§ Amendments reported (according to order).
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)I rise to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 3. This, as your Lordships will see, deals with the question of regulations respecting priority, and the same subject is dealt with later under certain Amendments proposed by my noble friend behind me, Lord MacDonnell, and sought to be amended by other noble Lords. We have taken the view that it is not reasonable or desirable to insert these proposed provisions in the Act of Parliament. There is, in fact, no precedent that I can recall for doing anything of the kind. When the Act of 1903 was in progress Mr. Wyndham made certain forecasts of the manner in which and the amount to which advances would, as he believed, be made by the Treasury. The sum of five millions, with which your Lordships are so familiar, was first mentioned by him in that connection, and Mr. Wyndham's forecast has in the main been fulfilled, although, as we know, it has been to a certain degree exceeded of 12 late. When it became a question of whether certain classes of transactions should have precedence of others, it was done by regulation, as your Lordships are aware, in more than one instance. I took occasion on the Second Reading of the Bill to state what the form would probably be, as we hoped, of the advances. There is this general objection, I think, to placing provisions of this kind in an Act of Parliament, that so far as their general lines are concerned you gain nothing over and above the assurance which you receive as in this case from the responsible Government, because, of course, it would be impossible for any Government to go back as regards the general lines of assurances thus given; whereas if for any reason you want to make some small or slight alteration in the regulations you have to come to Parliament and pass a fresh Act through both Houses before you can alter them in the minutest particular. It therefore needs some justification, which we have not yet heard, for the insertion of these provisions in an Act instead of proceeding by way of regulation. My second subsection provides that the regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and, of course, therefore they will be subject to the criticism of both. It is also important to remember that under the Statutes which regulate publication notice has to be given to the public of the intention to make the regulations forty days before, and the draft regulations are open to public inspection, which enables anybody who desires when the regulations are laid before Parliament to take any exception, to be in a position to do so after full preparation.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEThe Amendment does not say that.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEBut that is the law which governs all regulations. The Rules Publication Act, as the noble and learned Lord knows, compels them to be open to public inspection for forty days. As I say, that gives an opportunity before they are issued for anybody who considers himself aggrieved by them to study them with a view to causing criticism to be made, if he so desires, in Parliament.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEMy point is that there is no provision in this section that if either House of Parliament objects the regulations must be withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CREWENo; but they are open to the criticism of both Houses.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEInstructive but useless.
§ THE EARL OF CREWESurely not entirely useless, because I can conceive eases where the criticism might be so intelligent that it might lead to an alteration of the regulations. The safeguard, in fact, that is given is the safeguard of full publicity. I do not go further than that. We do not place them under Parliamentary control for reasons which noble Lords will understand. Therefore, although in the main I may say the proposals made by my noble friend behind me carry out the intentions of the Government and, speaking generally, embody what the regulations would be, we feel that it is not desirable to place them in an Act of Parliament; and unless noble Lords go so far as so say that they cannot trust us to put forward the regulations in the form which we indicate—unless they go so far as that I am not quite clear what arguments they will produce for placing these regulations in the Act instead of leaving them to be carried out in the way which we propose. It is quite clear, and I think it was generally admitted by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and others, that nobody would propose to ask the Treasury to bind itself to advance a given sum in any given year. That, I think, is a subject of general agreement. But we have always said that our intention is to raise this five millions in cash until the block is wiped out. We then propose to place a restriction as regards one million for the purpose of purchase by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, or, in the form which your Lordships have now placed this Bill, by the Congested Districts Board through the Estates Commissioners, supposing that to be the form in which the Bill ultimately becomes law. I need not repeat the proposed allocation of the rest of the cash because I have already stated it more than once, and it is repeated, I think, in my noble friend's Amendment. I defer anything further that I may have to say on this point until I have heard what noble Lords have to say on the point of the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill at all, rather than the method of proceeding by regulation.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
'4.—(1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant under subsection (8) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by moans of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned, and for allocating as between different classes of sales the total amounts from time to time available for advances.
(2) Every regulation made under that subsection shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ *LORD LANGFORD said that as he had had the privilege of bringing this matter before their Lordships in the Committee stage, he might be allowed to follow the noble Earl. The noble Earl had said, and said very justly, that under the provisions of the Act of 1903 certain regulations were made. But the position now was quite exceptional. They had never had a condition of things such as this Bill would bring about. The Act of 1903 was entirely an Act for cash payment, and he could understand that the regulations in connection with that payment were very simple. But that case had passed away; they were now going to deal with three sorts of payments to three sorts of people, and while the noble Earl's Amendment would suffice for cash payments, he maintained that in the present case it did not go far enough, and that the exceptional treatment they were going to receive under the Bill required that this point should be dealt with in a separate and entirely different manner. The Amendment which he had been allowed to bring forward in Committee was, he admitted, not quite as distinct as he would have liked it to have been, and he was glad he was allowed to withdraw it. He considered that the whole question bristled with difficulties, and that potent instructions must be given to the Estates Commissioners who were going to deal with these vast sums of money. He could not imagine a Lord Lieutenant being placed in a more disagreeable position than that of having to suggest new treatment and to issue new regulations. On the question of stock, which he hoped to discuss later, it was difficult to deal fairly with the respective parties because they must not lose sight of the fact that there were fifty-two millions of property lodged on the faith of being paid in cash. He did not blame His Majesty's Government in the least for that 15 but still it showed that different conditions were necessary to allocate with a proper balance of justice between the respective parties—those who wanted payment in cash, those who wanted payment in half stock and half cash, and those who wanted payment in stock—all of which required separate registers as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment, but would listen with favour to any remarks that might be made from that side of the House as to the amending of this clause.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that when the noble Lord, Lord Langford, brought forward his Amendment he ventured to make certain suggestions with a view of possibly improving it. He felt with the noble Lord that the subject was one upon which certain definite regulations were desirable. Although he (Lord MacDonnell) believed that the Estates Commissioners had always endeavoured to perform their duties impartially, yet in certain instances suspicions did prevail in reference to priority of dealing with applications, and consequently a feeling of dissatisfaction existed which was out of all proportion to the cause. It also appeared to him that in the proposals of the noble Lord there were certain admirable suggestions which had not been previously brought into practice, and which it would be to the good of everybody to reduce into the form of rules. In the rules which were on the Paper that night he had endeavoured to incorporate Lord Langford's ideas, and generally to produce a scheme which he thought would be found workable in practice; but he agreed with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that it would be better if the rules were elastic, and that they should, if possible, avoid stereotyping them in the form of an enactment which would require another Act of Parliament to alter. