciliation that animated the Land Conference and in which the Act was conceived. The state of confusion becomes more and more confounding, and yet we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no more loans are to be issued. The National Debt Commissioners are furnishing a certain amount of money—driblets of money. The National Debt Commissioners will make a good profit out of the transaction, because it is impossible to suppose that a financial condition under which guaranteed land stock is paying 3½ per cent. can continue. I do not object in the least to the National Debt Commissioners, or the Post Office, or any other department making a profit. What I do object to is that Ireland should make the loss. I am not a financial expert, but I wish some noble Lord who is would explain to me why it is that this guaranteed land stock paying 2¾per cent. is not considered a better security than Consols paring 2½per cent. The security is the same in so far as both stocks are secured on the whole Consolidated Fund; but Irish land stock is better secured than Consols for, in the possible event of a temporary suspension of interest on Consols, the interest on land stock would be payable out of the annuities. Yet in spite of the fact that the security is superior and that it pays, 5s. in the £100 better interest, Irish land stock is at the same price as Consols. I cannot account for it unless the reason is that it is called guaranteed Irish land stock instead of what it really is— 2¾per cent. Consols.

I can assure His Majesty's Government that I have not the slightest desire to say anything that would embarrass them in their Irish policy. On the contrary, I approve of their Irish policy. They brought in a Bill this year which, in my opinion, my countrymen were insane in rejecting. It was a Bill which, as it did not attempt in any way to deal with what is commonly called Home Rule, or with the devolution of any legislative functions whatever, could not possibly have acted prejudicially against the demands of anybody, from the most modest devolutionist like myself to the most ardent Home Ruler; but it was a Bill which, at the same time, did offer to Ireland, in a very large degree, the practical, substantial benefits that she could have derived from the most full fledged measure of Home Rule, in the shape of control over administrative departments and over a considerable sum of money. I regret very much that Ireland refused that measure without waiting to see what could be done in Committee in the other House, and I am quite sure that Ireland will regret it herself some day. But I am thankful to His Majesty's Government for having introduced it.

I make these remarks because I do wish to impress on His Majesty's Government the absolute necessity of acting upon the words that fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day, and dealing with all these questions, whether they be as regards congested districts or evicted tenants, on fair and honest terms, and in the spirit that animated the Land Conference—the spirit of conciliation, the only spirit in which Ireland can ever be regenerated or in which Ireland can do anything practical to regenerate herself. I wish also to impress on His Majesty's Government what I believe to be the absolute fact, that if they will dig down true enough and deep enough they will find that of all the difficulties and troubles that exist in Ireland in connection with agrarian matters, the root cause is the lack of sufficient money properly to finance the Act.

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, the Question which Lord Clonbrock has placed upon the Paper raises a very important subject, and I confess that I envy the expert knowledge and the mastery of detail which both noble Lords who have spoken evinced in regard to it. It is a very important subject, not only on account of the large sums of money with which it deals, but also because it directly affects the welfare of so many persons in Ireland. Naturally we sympathise with the disappointment which has been felt with regard to the working of the Act, but I would like to remind the House that complaints as to delay are no new thing, and that in the first year after the Act came into force these complaints were heard. So far back as July, 1905, a meeting of the Incorporated Law Socitey of Ireland was held in Dublin to protest against the delay in the administration of the measure.

Probably the principal reason for the disappointment which has been caused is the fact that landlords have lodged applications with the Estates Commissioners at a very much quicker rate than was originally anticipated by the authors of the Act. I understand from the Question which Lord Clonbrock has placed on the Paper and from his speech that in his opinion there is increasing delay, uncertainty, and loss, owing to the present methods of administering the purchase provisions of this measure. I cannot admit that that is the case, and I will endeavour to show your Lordships what some, at all events, of the reasons for the delay complained of are. In order to do so I am obliged to go back to what Mr. Wyndham said when this measure was before Parliament. Mr. Wyndham anticipated at that time that some £5,000,000 a year would be paid by the Treasury for the first three years of the working of the Act, and after that time he hoped that we should be able to go forward at an accelerated rate. I would like to remind the House what exactly the state of things was when Mr. Wyndham used those words. In the first place, he estimated roughly that a sum of about £100,000,000 would be required for operations under the Act—it. has since, I believe, been put at a very much higher figure—and he hoped that the operations would be completed within fifteen years. That is to say, if you expend £15,000,000 for the first three years, then you will have to find £85,000,000 in the twelve following years, which comes to something a little over £7,000,000 a year.

