§ Order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate on an Amendment, moved after the Third Reading on the previous day, in Clause 11 (Amendment of the Land Clauses Act, 1845).
LORD DENMANsaid their Lordships would recollect that on the previous evening he was told that his Amendment to Clause 11 was not in order because the words "twenty pounds," referred to in the clause, did not occur in Section 72 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, but did occur in Section 69. The Department had since referred to those sections, and found that that was not the case, but that the words "twenty pounds" did occur in Section 72. He thought it right, in justice to that able official the Government draftsman at the Irish Office, that he should point out that the mistake was not his. The Amendment under discussion on the previous day when the debate was adjourned was to insert, in Clause 11, after the word 1354 "Acts," the words "section 71 and." The Clause would then read—
For the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts section seventy-one, and section seventy-two of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1890, shall have effect as if 'one hundred pounds' were substituted therein for 'twenty pounds.'He had discussed the point with Lord Atkinson, who now agreed that if the reference to section seventy-one were inserted it would be all that was necessary.
§ LORD ATKINSONexpressed regret for having misled the House on the previous day. He had accurately stated the provisions of the sections, but had inadvertently given the wrong numbers.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE moved an Amendment in the same clause providing that the sum of £100 mentioned should be reduced to £60. Those who were familiar, he said, with this subject believed that £100 was too high in respect of a limited owner, and that it would be a reasonable compromise to reduce the sum to £60. If a limited owner were able to get £100 here and £100 there for small houses taken for the purposes of the Bill, the property that would be eventually left to the remainder-man might be worth little or nothing. He hoped that, in the circumstances, the Government would accept £60 as a reasonable figure.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 17, to leave out the words 'one hundred' and to insert the word 'sixty.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
LORD DENMANsaid this was an Amendment somewhat limiting the scope of the clause. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, also had an Amendment on the same point, and he thought it might be convenient if the two were discussed together.
§ LORD ATKINSONexplained that his Amendment was designed to secure that the sums paid by any particular local authority in respect of any interest in land taken under any scheme to persons not absolutely entitled to the interest 1355 purchased should not exceed in the aggregate £300. Under the clause as it stood the limited owner might dispose of a considerable amount of property in £100 portions, and put the money into his own pocket. The object of the Amendment was to lay it down that a limited owner should not be able to part with more than £300 worth of property in this way.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 18, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words 'Provided that the sums paid under the provisions of Section 72 of the first mentioned statute by any particular local authority in respect of any interest in land taken under any scheme or schemes to a person or persons not absolutely entitled to the interest purchased shall not exceed in the aggregate three hundred pounds.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNEfailed to see the convenience of taking the two Amendments together. His Amendment was the result of consideration on the part of those who had studied the question on its own merits, and he respectfully pressed it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)then put Lord Ashbourne's Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENMANhoped that, as the House had accepted Lord Ashbourne's Amendment, Lord Atkinson would not consider it necessary to press his Amendment. If it had been shown that there was any real likelihood of such a contingency as the noble and learned Lord had outlined, the Government would have agreed as to the necessity of some such words. A similar clause to the one in the Bill was to be found in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and in the Labourers Act, 1906, and now that £60 had been inserted instead of £100 the clause was identical with the one in the Labourers Act of 1906. No such safeguard was thought necessary in that case, and the particular evil which the noble and learned Lord feared had never occurred under the other Act he had just quoted. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ LORD ATKINSONsaid the fact that the amount had been reduced to £60 rendered it all the more necessary, in his opinion, to persist in the Amendment. It only now interposed a restriction when the person not absolutely entitled to the interest purchased had received the £60 five times. The noble Lord had made a point of the fact that there was no such safeguarding clause in the Labourers Act. That was quite true; it was not required in that Act, as it was very unlikely that more than one portion of the same property would be taken.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)In spite of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I venture to maintain that my noble friend behind me (Lord Denman) was perfectly right. The object, as I take it, of the noble and learned Lord is to prevent the limited owner from receiving, piece by piece, a sum which becomes large in the aggregate. By reducing the sum which he can receive at one time from £100 to £60 you certainly diminish the probability that in all he will receive a Urge amount, which it is generally agreed he ought not to have. Therefore, I maintain that the argument of my noble friend is perfectly sound.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ATKINSON moved an Amendment to Clause 12 relating to the power of bodies corporate to appropriate or grant land for housing purposes, with the view of preventing such appropriation in the case of land held "in trust for some charitable purpose or for some particular purpose specified or defined." He said there was hardly a municipality in Ireland which did not hold agricultural land, which they let to farmers and market gardeners. Nobody desired to prevent such land being devoted by the municipality to the erection of labourers' cottages. But in the case of land held in trust for some charitable purpose or for some particular purpose specified or defined, he was unable to see on what ground of justice or prudence the municipality should be permitted to appropriate that land for housing purposes. It would be unwise 1357 as well as unjust to take power to defeat the intentions of benefactors who gave property for specific public purposes, as the result of diverting such property to other uses would be that people would not make these benefactions.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words "for public or charitable purposes" and to insert the words "in trust for some charitable purpose, or for some particular public purpose specified or defined, as distinguished from the general purposes of a municipality or township or the general benefit or advantage of the inhabitants thereof."—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD DENMANsaid it would be within the recollection of their Lordships that, on the Report stage, the words "nothing in this Act" were substituted for the words "nothing in this section" The subsection now read—
(4) Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or common-able land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon, or he'd for public or charitable purposes.