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House would consider the proposals he had made and could see his way to embody them in the rules which he proposed to lay on the Table of the House, he certainly would not feel disposed to impede or inconvenience His Majesty's Government in this matter. He supposed the matter would come up for discussion on Clause 14, and he would point out that when rules were laid on the Table of both Houses they became nugatory if either House objected 16 to them. It might thus come to pass that on a most important matter, a matter upon which the efficient discharge of the duties of the Estates Commissioners would depend, a conflict between both Houses might produce the most serious inconvenience. That was a matter of great importance to be considered in deciding upon the question whether it was better to proceed in this instance by means of rules embodied in the Act or by means of regulations. When they came to that particular clause he would avail himself of the opportunity to make some further remarks on the subject.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said that this was by no means a simple question, and one could discuss it without imputing the slightest vestige of bad faith to His Majesty's Government or suggesting for a moment their wish to do anything except what was perfectly fair. He felt fully the force of the argument that putting everything in black and white into a Statute that could not be changed was a serious matter and he appreciated the advantages in many ways of having regulations that might be varied according to the exigencies of practice and of experience; but he thought that the noble Earl the Leader of the House asked in this Amendment for too blind a trust. There was no suggeston from the beginning to the end of this very innocent looking clause that any regard was to be paid at all to priority. Absolute power was taken to the Executive in the matter. If they found that a certain number of estates had by energy been got in the list early and had made all their arrangements, regard had to be paid to that, but absolute power was given to the Executive to decide the priority. He knew that Lord MacDonnell had tried to work out fair results, but he was not sure that he was prepared, after having read his Amendments, to think they were the best that could be drafted. As he understood, Lord MacDonnell's suggestion was that first there should be a general register, in which regard should be paid in framing it to the priority of dates.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORDA sort of day book, in which every entry should be put down, and then carried to the registers, which are a sort of ledgers.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said that was what he understood. There was first a general register, which was to be framed according to the dates. That was the vulgar way of ascertaining priority. That was called the 17 general register. And then the noble Lord said there would be three subsidiary registers, and here it was that he (Lord Ashbourne) was to a certain extent unable to follow the argument. Once the entries were taken from the general register and put into the three subsidiary registers, as far as those entries were concerned the general register was bid goodbye to; it need not be looked to again. What were those three subsidiary registers? He did not clearly know. One was A and another was B, and then there was one that was supposed to contain those who were satisfied to be paid altogether by stock. Well, but how were they to secure the priorities, clashing priorities, priorities that were not agreed upon?
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said he had read it more than once, and he still asked how were they to be ascertained? The dates in the general register were clear enough, but each subsidiary register must have separate priorities for itself. How were they to recognise each of the three subsidiary registers so as to bring out the competing priorities in a way to give satisfaction?
§ LORD ASHBOURNE asked who was to decide when there were three subsidiary registers.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEYes, certainly.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that when the office was opened in the morning, the people—A, B, C, and D—would be there ready with their documents to deposit. A deposited his documents with the particulars, they were noted down in the register, and he said "I want to be paid in cash." B came on and deposited his documents and particulars and said the same thing, that he wanted to be paid in cash. C came and depositing his documents said, "I wish to be paid in stock." while D, after depositing his papers, said he wished to be paid partly in stock and partly in cash. And so on to the end of the day; as people came their names and the 18 facts of their applications were entered in this general register. They need not call it a register. They could call it a day list. At the end of the day clerks would be set to work and A, who had presented his papers first and claimed cash, was entered in the cash payments register first on the list. B, who came after him, and also wanted cash, was entered next on the list. C, who came after the other two, but wished to be paid in stock was entered first in the stock register; and D, who came last and wished to be paid partly in stock and partly in cash was entered in the cash and stock register. When it came to paying each, the payments were made from different funds. The man who wanted cash did not want stock. Consequently the priority in the stock register was of no consequence to him. He only looked to the priority in the cash register. In the same; way the man who wanted cash and stock did not care what happened to the other two. Consequently the priority, once they were entered in the register, was the priority in the register in which they were entered. There could be no mistake if that wore done.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said he was afraid there could be a mistake; not in the noble Lord's statement, but as to the hand that would enter in the register the particular figures. Would they be entitled to do anything to secure a priority outside of the fact of the position in the subsidiary registers? There were three or four methods to be considered. One, the voluntary method of sale between landlord and tenant. Then there was the method of buying voluntarily by the Estates Commissioners. Then there was the method of the Land Judge, who might sell under his jurisdiction; and finally there might be those who might be created under this Bill, the people who were compelled to sell by compulsory sales. What was the position of these four people among themselves? There was the compulsory sale. Was it intended if a compulsory sale was carried out that it should be paid for in cash?
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said he understood that cash was to be paid in compulsory sales.
19§ LORD ASHBOURNEThat is what I was suggesting, that the noble Lord's statement of registers is not exhaustive.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said that might be so, but the noble Lord's Amendment from beginning to end, though most carefully framed, did not indicate that there was to be any special or different regard paid to the source from which the entry came. He had indicated four. The landlord who sold voluntarily to his tenant was one. The Estates Commissioners buying voluntarily was another. The Estates Commissioners buying compulsorily was another. The Land Judge, proceeding by the mechanism of his Court, was another. There was nothing in the clause to show it, there was a confusion likely to arise amongst them, that any regard was to be had to the special priorities that might come up between them. The matter was not simple. He gave credit for good faith to everyone, but he was not satisfied that the noble Earl's clause would work out necessarily well, because it asked too blind a trust, and it did not give on the face of the clause any guidance to the Executive to work it out. He was disposed to think that the noble Lord's Amendment, which he presumed would not be taken at the same time as the clause of the noble Earl, would not of itself give guidance. He admitted that the noble Lord had framed it with an honest desire to do this, but although the noble Lord was, of course, quite capable of grasping, he had not grasped in a way that was clear to his (Lord Ashbourne's) mind the various difficulties that might arise amongst competing priorities. Though they might have an interesting discussion on this question now, he did not see how they could entirely escape from its renewal on the final stage of the Bill.