But the important fact to remember is that when Mr. Wyndham said this he hoped to be able to issue land stock at 95. As noble Lords are well aware, land stock has lately fallen to 83, and to-day it stands at something over 84. When stock is issued at a price below par, interest at the rate of 3¼per cent. has to be paid out of the guaranteed fund on the amount by which the price obtained falls short of 100. In other words, if £120 of stock are issued in order to obtain £100 of cash—and that is approximately the figure which has obtained recently— then you have a difference of £20. This difference is called the excess stock, and interest and sinking fund at the rate of 3¼per cent. have to be paid on it. I must apologise to noble Lords from Ireland for going into these details, but I wish to make my case quite clear to the House. With Consols at 83 or 84 and Government securities suffering from similar depression it is obviously impossible to raise a fresh issue of stock in the open market. The bare fact that such an issue was contemplated would tend still further to depress the price of Consols, or at any rate to retard any possible upward tendency. Therefore-the stock is being issued and bought from the National Debt Commissioners at the price of the day. This, of course, still necessitates interest being paid on the excess stock, but obviates the disadvantage of raising a loan in the open market.

LORD ASHBOURNE

At present.

LORD DENMAN

Yes, at present. All issues of land stock have been at a very considerable discount, and the charges on this excess stock now amount to a very high figure indeed. The charge is being met at present out of the Irish Development Grant, and, if necessary, we are empowered by the Act to fall back on other funds mentioned in the measure, such as the Probate Duty Grant and the Agricultural Grant. I will not say anything as to the policy of annexing the whole of the fund which was, I believe, originally intended for educational and other purposes, to the paying off of interest and debt on the excess stock; but as soon as this fund becomes exhausted you will then have to fall back on the other funds I have mentioned. These funds are devoted to the relief of rates in Ireland. Therefore if you withhold any portion of them, you indirectly place a burden on the rates in Ireland.

It is not for me to question the expediency or the wisdom of placing these particular funds in the guaranteed fund of the Land Purchase Act, but I think it will be a matter of some difficulty at all events for any Government to obtain the large sums of money that might be necessary out of the rates in Ireland. This question of finding interest on excess stock presents a very difficult problem. It is one of the greatest hindrances, or it may be before long—the Irish development grant will, I believe, last out at the present rate for two and a half or three years—one of the greatest hindrances to the successful administration of the Act. This is a matter which is receiving the very earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government. I understand that a debate on the question of the Land Act is to take place in the other House this week, and no doubt this particular point will be fully dealt with. Therefore I am not able to give any more information to the House regarding it at present; but we have the advantage in this House of the presence of Lord Ashbourne and Lord Atkinson, who are administrative experts, and I have no doubt the Chief Secretary would be only too glad to consider any suggestions they may have to offer for the solution of this difficult problem.

Lord Dunraven said he thought the position might be met by raising another £500,000 a year from the taxpayers of this country. The taxpayers of this country have already borne a considerable burden for this purpose. Of course it might be possible to persuade them to pay a further £500,000 a year, and, if so, that, no doubt, would greatly facilitate the working of the Act. Lord Clonbrock and Lord Dunraven have both complained of the slow rate at which cash advances are made under the Act, but up to date they amount to a figure nearer £19,000,000 than £18,000,000. During the first three years of the Act they amounted to £15,500,000, so that the rate which Mr. Wyndham foreshadowed was kept pace with. Of the total advances made up to 31st March, 1907, 84 per cent. were in direct sales, and 15.24 in other classes of sales, and since that date the percentages show a very similar proportion. I think these figures meet the criticism of Lord Clonbrock that direct sales are suffering because more attention is paid to other classes of sales. During the year up to the 22nd ult. over £6,000,000 have been advanced for the purposes of this Act. I think the expression "driblets of money" applied to such figures is rather a strong term. And since the present Government came into office over £9,000,000 of advances have been made through the Estates Commissioners. Lord Clonbrock has complained of the understaffing of the Estates Commissioners' office.

LORD CLONBROCK

I said the Commissioner, Mr. Finucane, said that.