§ That Amendment, in the opinion of the Government, made the whole clause so impossible that it would be a waste of time on his part to oppose any alteration in the clause as it stood, in whatever direction amendment might be proposed. He admitted, however, that the words which the noble and learned Lord now desired to insert were very much better, from their point of view, than the words in the Bill, and therefore he had no objection to their being inserted at this stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved a new clause enacting that the Act should not apply to any town having a population of less than 2,000. It would be remembered that at the last stage he moved a similar Amendment, but it was then pointed out by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that, as drafted, it would have a much narrower effect than was desired by its supporters; and it was in order to put right the mistake in drafting that he now moved this Amendment. He had since found that he was inaccurate in stating that the 1358 Amendment would exclude twenty-four towns from the operation of the Act. He made that statement from a rather hurried examination of the table published in a well-known directory. Six towns were already excluded from the operation of the Bill as they did not possess town commissioners, and therefore the number he should have given as the towns which would be excluded under his Amendment was eighteen. The main fact remained that if the Amendment was accepted the Bill would still apply to about one-third of the population of Ireland. A great many small towns in Ireland would not be called towns in England, and there were many whose acreage exceeded their population. The provisions of the Bill were not necessary in these small towns.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause: 'This Act shall not apply to any town the population of which at the last Census was less than two thousand.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD DENMANwas grieved to think that any argument he had used at an earlier stage of the Bill should have afforded fresh material for noble Lords opposite still further to mutilate the measure. Of all the harmful and destructive Amendments that had been moved and carried in this Bill, he regarded this as one of the worst. Not only would it exclude certain towns from the benefit of the Bill—that was serious enough from the point of view of the Government—but it went still further. The Bill repealed certain earlier housing Acts, and if the Amendment were adopted it would strike out a number of urban districts from the advantages of the Bill. Former housing Acts being repealed the Amendment would take away from those districts rights already conferred by Parliament. The names of the urban districts to which he referred were Belturbet, Carrickmacross, Castleblayney, Coothill, Granard, Keady, Newcastle (County Down), Portrush, Tanderagee, Trim and Warrenpoint. Surely it was rather a new departure for an individual Member of the House to move an Amendment on Third Reading which would take away from certain urban districts rights conferred by Parliament and which they had exercised in past years without, as he understood, any complaint whatever. 1359 He trusted that, after what he had said, the noble Lord would not think fit to press the Amendment.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he supposed the noble Lord had considered the observations he had made, but he would point out that the Amendment stated that this Bill should not apply to any town with a population of less than 2,000. There was no schedule of repeals, and, from a hasty examination of the Bill while the noble Lord was speaking he did not see how it could interfere with existing legislation.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI understand that the matter arises in this way, that these excluded districts could not administer the Housing Acts, because Clause 6 applies to all Orders of the Local Government Board made after the passing of this Act. Therefore, if one of these bodies were to apply to the Local Government Board for an Order it could only be obtained under Clause 6; and if the Act is not to apply to these districts Clause 6 would not apply to them, and they would, therefore, be unable to obtain an Order at all. That, I think, is the point which my noble friend desires to make.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord Denman.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.