§ LORD ATKINSON thought the two objections were unanswerable. First of all, they could embody all these provisions in an Act of Parliament, but that would make them too rigid. He thought that was clear. He felt that on the other side his noble and learned friend's objection was equally well founded. The noble Earl the Leader of the House asked for absolute trust, and proposed another new clause by which, under subsection (8) of Section 23 of the Act of 1903, regulations might be laid before Parliament, and they might 20 be enforced. He did not think any satisfactory and workable method could be arrived at except in the form he was about to suggest. It was that the regulations should be put into a schedule, and then they would take powers under the Bill to modify the schedule from time to time with a provision that any order or variation made by the Lord Lieutenant modifying the schedule should lie upon the Table of each House of Parliament for forty days during the time Parliament was sitting, and if any resolution should be carried in either House against the variation, the modification should not be carried out. They would thus get a set of rules which would be fairly useful, but would not be so rigid, because they might be changed from time to time according as the necessity arose. That method was followed in the Local Government Act of 1898 to avoid making it unduly lengthy, and they provided that orders might be made adjusting the provisions of a number of Acts given in the schedule. The difference there was, of course, that there was a final adaptation, but here they might adapt from time to time as the occasion arose. A new point might arise at any time, but they could provide that the order modifying the rules should lie on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and if a resolution was carried against it, it should not be carried out. That would not bring the thing to a standstill, as Lord MacDonnell feared; it would enable them to proceed under the schedule and get a modification from time to time until something further could be done.
§ *THE EARL OF MAYO remarked that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had got one in, so to speak, before Lord MacDonnell had managed to get his guard up at all. Noble Lords from Ireland did not approve of the means proposed by the noble Earl for dealing with what his noble friend Lord Langford had described as quite a new state of affairs. The Lord Lieutenant, who was really the Chief Secretary, was to determine the priority of stock and cash payments and so on. That was an enormous responsibility to put upon anyone. He noticed that Lord MacDonnell said that if the noble Earl would embody in his rules and regulations Lord MacDonnell's suggestions that appeared further on in the list of Amendments, he would be, so to speak, satisfied. But that did not satisfy noble Lords 21 from Ireland in any way. They thought that that would be impossible for the noble Earl to do, and he was sure the noble Earl would feel so too. But a suggestion had been put forward by Lord Atkinson that there should be a schedule, and that that schedule should be subject to alteration from time to time by the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. That, he thought, was a very reasonable and commonsense view to take of the matter, and it might be the means of getting them out of this difficulty. He did not know how it commended itself to the noble Earl. The noble Earl had referred to trusting the Government. He trusted the noble Earl, but his trust in the Chief Secretary was much more modified than the trust he reposed in the noble Earl. It was much better to be quite frank about the matter, and those were their feelings. He hoped the noble Earl would consider the suggestion made by Lord Atkinson with regard to the schedule and the regulations.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON thought the noble Earl the Leader of the House would see that some modification of the clause was desirable. As the clause stood, although they had the fullest confidence in the intentions of the noble Earl, there was nothing to determine the priority in which the Lord Lieutenant might order advances to be made. On the other hand, the discussion which had taken place rather prematurely on Lord MacDonnell's Amendments showed that it was very difficult, at all events in the body of the Bill, to embody all the regulations which it might be desirable should be made. He suggested to the noble Earl that they should have some governing words to the clause which he was submitting, and that subsequently, if thought well, Lord Atkinson's proposal could be adopted. He therefore moved to add to the first subsection of Lord Crewe's Amendment the provision that "such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission." Those words were not absolutely binding, but they showed a clear intention which would enable Parliament at any subsequent stage to treat them as a basis of any arrangement which it might be necessary to make. He moved that these words be now inserted as governing words without in any way prejudicing the question raised by Lord Atkinson of including in the schedule 22 such regulations as might be found desirable in accordance with the Amendments submitted by Lord MacDonnell.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
To add at the end of the first subsection the words 'But such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ *LORD CLONBROCK said it appeared to him that even the noble Viscount's Amendment did not give quite the security they desired. The words were that "as far as was reasonably practicable" the order of priority should be preserved. It might be found that it was not convenient to preserve that priority. It might be thought expedient to give payments in stock priority over payments in cash, and if the Treasury found that this was the most convenient course, it might be then said that it was not reasonably practicable to preserve the original priority.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEOn the suggestion of the noble Viscount I have to say this. It does not seem to me that his Amendment carries out the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the various priorities. His Amendment makes no allusion whatever to the fact that we propose to divide the whole number of pending agreements into classes, to be dealt with pari passu, and all retaining their general priority on the list only so far as that priority can be applied to the class to which they themselves belong. That is to say, suppose that the first three or four millions of transactions were put forward by people who were first in time but who refused to take anything except cash, and a vendor came forward who was prepared to take only stock. On our system he would come in at the top of his class, and be considered pari passu with number one of those who were prepared to take cash, and similarly with regard to those who were prepared to take stock and cash together. Our object is to maintain priority in point of time so far as we can consistently with the division into three classes. If you do not do this, it is evident that you give no advantage in point of time to those who are prepared to take stock, and, as we know, it is not quite so pleasant to take stock 23 as it is to take cash. If you do not give priority nobody will take stock at all, and you may as well leave the provision out of your financial clauses. Assume that a gentlemen called A is at the top of the cash class. Another gentleman called B is at the top of the stock class, and C is at the top of the mixed class. Those cases will all be taken pari passu at the same time as far as possible. D is a cash gentleman. He will come second, but where he will gain or may gain is that B and C being before him on the list would have had to be considered in any case on a system of pure priority before him, whereas now he will be promoted in point of time from the fourth place to the second, and so on all through. Now the Amendment of the noble Viscount seems to me to leave this fact altogether out of account, and merely to draw attention to the fact that general priority in time without any reference to class or the character of the transaction is alone to be respected. Apart from those three we have the case of the sales to the Estates Commissioners and those of a compulsory character. Those must stand in a different class, because they are ex hypothesi of a somewhat urgent character in the public interest, and although we do not want to mass them in front of the other transactions, yet they must be treated as a class apart, and have their places in point of priority in that particular class. You have therefore the four sets, all of them proceeding pari passu, and indeed we hope to include, as time goes on, a certain number even of a fifth class—that is, those who come in future agreements, because those are payable in stock. The whole question, as your Lordships well know, is governed by the fact that we have only so far as we can tell these five millions of actual money, and we think that if with five millions we ought to try to effect ten millions of transactions, this offers the best chance of doing it. Now as regards the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson), which I fully recognise is intended to be of a thoroughly helpful character, I am afraid we see strong objection to that course. We do not think it is a desirable thing that whenever an amendment is made at any future time in such regulations, although it may not be of a very serious character, that there should be prospects of a debate about it, not always on its actual merits, but possibly for some other reason, in either or in both Houses of Parliament. 