LORD DENMAN

I thought the noble Lord implied that if there were more Commissioners the Act would be able to be administered more expeditiously.

LORD CLONBROCK

No.

LORD ASHBOURNE

My noble friend quoted Mr. Finucane's evidence before Lord Dudley's Commission. Perhaps my noble friend might read the quotation again.

LORD CLONBROCK

The evidence given by Mr. Finucane was to this effect, that the block represented by these figures was due to absolutely nothing else but want of money and staff. He added— The three Estates Commissioners, as they stand, given sufficient staff and sufficient office accommodation, which hitherto we have not had, could without the slightest trouble get through £10,000,000, or possibly even £15,000,000, a year.

LORD DENMAN

I would like to give some figures showing the way in which the staff has been increased since the present Government came into office. In December, 1905, there were ten inspectors dealing with direct sales; at present there are fifteen. In 1905 there were ten inspectors dealing with the cases which came under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Act; at present there are twenty. Perhaps I ought to say that fourteen of these have been employed for one year only. Then, with regard to evicted tenants, we have a special staff of eighteen inspectors to deal with those cases.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Have those special inspectors anything to do with the Estates Commissioners?

LORD DENMAN

I do not know what the noble Marquess means.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Are the inspectors who deal with evicted tenants taken from the inspectors appointed to carry out the Act of 1903?

LORD DENMAN

I believe they have been specially appointed, but I am not quite certain. Altogether there is a total of fifty-three inspectors employed to-day, as against twenty employed in December, 1905. No doubt cases of delay—the noble Lord mentioned one with regard to the estates of the O'Conor Don—must inevitably occur, but I shall be only too glad to bring any cases specially mentioned to me before the Chief Secretary in order to have inquiry made.

LORD CLONBROCK

It was not a question of delay in the case of the estate of the O'Conor Don, but of the land being thrown back on his hands after having been purchased by the Commissioners who bought too much and did not know what to do with it.

LORD DENMAN

If the noble Lord desires it I will have inquiry made into that matter. I have endeavoured to show that, owing to the state of the money market and to the difficulty of meeting the interest on the excess stock in the immediate future, it is unlikely that the Government will be able to move forward at any greater speed than they have done in the past—not that the Government are in any way indifferent to the successful working of the Act; they are not. They accept the liabilities and responsibilities which they have inherited from their predecessors, and they have no desire to escape, even when they are able to do so, from the obligations resting upon them. But, for the present, I cannot hold out any hope that any larger amount of advances can be made than have been paid out hitherto.

*LORD ASHBOURNE

My Lords, it is obvious to anyone who listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down that he was extremely anxious to give all the information that was possible, and to make his statement as clear as he could. The question is one of vast importance and great complexity, and requires careful examination from several points of view. The Government are charged with a great responsibility in the administration of this Act, and it would be idle to suggest that the administration of operations so vast as these would not be open to many criticisms, but I think that the cases selected by Lord Clonbrock show that there are grounds for suggesting that it would be desirable to reconsider and re-examine some parts of that administration.

I think, with Lord Clonbrock, that a great deal of the present delay as contrasted with the early operations of the Act is not adequately explained. One would have expected that at first the machinery of such an Act would have moved slowly and heavily. It was not so. When the Act was first passed it worked with very fair rapidity. In the first year there were no complaints of delay; now there are many complaints. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock thinks—and with some reasonableness, so far as I know—that one of the great causes of the delay is that more power and earnestness appear to be given to the aspects of the administration that are not connected with direct sales; in other words, to making provision for evicted tenants, and for the discovery and purchase of untenanted land. These two matters have been so much present to their minds that the Commissioners are believed to have given undue weight and attention to them, important as they are, as contrasted with the infinitely larger question of direct sales. The figures given by the noble Lord who represents the Irish Government as to the inspectorate are, I think, proof of that fact, for they show that a larger proportion of inspectors are employed in reference to the smaller operations connected with the evicted tenants and the purchase of untenanted lands than are engaged in direct sales, which involve millions of money. This is, in my opinion, a legitimate topic for criticism.

The noble Lord then made an interesting statement as to the financial position. I await with very great interest the debate which will take place in the other House on this immensely important subject. We shall then have a most authoritative statement from those who are bound to have considered this question from every point of view, in the presence of those who are gravely concerned; and it would be unbecoming in me to offer any criticism until we hear what will be said in that debate. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government invited me to throw down a solution in advance which might be of assistance to the Chief Secretary. There is one condition under which I might do that—namely, if I were told the weight that would be given to my suggestion. But as the noble Lord is naturally not in a position to make any promise on that head I will await the debate in the House of Commons before dealing with that subject.