24 We see no immediate prospect of altering the general principle on which these priorities are to be governed, and we must adhere to the view that it is not really necessary in the interests of anybody to attempt to describe them in detail either in the body of the Bill or in the schedule. I heard with regret what fell from the Earl of Mayo as to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. I am bound to say that I desire no personal compliments at the expense of my right hon. friend, and I venture to say that when I make a statement, or any Minister makes a statement, on behalf of the Government, I expect it to be accepted on behalf of the Government without any reference to cither my personal qualities or those of any other Minister. I regret, therefore, that the noble Earl should have made that allusion in the manner in which he did. I fear, however, that we must stand out for the clause as it appears on the Paper, and must, if necessary, divide upon it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI will only ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he thinks he has sufficiently considered that the form of words proposed by the noble Viscount really does admit of a certain amount of elasticity in the interpretation of these regulations. I quite understand the point made by the noble Earl a few moments ago, that these applications fall within four different categories, and that there may be a tendency for applications to gravitate towards one category or another, and that an application which is, say, seventh in point of time on the general list may turn out to be number one in a less popular category. That, I think, is the noble Earl's point; but is not that covered by the noble Viscount's suggestion that the "allocation shall so far as is reasonably practicable preserve the priority" in which the agreements are lodged with the Land Commission? I think that was the object with which my noble friend drew his words, and if the noble Earl would add additional words making it clear that this priority was to be looked for, having regard to the distribution of the applications as between the different classes of applications, I have no doubt that the noble Viscount would be glad to consider a proposal to amend his Amendment. But I am afraid on this side of the House we do feel that it is necessary to insert in this Amendment some words indicating generally that 25 the principle of priority must be kept in mind by those who will interpret this Bill.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEOf course, I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House because I have already spoken on the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I do not quite follow what is in the mind of the noble Viscount or the noble Marquess, and I fail to see what it is exactly they are afraid of. Are they afraid that the Estates Commissioners will deliberately postpone pending applications in favour of number 9 or number 10 or number 20 upon the list, other things being equal? Or is the object of the noble Viscount that the indirect sales—that is to say, the sales through the Estates Commissioners—should have no advantage over the ordinary direct sales? It was not quite clearly explained by the noble Viscount. I do not know that there ever has been any imputation against the Estates Commissioners that they have, so to speak, darted about from date to date, and given some vendor an undue preference over a man who lodged an agreement before him. I was under the impression that, subject to the fact that the sales of the Estates Commissioners were for the reason I have given held to have a certain claim to have a priority of their own, as regards the ordinary transactions of the office the priority had always been maintained, and I have never heard any imputation to the contrary. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON said that the case seemed to him to be perfectly clear. He confessed that what he apprehended was this, that the Treasury might find it
26§ very difficult to appropriate more than a moderate amount of cash, and that the Estates Commissioners, following a precedent of which they had heard a great deal in that debate, would send broadcast to those who had agreements to sell a circular asking them, "Will you take cash or stock?" A certain number might say they were ready to take stock, and in that event those estates, being apparently available at the beginning of the financial year, might be put in the forefront, and without regard to priority those estates might be taken. The Commissioners would then say, "we are full of applications in respect of vendors who will take stock, and we require a very small amount of cash." That would be a very hard measure on those landlords who could not afford to take anything but cash. There was a, second difficulty. The noble Earl knew that those who were compelled to sell were to be paid in cash and not stock, and there might be a considerable number of those on whom compulsion was brought to bear in the course of a single year.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEIf the noble Earl will look at subsection (7) of Lord MacDonnell's proposed new clauses, he will find the words of my noble friend.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think you will find a great many more also.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed by Viscount Midleton be added to the proposed new clause?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-contents, 30.
27| CONTENTS. | ||
| Devonshire, D. | Halsbury, E. | Goschen, V. |
| Rutland, D. | Huntingdon, E. | Hill, V. |
| Somerset, D. | Lichfield, E. | Hood, V. |
| Sutherland, D. | Lucan, E. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) |
| Wellington, D. | Malmesbury, E. | Iveagh, V. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | ||
| Ailesbury, M. | Mayo, E. | Abinger, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Plymouth, E. | Addington, L. |
| Salisbury, M. | Rosslyn, E. | Ardilaun, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Ashbourne, L. | |
| Cadogan, E. | Shaftesbury, E. | Ashtown, L. |
| Carnwath, E. | Stamford, E. | Atkinson, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Bagot, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Wharncliffe, E. | Barnard, L. |
| Cowley, E. | Wicklow, E. | Barrymore, L. |
| Cromer, E. | Bateman, L. | |
| Dartmouth, E. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Belper, L. |
| Devon, E. | Falkland, V. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) |
| Essex, E. | Falmouth, V. | Castletown, L. |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Forester, L. | Northcote, L. |
| Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) | Grenfell, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) | Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.) |
| Clonbrock, L. | Harlech, L. | |
| Cloncurry, L | Hindlip, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Colchester, L. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) | Sanderson, L. |
| Collins, L. | Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Cottesloe, L. | Kenyon, L. | Sinclair, E. |
| De Freyne, L. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| De Mauley, L. | Knaresborough, E. | Stanmore, L. |
| Desborough, L. | Langford, L. | Stewart of Garlies, E.(E. Galloway.) |
| Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | Lawrence, L. | |
| Digby, L. | Leith of Fyvie, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Dunboyne, L. | Massy, L. | Ventry, L. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) | Waleran, L. |
| Faber, L. | Monk Bretton, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Farnham, L | Monteagle of Brandon, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Airedale, L. | Lucas, E. |
| Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Armitstead, L. | Marchamley, L. |
| Boston, L. | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Courtney of Penwith, L. | Pirrie, L. | |
| Carrington, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | Ribblesdale, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. | Eversley, L. | St. Davids, L. |
| Chichester, E. | Glantawe, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.] | Swaythling, L. | |
| Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Haversham, L. | Weardale, L. |
| Morley of Blackburn, V. | Lochee, L. | Welby, E. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved a new clause providing that where a vendor under future purchase agreements received payment in stock instead of cash, superior interests payable out of the purchase money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works, or any public Department should be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock had been received by the vendor. The same question was raised in the Committee stage, and he thought the noble Earl, in his reply, devoted nearly the whole of his attention to pending agreements. The noble Earl said, in effect, that if any vendor who had a pending agreement chose to wait till the Greek Kalends he might hope to be paid in cash, and therefore it was rather unfair to ask a Government Department to receive stock when he could get cash and pay them in cash. That was with regard to pending agreements; but with regard to future agreements they must be paid in stock. The vendor had no option in the matter. He suffered most. The noble Earl had explained that the bonus averaged four and a-half per cent. less than that obtainable under the Act of 28 1903, and in addition to that there was the depreciated stock. The noble Earl had told them that it did not matter so much that the stock was depreciated, because it was such an excellent investment that people would keep it and would not realise it; but, unfortunately, they would have to realise it if the Government Departments insisted upon being paid in cash. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and he thought his was a most reasonable suggestion. The noble Earl had said he might be inclined to consider this in the case of future agreements, and he hoped the noble Earl would tell them that this very reasonable proposition might be accepted.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
'4. Where a vendor, under future purchase agreements receives payment in stock instead of in cash, all charges, duties, incumbrances, and redemption prices of quit-rents, tithe rent-charge, or other superior interests payable out of the purchase-money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works or any Public Department, shall be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock was received by the vendor, and it shall be lawful for the Land Judge, and the Judges of the Chancery Division, and for any trustees, in respect of any sums payable out of the purchase-money into
29
Court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Lord has stated his case with moderation, but I am afraid I cannot on behalf of the Government hold out any hope of accepting this provision. We do not feel it is possible, supposing any loss to take place, that we should place such a loss on departments who are in no sense parties to the purchase, and who therefore are rather in the position of an ordinary encumbrancer. For instance, supposing that a loss arises over a Board of Works Loan. The loss then falls on the local funds, and that means that it has to be met by other borrowers, which I suppose the noble Lord would not contemplate, or the deficiency would have to be made up by a vote. Therefore we do not feel able to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion. I admit, of course, that he has modified it considerably by making it refer to future agreements, but I hope the noble Lord will be disposed not to press it, even in its modified form.
§ *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE desired to point out, as his noble friend had pointed out in Committee, that the case was a far larger one than the noble. Earl seemed to imagine. The loans referred to by the noble Earl were a very small percentage of the cases that would come under this clause if it passed. This clause dealt with the repayment of interests, many of them centuries old, interests dating from the time when the land was originally acquired from the Crown; and landlords were going to be put in this position, that in every future sale, in order to redeem the superior interests, which must be redeemed—it was not possible for a landlord to say he was ready to go on paying the annual amount, he must redeem them—the landlord would have to sell stock obviously at a very much lower price than he received it from the Government. He confessed he could see only one way out of it. These superior interests were redeemed at a price fixed, not fixed by the Government, but fixed in accordance with the procedure under the Act of 1903. As a rule, he thought these superior interests had been redeemed in the past at the price of twenty-seven years purchase. Those who had to redeem these superior interests in the future would go to the arbitrator and ask for the price to be refixed, and one of the things on which they 30 would base that request, he assumed, would be the fact that they had to incur a very large loss, and he thought that, fact might be: considered by the arbitrator and that the price of redemption might consequently be reduced. It was, therefore, possible that the Government might yet suffer the loss which at present they thought they were avoiding and putting entirely on the shoulders of the landlord. That was the only hope he had in face of the refusal of the noble Earl.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON said he did not know whether his noble friend intended to divide the House on his Amendment, but he would point out to the noble Earl the Leader of the House what he thought had not yet occurred to him, and that was that at this moment the Government had no power to accept stock instead of cash. A case might arise in which the one thing which the Government might wish to avoid would be the depreciation of their own stock, and they would desire to avoid a large quantity of stock being thrown on the market. The obvious justice of his noble friend's proposal must commend itself to all; and he suggested that it might be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, with the alteration of "shall" to "may" in the provision that "superior interests…shall be received and paid in stock." It was obvious, if it was not in the power of the Government to accept stock, that cases might arise in which they would be actually prohibited from paying out stock by the large amount put on the market by the vendors being forced to sell.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Viscount's suggestion would come in after the word "Department"?
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONYes.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIf I may be allowed, I will consider before the Third Reading whether the Amendment could be accepted in that form. I am afraid it cannot be accepted in its present form.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (1) of Clause 6—
6.—(1) The charge on the Guarantee Fund for any deficiency in respect of the issue of stock or bills or bonds at a discount shall extend only to the amount of the Ireland Development Grant
31
which forms part of the cash portion of that fund; and the deficiency, so far as is not made good out of that amount, shall be made good out of moneys provided by Parliament,
to insert, after the words "cash portion of that fund," the words "and is available in excess of the sum of five thousand pounds and twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Congested Districts Board respectively." He said that the Amendment as it appeared on the Notice Paper was incorrect, as he intended it only to apply to the Congested Districts Board. It would now read, "and is available in excess of the sum of twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of the Congested Districts Board." He had put this Amendment upon the Paper with the object of getting some assurance from His Majesty's Government that it was not their intention to give to the Congested Districts Board with one hand and to take away with the other. At the present time the Congested Districts Board received two sums of £20,000 and £25,000. The sum of £20,000 was charged on the Development Grant, and the £25,000 was a Parliamentary Grant made to the Congested Districts Board in 1899. Both his Amendment in Clause 6 and the subsequent Amendment in Clause 40 were devised with the object of making sure that these two sums of £20,000 and £25,000 should be preserved to the Congested Districts Board. If he received that assurance from His Majesty's Government he would be satisfied and would withdraw his Amendment, but if he did not receive that assurance he would be compelled to divide the House upon it. As the Bill now stood, the Treasury took over the loss by flotation on all pending agreements, and they said that so far as the Development Grant lasted, the interest and sinking fund on those losses should be charged against the Development Grant. The £20,000 was charged against the Development Grant by executive order, and there was nothing to prevent the Government from ordering to-morrow that this £20,000 should be no longer paid to the Congested Districts Board. He did not think it was the intention of the other House, and certainly he did not think it was the wish of the Irish people, that any money which the Congested Districts Board now enjoyed should be taken from it. The operations of the Board had been greatly restricted by lack of funds. They looked forward to an increase of funds and not to a process of
32
giving with one hand and taking away with the other in so far as these two sums of £20,000 and £25,000 were concerned. In the absence of any assurance from His Majesty's Government he begged to move.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 4, line 37, after the word 'fund' to insert the words ' and is available in excess of the sum of twenty thousand pounds now charged on that fund for the benefit of the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think I can reassure the noble Lord, and, what is more important, I think I shall be confirmed in that assurance by noble Lords opposite. The point, of course, is whether these sums of £20,000 and £25,000, which under Section 38 of the Act of 1903 are payable to the Congested Districts Board, form part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. They are part, of course, of the Development Grant, but we understand that they do not form a portion of the Guarantee Fund, and I think I am right in saying—I shall be contradicted from the opposite side if I am wrong—that this particular question was submitted to the legal advisers of noble Lords opposite both in Ireland and in England and it was agreed, and this is the opinion which we also hold, that these two sums do not form part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORDThen I may take it that His Majesty's Government give the assurance for which I ask?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEYes, we do.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD DUNBOYNE had two Amendments to Clause 11 (Substituted agreements). His Amendments were, he said, similar to those which he moved in Committee. The object was to enlarge the effect of Clause 11, which at present was confined to three classes of substituted agreements. Other agreements would naturally occur to their Lordships which might be included. He need not enumerate them, but he was encouraged to put the Amendments down in consequence of the reply he received from the noble Earl the 33 Leader of the House, and he hoped the reasonableness of his Amendments would commend them to the noble Earl.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 25, to leave out from 'Where' to 'holding' in line 29."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am afraid we cannot agree to the first Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, although we do not take the same exception to the alternative which he suggests in his next Amendment. We feel that to leave out all the words from line twenty-five to line twenty-nine, down to the word "holding," would open the door too wide—that is to say, that whenever a fresh purchase agreement is entered into in substitution, it would open the door, if not to fraud, at any rate to certain evasions, and to the substitution of agreements for the mere purpose of receiving the old terms. But if the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his first Amendment, we should not raise the same objection to the insertion of the words "or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission or of the Estates Commissioners."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 29, after 'holding' to insert or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission or of the Estates Commissioners.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
§ LORD DUNBOYNE had two Amendments to Clause 12. He said his object was to add the Land Judge to the clause. As the clause now read the expression "pending purchase agreements" meant the agreements lodged with the Land Commission. He proposed to add the words "or the the Land Judge." Paragraphs (a) and (b) as he proposed to amend them would read—
- "(a) The expression 'pending purchase agreements' means agreements lodged with the Land I Commission or the Land Judge on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;
- (b) The expression ' future purchase agreements' means agreements lodged with the Land Commission
34 or entered into by or with the Land Commission or the Land Judge or the Congested Districts Board after that date."