My noble friend Lord Clonbrock said sufficient to indicate that there were many matters requiring consideration in the code laid down by the Estates Commissioners for the guidance of the inspectors. That is an important question. The Irish Government have really give the Estates Commissioners a blank cheque in regard to forming rules for the guidance of the inspectors, and the code of regulations which they have laid down has not only not worked satisfactorily, but they have, in certain particulars, gone beyond the Act of Parliament itself.

There are three broad categories of property—property within the zones, property which is not within the zones, but still where the tenancies are subject to judicial rents, and property not subject to zones or judicial rents and which has never been through the Land Court. The inspectors are instructed to make a distinction in ascertaining: (1) what is the security for the public advance; and (2) the price which the intending purchaser should pay. They would appear to make this distinction in the case of all three categories. It is stated in the instructions that in reference to properties within the zones they are not entitled to inquire into the security. That is obvious; but they say nothing about the price. Is it that they leave it open to the inspectors to inquire into the price in the case of a landlord whose property is within the zones? I do not know what their practice is with reference to that.

There is another point with regard to the second category. When they come to land which is not within the zones but which may still be subject to a judicial tenancy, what do they tell their inspectors? What is the meaning of a holding under a judicial tenancy? It is one that has been through the mill of the Land Court, one that has had its rent fixed by the procedure under the Land Code. Is it suggested that an inspector appointed under these instructions is to go down and, in the case of a judicial tenancy, where the rent has been ascertained, it may be on appeal by the Land Court, that he is not only to make an examination but to state in his report what in his opinion is the-gross fair rent and the net fair rent? Where is the warrant for that? Is there a syllable in the Act of Parliament to support such a power? The Land Court has done this already; it has sent down its sub-Commissioners, and they have already measured both the gross-fair rent and the net fair rent, after hearing evidence on oath. Where is the warrant for directing the inspectors to review the work of the Land Commission, and that apparently without any appeal?

I suppose there are very few of your Lordships who have not heard of the Fry Commission. That was a very powerful Commission, and it was presided over by the great judge who is now one of the representatives of this country at the Hague Conference. His colleagues, too, were eminent men, and one of the matters on which the Fry Commission laid stress was that the inspectors were to be told unambiguously that, when they were measuring the security for a national advance, they were to have regard to the conjoint interest of landlord and tenant. That is a matter of first-class importance, but in the new instructions that have been issued there is not a syllable about the inspectors having regard to that conjoint interest. Inspectors are now directed to have regard to a great many purely speculative considerations, such as the likelihood of agricultural and economic changes, which no man can possibly forecast.

They are also told to take into account the improvements admittedly made by landlord or tenant. In Ireland we have got a habit of being very slow to admit things, and my experience of these cases is that neither side will admit the entire accuracy of the statement on the other side. Such agreements are the rarest circumstance, and, in the case of disputed improvements, there is no machinery for investigation. Enough has been said to show that my noble friend was well justified in bringing forward this question, and that there are many things in the administration of the Act which need carefully watching.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

My Lords, in rising to make a few remarks on this subject I ask for that consideration which is always accorded by your Lordships to one who addresses you for the' first time. I am in the more or less fortunate position of a vendor under the Act of 1903, the sale of whose estate is within measurable distance of being concluded. I may therefore comfort myself with the hope that I have little to fear from the eccentricities of Estates Commissioners or land valuers, or from the disputes and difficulties created by new and elaborate forms of procedure. I have some experience of the delay, inconvenience, and loss which must be endured by a vendor under this Act, and to a lesser extent by a buyer; and I therefore wish to express my very great sympathy with all those, whether landlords or tenants, or solicitors or land agents, who have been embarrassed by the state of things which has been brought under your Lordships' notice by my noble friend Lord Clonbrock. It seems to me that he has fully established that a state of things exists which, if not speedily removed, will certainly interfere very seriously with the main object of the Act of 1903, which was greatly to extend and accelerate the operation of the Land Purchase Acts. It is natural that attempts should be made to show that the present unsatisfactory state of things has been brought about by the action of certain officials, or is due to particular forms of procedure, or to the lack of funds, or to insufficient staff, or to lack of organisation in the staff and work of the various departments and offices. But after all, I venture to think that noble Lords who make these complaints are not at all bound to be able to show to what cause the state of things complained of is due. They have done all that individuals could be expected to do when they have shown that this state of things does really exist, and that it has brought the working of the Act almost to a deadlock. The duty of finding out the causes, and of devising remedies seems to me to rest entirely on His Majesty's Government. I therefore venture to appeal most earnestly to the Government to give their most serious attention to the whole subject, and to leave nothing undone which may be necessary to enable the vast sales of property which have been arranged to be carried out without further delay. In doing this the Government will not only benefit the landlords, tenants, and others who are interested in the speedy carrying out of these sales, but I venture to think they will also confer no small benefit on the whole community.

*THE LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe)

My Lords, I think it will be evident to everybody who has followed this debate that it deals with two entirely distinct questions—the finance of the Land Act and the method of its administration. It is undoubtedly the case that the Act of 1903 has been in some degree choked by its own success. No one could foresee how large the number of applications would be. As will be clear to anyone who reads the debates that took place in the other House during the progress of the Bill, the then Chief Secretary hoped and anticipated that the development grant of £185,000 a year would be sufficient to meet the loss on the flotation of the various issues of stock. I noted that in introducing the Bill in another place Mr. Wyndham said— Imagine stock issued at 95, And an hon. Member called out— At 80. The world knows nothing of its greatest it men, we are told, and that un-named hon. Member showed a gift of prophesy which, if not absolutely accurate, was terribly near the fact. I observe in The Times this morning that Consols stood at 84⅝ yesterday, and Irish land stock stood at about the same figure. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Dunraven that it is a very singular thing that this security, which is, as he told us, at least as good as Consols, should, for some of those curious reasons which govern the operations of the money market, not stand at the relatively high point to which the higher rate of interest would seem to entitle it.

As my noble friend stated, it was the anticipation of the Government of that day that money would be called for at the rate of about £5,000,000 a year for the first three years, and afterwards at the rate of £7,000,000 a year for the next twelve years, at the end of which period it was hoped that all the purchasable land in Ireland would have been dealt with. Now, to meet the bargains which have been hitherto made such a sum of money is required as could only be raised at a loss of £5,000,000. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, talked very lightly about £500,000a year. I took occasion to refer the other night in the Army debate to the light-hearted manner in which those who were not responsible talked about sums such as these, but I think everybody, without distinction of Party, must see that it would be a very serious matter indeed—serious for all parties, for the authors of the Land Act and those who arc trying to carry out its obligations—for Ireland to come to the predominant partner with a demand of that kind; and I confess that even if the Government were prepared to ask the taxpayers of this country to make a sacrifice of that kind it is not certain that they would be able to induce them to do so. Consequently it cannot be denied that the situation in regard to this matter is one of very great gravity indeed. Cer- tainly it is not one upon which the Government desire to express any kind of recrimination, and equally they hope they may be spared any, as they have been in the course of this debate.

Of course, we on this side may look back and wish that it had been possible when the Land Act of 1903 was passed to pay off the landlords in stock instead of in cash, but the obvious difficulty which confronted Mr. Wyndham at that time in doing that was the question of mortgages. Whether that could have been got over by any bolder policy in dealing with charges than that which any Government has hitherto attempted to adopt I cannot say. It would certainly have been easier for the Government of noble Lords opposite to do it than it would be for us to attempt anything of the kind. So far as regards asking noble Lords opposite to supply us with plans, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, very wisely and properly guarded himself against doing anything of the kind; but still, if any inspiration should happen to occur to the noble and learned Lord or to any other noble Lord, learned or the contrary, as to the manner in which this exceedingly difficult financial problem might be met, I can only say the Government would be extremely grateful to receive what advice they can on this subject, which is certainly not one which ought to divide Parties.