§
Amendments moved—
In page 7, line 19, after 'Commission' to insert 'or the Land Judge'; and in line 23, after 'by' to insert 'or with' and after 'Commission' to insert 'or the Laud Judge.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not quite follow the point raised by the noble Lord opposite, and I dare say he will not object to giving some further explanation. So far as the Land Judge can be said to enter into purchase agreements, those agreements would all be lodged with the Land Commission.
LORD DUNBOYNEThere are agreements which are made in the Land Judge's Court which are not lodged with the Land Commission at the time. They are lodged in the first place in the Land Court. The Land Judge sells certain estates, and these agreements are lodged in his Court and not in that of the Land Commission.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWell, I am not so cognisant of the proceedings as the noble Lord. I was under the impression that in every case agreements entered into by the Land Judge or with the Land Judge were lodged with the Estates Commissioners, but, of course, if the noble Lord says it is not so, I must ask leave to look into the point.
§ LORD ATKINSON said this was a technical point. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners might proceed and buy estates pending sale before the Land Judge's Court. If that agreement was carried out, well and good. If it was not carried out, and they withdrew, then the parties were driven back to Section 40 of the Act of 1896. That section and the other earlier Acts required that when an estate was for sale in the Land Judge's Court the Judge should divide it into lots for the purpose of selling it to the tenants. There was a long procedure. The Judge made an offer to the tenant, and if the tenant accepted, that acceptance and the offer was an agreement for sale under the Land Purchase Acts, and it was to those agreements to which his noble friend referred. "To lodge" was not exactly the term to use as far as the Land Judge's Court was concerned; the agreements were created there, because the procedure was 35 that the Land Judge made an offer to the tenant, and if the tenant accepted the offer, then the Act said they should be deemed to be created an agreement for the sale of the land to the tenant, and all the provisions of the Land Act were to apply as if an agreement had been entered into for the sale and the purchase. It was necessary, although there were not many cases, to include those in the words "pending purchase agreements" or else it might happen that agreements which had been entered into there by means of that machinery would not come within the words "pending purchase agreements" within the meaning of the Act.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEPerhaps the noble Lord would bring up the Amendment again on the Third Reading in the amended form as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, and we can then discuss the matter again.
§ *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE did not think that was necessary, as the words "entered into" were already in the clause, and would meet what the noble Earl desired. Surely it was more convenient to insert these words now with a view to the Government moving them out afterwards if they so desired.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWell, I have no objection to that.
§
LORD ATKINSON moved a new clause after Clause 13. He said this clause was originally on the Paper in the form of an Amendment to Clause 14. He had put it on the Paper now owing to his anxiety to remove what he thought was the only blot that had ever been established on the zone system. In proposing this he did not think he came against the rule about infringing the privileges of the House of Commons. In Section 24, subsection (8), of the Act of 1903 it was clear by implication that the purchase money might contain one year's rent. The section read—
In the case of the sale of an estate where at any date hereinafter mentioned arrears of rent were due in respect of any holding on an estate a sum equivalent in amount to those arrears but not exceeding in any case one year's rent shall be paid out of the purchase money to the person who would have been entitled to receive those arrears.
36
In other words, where the tenant for life was the owner of a limited interest and sold the estate for a certain sum, the arrears belonged to him. He was entitled to receive out of the purchase money a sum equivalent to one year's rent on the foot of those arrears. That section must have been passed upon the assumption that a sum equivalent to one year's rent was included. In other words, the purchase money was increased by that amount in respect of the arrears so due, because the person who was entitled to receive it was not merely the owner but the tenant for life, and the arrears belonged to him, and by reason of that fact one year's Tent of the purchase money would be paid in respect of the arrears. It would be unjust to follow that course unless the purchase money had been increased by that sum. Accordingly his Amendment was putting in expressly what the section implied—namely, enacting that where the Commissioners were satisfied that the purchase money included a sum more than one year's rent in respect of the arrears, they might refuse to sanction the advance unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consented to the purchase money being reduced. If they consented, they could proceed as if the agreement had been entered into for the reduced sum, and all further agreements could be made on that basis. It was necessary to have this in order that parties might not lose the priority. If land was sold with five or six years of arrears due and three or four years purchase money was added in respect of those arrears, and money was advanced by the Government, it was advanced not to purchase the land but to pay the debts of the tenant. He thought that was not a legitimate use of the zone system. One year's arrears was adopted under the 1903 Act, and he therefore proposed to do expressly what had been done impliedly, and to guard against the only abuse which had ever been shown in connection with the operation of the zone system.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, to insert the following new-clause:
'14. Where, after the passing of this Act, application is made under subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commission are satisfied that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof, in respect of arrears of rent due thereout, they may refuse to sanction the advance,
37
unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consent that the purchase money shall be reduced by the amount of such excess over one year's rent. On such consent being given the said agreement shall be varied accordingly, and the application dealt with under the aforesaid subsection in its proper order as if the reduced sum had been the whole of the purchase money, and the application had been originally made in respect of that sum. The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI quite appreciate the desire of the noble and learned Lord to meet the case dealt with in his Amendment—a case which is, I think, by common consent one of impropriety as regards the use of the zones. In that way a number of years arrears are made to form part of the purchase money. We take a certain degree of exception to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment partly on the ground that we do not think it covers all the necessary cases. It does not, for instance, meet the case of tenants who are several years in an ear and who are put by their landlord in the position of either having to buy on certain terms, or to remain as they are, and who are for the purpose of the purchase not free agents. Real freedom of contract cannot exist in a case of that kind, where the tenant is weighed down by a number of years arrears. That is an instance where we think the noble Lord's proposed clause is incomplete. But there is also a further difficulty as regards how the machinery is to be brought about. How are the Land Commission to be satisfied that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof? What means have they got of knowing that this is done? All that comes before the Land Commission is an application to advance a certain sum of money for the purchase of the particular holding; they have no power to inquire how the purchase money has been made up; they have no means of knowing whether it includes arrears of rent or not. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but I am given to understand that that is so, and it seems to me to stand to reason that it must be so. As we first drew the Bill we had a subsection which gave the Commissioners power to inquire in any case where they thought the circumstances demanded it, but the noble and learned Lord gives no such power, and in the absence of any such provision I maintain the opinion that the Estates Commissioners have no means of discovering 38 the circumstance to which the noble Lord wishes their attention to be drawn. I am not quite certain about the drafting of the last two lines. I should have thought that to say, "The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner," would almost appear to place upon him an obligation to concur, and it seems to me as if the noble Lord's sentence was in that respect incomplete. But apart from that, we do object to bring in the Judicial Commissioner for administrative functions of this kind. He has always been kept clear of matters of this sort; he has always been a Judge and a Judge only, and we do not like dragging him in for purposes which involve administrative discussion. For that reason, my Lords, we should in any case like to see that left out.