Now, my Lords, on the question of administration, to which I now pass, the real gravamen of the charge against the Estates Commissioners is that they have, I think noble Lords seemed to think under some pressure from His Majesty's Government, given an undue preference to certain kinds of dealings to the exclusion of others. Well, my Lords, we are assured by the Estates Commissioners that they have shown no undue preference. They have divided the different holdings into classes, and have endeavoured to start each section, so to speak, fairly, though it is obvious that one sort of estate takes far longer to deal with than some other kinds. I think my noble friend behind me gave the figures of the different amounts which have been advanced in some of the classes. For instance, during the last year direct sales took £4,150,099 as against £617,000 for land commission sales and untenanted land. I do not think that those figures bear out the contention that direct sales have been hardly treated in comparison with other sales. It is perfectly true that in certain cases the Estates Commissioners have had somewhat to hurry on sales under Section 8; and for this reason, that they have acquired estates which contain a number of uneconomic holdings, and in certain cases, therefore, they have had to hurry on sales, under Section 8, of untenanted land in order to make as far as possible economic the holdings on the estates which they have already acquired.

As regards inspectors, the noble and learned Lord in dealing with the numbers forgot to state what is the undoubted fact, that it is obvious that for estates coining under the later sections of the Act far more inspection is required than under direct sales. I think the Estates Commissioners put the proportion at two to four. Therefore it is natural that a larger number of the new inspectors should come under the category of those who do not work under Section 1. As regards the investigation of applications by evicted tenants, I understand that the eighteen inspectors appointed for that purpose hold purely temporary appointments, and that their term of office expires. on July 31st. Therefore it is hardly reasonable to count them as being in exactly the same category as the ordinary inspectors. There is no doubt that the needs of inspection have caused a certain degree of delay. Both Lord Clonbrock and Lord Ashbourne pointed out that at some earlier stages in the administration of the Act matters seemed to go faster. might not that be partly accounted for by the fact that it was the most simple and obvious cases upon which the first arrangements began to be made? I have one or two such cases in my mind, and I have no doubt that in those cases matters went like wildfire. It will be found as time goes on that the more difficult and complicated cases occupy more time in various ways than some of the earlier cases. There is another very fruitful cause of delay, and a very serious cause indeed, to which no noble Lord has yet alluded. This is the question of the investigation of title. I believe if anything could be done—I do not know that anything can be done—to simplify investigation of title a real service would be rendered to the administration of the Act.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Hear, hear.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I was quite sure I should have the sympathy of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, in saying that. He knows what a deadweight of opposition there is when an attempt is made to proceed even a short distance in this direction, but if my right hon. friend Mr. Birrell finds it to be possible to proceed any further in that respect in any reasonable way I have no doubt he will receive the support of noble Lords opposite. As far as I can understand, however, there is no reason to bring anything like a general charge of inefficiency against the administration of the office. The noble Lord who initiated this discussion to-day save several instances, one or two of them of a very striking character, and in a matter of this kind it always is very difficult to estimate how far one or two instances, either of red-tape, of inefficiency, or of some absurd action like that which the noble Lord stated, ougt to be taken as typical. Taken altogether I am informed—of course I have no first-hand knowledge on this subject—that it would not be reasonable or fair to bring anything like a charge of general inefficiency against the administration of the office.

Then the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock, whose opinion on this subject is, of course, worthy of every consideration, mentioned the possibility of appointing some official in the nature of a chief of the staff who might be of use in organising a system of inspection and other details. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary will give full consideration to that suggestion. As regards the point which the noble and learned Lord dwelt upon a few moments ago, it surely is an overstatement to allege that the inspectors have the power of refixing rents. What I take it the inspectors are invited to do by the Commissioners is to form some sort of general report as to the value of the holding as estimated by the rental; and it seems to me that it is almost an essential part of a report that some such estimate should be made. It comes, however, to very much the same thing whether you pay a longer number of years' purchase on one rental or a shorter number of years' on another rental; and therefore, if the Estates Commissioners have to decide the number of years' purchase to be paid it seems to me perfectly relevant and reasonable that their inspectors should inform them what they consider to be the true value of the farm as expressed in terms of so many years' rent. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock made it rather a subject of complaint that it was technical evidence rather than what he spoke of as popular evidence on which these estimates were founded. I cannot help thinking that that shows something of the difference which has often existed between the way that we in England look at these matters and the way that they are looked at in Ireland.

LORD ASHBOURNE

Those were Sir Edward Fry's words.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

In what relation?

Lord ASHBOURNE

As a balance to technical evidence the Fry Commission used the term "popular evidence."

*THE EARL OF CREWE

At the same time you must remember that technical evidence points to what is called a valuation rent, and that popular evidence leads to a competitive rent, and it must be necessary sometimes to strike a balance between the two. It was the late Duke of Richmond who said that the English land system depended simply and solely on the fact that rents fixed by English landlords were valuation rents and not competitive rents. Therefore when I hear technical evidence decried I recall that wise observation from one who was as entitled as anybody to speak on the question. As to the £3,000 limit, I am sorry to say that I do not carry the Acts of Parliament either in my pocket or in my head, but I do remember that when Mr. Wyndham introduced the Bill in 1903 he spoke of the £3,000 limit as one beyond which they were not prepared to go, and one which had been adhered to in former Acts.

*LORD CLONBROCK

£5,000 was the limit in the previous Act.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Then Mr. Wyndham must have been wrong.

LORD ASHBOURNE

In the previous Act the amount was £3,000, but there was power to raise it to £5,000.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble and learned Lord is right, but £3,000 was spoken of at that time as the average limit. I think it is not difficult to see the reason which would prompt the Estates Commissioners at this moment to limit the amount as far as they could—namely, the shortage of money and the desire to carry out as many transactions as possible with the money at their disposal, instead of carrying out a smaller number of large transactions. As regards the general question of the regulations, it may be that the framers of the Act of 1903 made a mistake in leaving too much to the Executive, but my noble friend Lord Dunraven must settle that with the authors of the Act and not blame us for it. If he had desired to see all these matters put into the Act I have no doubt it could have been done. But so long as you leave the regulations to be made you cannot complain that they are made according to the best judgment of those who are responsible for the Irish Government at the time. I can only say in conclusion that we have no cause whatever to complain of this debate; on the contrary, I heartily re-echo the observations made by the noble Earl, Lord Wicklow, whom I was glad to hear address the House for the first time in an excellent speech —namely, that we shall do our best to meet this exceedingly difficult situation, so far as we can, although noble Lords opposite, who are far more deeply versed in this subject than I am, are aware of the great difficulties which surround the whole question at this moment.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I am sure I am expressing the views of all who sit on this side of the House when I say that we have no fault to find with the speech that has just been delivered by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. On the contrary, we appreciate the manner in which he has recognised the gravity of the question, and his assurance on behalf of the Government that so far as lies in their power they will give every consideration to the demands that have been made. I also endorse the concluding words of the noble Earl, in which he congratulated my noble friend behind me, Lord Wicklow, on addressing your Lordships for the first time in such an excellent speech.

The present block is doing considerable damage, not only to the land-owning classes, but still more to the tenant farmers and occupiers who are desirous of acquiring their land under the conditions granted to them by the Act of 1903. I should have dwelt at considerable length on the disadvantages occurring to the occupiers of land who are desirous of obtaining possession of that land had the question not been so fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Dunraven. Lord Denman, who replied on behalf of the Irish Government, certainly dwelt with the matter in a very able manner, and I have no doubt that what he said as to the cause of the delay is to a certain extent accurate. If extra funds could be given—and of course I recognise the difficulty—to facilitate the working of the Act no one would rejoice more than I, and I venture the opinion, as having had considerable knowledge of the working of the Purchase Acts in the past, that any advance of public money for the transfer of land in Ireland is a sound and sure investment from the English taxpayers' point of view. As to the reasons for the delay, I go further and put down the block to a very great extent to the rules and regulations which were passed last year by the Irish Executive, these rules having very much increased the duties imposed upon the inspectors.

Allusion has been made to the Report of the Commission presided over by Sir Edward Fry. In the Report of that Commission it was very clearly pointed out that the great complication in the procedure was due to the rules and the methods of the Land Commissioners. The Report added— We believe that delay would be lessened if, for reasons which will appear from what we have already said, the whole of the rules of procedure and practice in the Purchase Department were reconsidered. What has been the action of His Majesty's Government? By altering the rules and regulations which were in force when they came into office they have drifted back to the methods and the system of inspection which were so adversely criticised by the Fry Commission. Under the present regulations the inspectors are required to estimate the judicial rents of holdings, but they have no machinery for dealing with this question. Mr. Wrench, in his Minority Report, differing from his two colleagues, stated that the Estates Commissioners had neither jurisdiction nor machinery for estimating the net fair rent. Then, again, Mr. Commissioner Finucane and Mr. Commissioner Bailey relied more on the technical opinions of professional valuers than on popular evidence. The Fry Commission defined popular evidence in this way— Popular evidence, such as offers made, the letting value, the payment of rent for a length of time, and the prosperity or poverty of the persons who had held the land. If you are to arrive at the value of a holding you must take popular evidence to an even greater extent than technical evidence. In my opinion it is the competition for an article which proves its value, and consequently popular evidence would prove the value of a farm much better than technical evidence.