§ LORD ATKINSON said that the noble Earl was entirely in error in saying that the Commissioners could not inquire into the circumstances. In the case of Weir's Estate, they sought to inquire into the amount of the arrears for the purpose of determining whether the security was good, and the order made by the Court was that they were not entitled to get that information because they had no right to inquire into the security, and they would not allow them to ask for information upon a subject as to which they had no jurisdiction. If the noble Earl, however, were to read the orders, he would clearly see that there was a distinct decision by the Court of Appeal in Ireland that the Commissioners had a right to inquire in reference to any matter over which they had jurisdiction, and therefore when he gave the Commission jurisdiction to reject the proposal if more than one year's arrears of rent had been added to the purchase money, that necessarily involved, according to the decision, that they had power to make inquiry about that over which they had jurisdiction to decide.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON only desired to say one word to make it clear that they were unable to support the Amendment of his noble and learned friend, not from any want of sympathy with the principle he laid down but because they had very great doubt of the application of the proposed new clause. He did not suppose that any one on that side of the House wished a large amount of arrears to be added to the purchase money, but what the noble and 39 earned Lord did not allow sufficiently for was that in many eases what was added on as arrears was deducted from the natural number of years purchase which might have been and should have been asked for the holding. It was perfectly well known that Irish tenants who had got three or four years arrears of rent were glad to feel that those could be wiped out in some way by purchase, and it might suit the landlord to name eighteen years' purchase when he otherwise would have named twenty or twenty-one, allowing it to be understood that the arrears were added on in such cases to the price. The first objection to the noble and learned Lord's new clause was that there was absolutely no finality. The Land Commission might feel bound to inquire into many cases where holdings were sold below a particular level; they might find tenants with no arrears and others with arrears, and be plunged into a sea of difficulty. The main security for the taxpayer was to be found in the number of years purchase giving a large reduction to the tenant purchaser in what he was in future going to pay, and so long as that large reduction existed he did not think the method by which the calculation was arrived at between the parties was quite so material as his noble and learned friend seemed to think, and he was sure that the clause would have very little chance of settling the question. He hoped, therefore, that his noble and learned friend would not think it necessary to divide their Lordships.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD, in moving to insert at the beginning of Part II. the new Clause 14, of which he had given notice, embodying provisions as to priority with respect to advances, said he thought the new state of things which would be called into being by the establishment of three systems of payment—payment in cash, payment partly in cash and partly in stock, and payment in stock—would render it totally impracticable to have only one list of priority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, stated that there were several methods of selling land under the Land Purchase Acts. There were sales through the Land Court, sales by owners to the Estates Commissioners, and direct sales from landlord to tenant in accordance with purchase agreements. The last category of sales were the only sales 40 covered by his Amendment. The first words of his proposed new clause were, "As regards advances under the Land Purchase Acts whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements." There were some £50,000,000 worth of agreements already deposited with the Estates Commissioners, and the land to be sold in Ireland on future agreements was variously estimated at from £70,000,000 to £90,000,000, and those two categories—the £50,000,000 agreements deposited and the £70,000,000 to £90,000,000 agreements to be deposited—were the only agreements to be covered by his proposals. The future purchases were to be in stock altogether. Therefore their entry on one register would necessarily determine their priority, and the priority with regard to agreements for which stock was to be paid could have no effect upon priority with regard to agreements for which cash or cash and stock were to be paid.
§ The idea he had endeavoured to embody in his proposal was that there should be a general register, a sort of day book which would show hour by hour what the transactions were. Solicitors came into the Estates Commissioner's Office with the agreements which they had to deposit, they presented a memorandum showing the name of the landlords and certain particulars which would be prescribed, and they would be entered on the lists in the order of priority, first come, first served. At a later period the register would be gone over and all those who asked for payment in cash would have their names carried to a particular register—Register A—in the priority in which they stood in the general register, and there would be no necessity in future to refer to the general register so far as they were concerned. Then they had to deal with vendors who desired to be paid partly in cash and partly in stock. They would be dealt with in the same way, and carried to the second register, B, according to their priority in the general register. Then came the third class—stock; the names would be carried to the stock register, C, according to their priority. That was the general rule which now prevailed, that a person got priority in the order in which he was entered upon the general register.