On the contention that the Estates Commissioners have not a sufficient staff to go very fully into all the matters in question, I offer no opinion. I would like, however, to point out that the main object of (the Act of 1903 was to promote the sale of land between landlord and tenant. The reinstatement of evicted tenants and the enlargement of small holdings were minor objects. The Estate Commissioners, however, appear to be putting the cart before the. horse. At the present moment Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey seem to me to be devoting an undue amount of their time to these minor objects, to the detriment of the main object. I think the proof is found in the fact that they have both given a great mass of evidence before the Commission presided over by Lord Dudley, on these two points—the reinstatement of evicted tenants and the enlargement of small holdings. The getting up of this evidence must have entailed a large amount of their time and consequently involved neglect of the main object of the Bill, which, as I have said, was to promote sales between landlords and tenants. Then, again, I noticed a speech made by Mr. Birrell a few days ago in another place with regard to the reinstatement of evicted tenants. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman stated that 2,000 of the evicted tenants were to be reinstated, and that the matter was to be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners. My noble friend Lord Denman admitted that the Estates Commissioners' department is understaffed, and yet we find Mr. Birrell proposing to put extra work on the Commissioners by entrusting to them this difficult and arduous task.

LORD DENMAN

I did not admit that the Estates Commissioners' department was understaffed

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

No, but Mr. Finucane did. Mr. Finucane has declared that his office is under stated, and yet Mr. Birrell proposes to entrust to the Estates Commissioners—

*The Earl of CREWE

May I interrupt the noble Marquess? Is it quite certain that Mr. Finucane was speaking of his office as it is? Did he not mean that if more money was forthcoming for the purpose of advances then he would be able to have a larger office and deal with more cases? I did not understand him to complain that his office was understaffed for the work he was able to do

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I have not the Report with me, and I must apologise to the House for not having brought it. But to the best of my memory Mr. Finucane stated that the delay was due to lack of funds and to want of staff.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, to want of staff arising out of want of funds. That is what I take him to mean.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

If the Estates Commissioners are to be entrusted with the extra work of going into the question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants, then they cannot devote the whole of their time to the carrying out of the main object of the Act. Such a course must interfere with the prosecution of the main purpose of the Act. Why could not some separate temporary body be appointed to go into the whole question of reinstatement of those 2,000 tenants? Then there has been introduced into the House of Commons another Bill—the Irish Land Bill (No. 2)—which will impose further work on the Estates Commissioners—

*The Earl of CREWE

I really must protest. The noble Marquess has already discussed some of the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Bill, which is entirely out of Order.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Under the Bill now before the House of Commons it is proposed to entrust the whole of the inquiry to the Estates Commissioners, and I wish to draw attention to the extra work—

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon)

My noble friend must pardon me, but it really is highly irregular to discuss here a Bill which is now before the House of Commons. It is contrary to all rules of debate, and I am sure the noble Marquess will not proceed further. The Bill will come up to your Lordship a some time or another, and the noble Marquess will then have full opportunity of saying what he has to say with regard to it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I was merely pointing out that, although the Estates Commissioners are very hard-worked, you are putting upon them in your next two Bills additional duties. I think that if the Commissioners had devoted themselves entirely to carrying out the idea of the Act of 1903 there would probably not have been so much need for funds and extra staff, and the measure might have been a success.

LORD INCHIQUIN

My Lords, before the debate closes I wish to call attention to two points. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council said it made very little difference whether you had a larger number of years purchase at a smaller rent or a smaller number of years purchase at a larger rent. It certainly does make very considerable difference. If I were to ask of my tenants thirty years purchase I fancy both Nationalist speakers and Nationalist newspapers would have a good many remarks to make upon it. Therefore I do not think that is a fair argument. Then there is the £3,000 limit, to which there is also considerable objection.