§ But, as was pointed out the other evening, it might well be that when a 41 vendor's name was entered in the register he had afterwards to perform certain legal obligations before the Estates Commissioners could take notice of his claim. Those obligations were fulfilled by his solicitor, and some solicitors were more active in looking after their clients' interests than others. Consequently it might happen, and it frequently had happened, that a vendor whoso name had been entered say in the month of January was still in arrear with the performance of those legal obligations at the end of the year, while another vendor whose name had been entered in February had completed all his legal obligations perhaps by October. The question then was whether all these vendors who had fulfilled the obligations resting upon them at an earlier date than persons whose names were entered before them on the list, should wait until all those persons who had priority on the list had performed their legal obligations. It might happen in that way that they would have a great block of work. To take a large estate of say £20,000 a year, it might require a year to perform all the necessary legal business in regard to that estate, while smaller estates, the vendors of which had entered their names after the owner of the large estate, had performed their duties very quickly and asked the Estates Commissioners to dispose of their business. If the Estates Commissioners were under a legal obligation to postpone dealing with the small estates until the large estate had completed all its legal obligations, there would be a block in the Estates Commissioners' office and there would be general dissatisfaction. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Langford, brought to notice, and it seemed to him that he made a most valuable suggestion—namely, that the Estates Commissioners should not take up an estate in the order of priority of presentation of the documents merely, but that the order of priority in which the legal functions were performed should also be taken into account. He had endeavoured to incorporate that suggestion in his proposal.
§ There was another point. Where the Estates Commissioners had taken up a case in respect of which all the preliminary legal proceedings had been fulfilled, they deputed an inspector to visit the place and see whether the property was security for the advance, or, if it was within the zones, whether the tenant was in occupation. 42 A large staff of inspectors would be required, and it might very well happen that one inspector was able to perform his duties quickly and expeditiously, the work being easy, while another inspector was later in submitting his report. It might also be the case that there was heavier work on an estate which had priority on the list. Were; the Estates Commissoners to postpone dealing with such a case as he had mentioned until the heavier-weighted inspector had made his report, or were they to take up the business as it came into their office and dispose of it? Unless power and discretion were given to the Estates Commissioners to deal with cases as they came in, having no regard to priority on the registers, there would be a great block of work and dissatisfaction and demands for larger establishments. There had been suspicion, although in most cases there was no ground for it, that matters were not disposed of in the exact priority in which cases were deposited, and he thought it well that any suspicions of such a kind in the performance of public duties should be obviated and precautions taken to prevent their recurrence. In such a scheme as he had placed on the Paper he thought they went as far as they reasonably could go in securing that there should be a regular uniform practice and as little should be left to the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of particular officers as possible. He, however, felt himself very unwilling to push his own views as against the superior wisdom of His Majesty's Government in such a matter and if he were assured by the noble Earl who led the Government that in considering any rules which the Government might find necessary they would bear in mind the suggestions he had made, he would be glad, if it would facilitate the proceedings of their Lordships' House, to withdraw his Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
At the beginning of Part II, to insert the following new clauses:
§ '14.—(1) As regards advances under the Land Pure are Acts whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements, or in respect of sales to the Land Commission the following provisions shall have effect—
§ (2) A general register shall be kept by the Land Commission of all proposed sales of estates under the Land Purchase Acts, whether directly to the tenants, or to the Land Commission, or otherwise.
§ (3) Every proposed sale shall be entered in the general register in the order of time at which the purchase agreements were lodged, or the request 43 under section six of the Act of 1903 was deposited, or the particulars and documents required under section seven of the same Act were supplied.
§ (4) Subsidiary to such general register there shall be three registers, the first of which shall be designated Register A, and shall exhibit the names with the necessary particulars of information in respect of vendors desiring to be paid wholly in cash; the second of which, to be designated Register B, shall exhibit similar details in respect of vendors desirous of being paid partly in cash and partly in stock; and the third of which, to be designated Register C, shall give similar details in respect of vendors desirous of being paid wholly in stock.
§ (5) In each subsidiary register the entries shall be made in the order of priority in which the original entries stand in the general register, and thereafter the priority of the general register shall cease and the priority of each estate shall be that of the particular subsidiary register to which the entry has been carried.
§ (6) The priority in each subsidiary register shall be determined in the following manner—
- (a) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under sections one to five inclusive, of the Act of 1903, the order shall be determined by the date at which the agreements for purchase were lodged, and the: other duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers were discharged:
- (b) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section six of the Act of 1903, the order of priority in the register shall be determined by the date at which the originating request was lodged, and the duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers have been discharged:
- (c) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section seven of the Act of 1903, the order of priority on the register shall be determined by the date at which the particulars and documents required by the said section have been furnished by the Land Judge.
§ (7) The Estates Commissioners shall, so far as practicable, sanction and make advances in respect of estates in the order of priority as determined in the last preceding subsection.
§ (8) At the beginning of every financial year the Treasury shall inform the Land Commission of the amount of cash intended to be provided during that year, and shall apportion that amount between advances to be made for the purchase of estates for the Congested Districts Board, and advances to be made; in respect of estates entered in the Subsidiary Register A, that is to say, of estates to be paid for in cash; and advances to be made in respect of estates entered in the Subsidiary Register B, that is to say, of estates to be paid for partly in cash and partly in stock.
§ Provided that if all the money allocated in any year for the payment of advances in respect of estates entered in the Register B, that is in the register of partly cash and partly stock transactions is not required in that year, the surplus over the sum required for such estates may be transferred and made available for payment of advances made entirely in cash.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think we shall all agree that although my noble friend's Amendment as it stands on the Paper is not compatible with the decision which your Lordships reached at an 44 earlier stage, yet it is an advantage that he should have stated his views besides giving us the reasons which might induce him to withdraw his Amendment. As I have said before, we concur generally with the proposition laid down by my noble friend, but there are certain omissions in the clause as he proposes it which in our opinion would have to be dealt with by regulations. My noble friend explicitly stated, although I do not quite follow his reason for doing so, that he made no provision with regard either to the sales of untenanted land or with regard to sales of particular holdings which are not declared to be estates, and then in his provisions, as I see them here, nothing is said which covers future agreements of any kind, and nothing is said with regard to pending sales of land to the Congested Districts Board. My noble friend by his subsection (8) allows for some apportionment of advances to the Congested Districts Board, but one assumes that that only applies to future sales and not to pending sales.
§ LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD called the noble Earl's attention to the wording of subsection (1).
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI see my noble friend means to cover everything by the words "whether in pursuance of pending or future purchase agreements, or in respect of sales to the Land Commission." But my point was that although he laid down these rules for the various registers, his detailed provisions said nothing about the sales to the Land Commission. Now it is, as I said, unquestionably the case that as my Amendment, with the addition moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, has been passed, this Amendment becomes, I should think it is not too much to say, altogether out of order. But there is one point with regard to the provision made by the noble Viscount to which I ought to draw attention, and indeed I ought to have drawn attention to it at the time. The noble Viscount says that so far as is reasonably practicable priority should be maintained. My Lords, what is there to make it impracticable? The result might surely be that precise priority might have to be maintained without any reference to the different classes of which we spoke. What I think the noble Viscount meant was, not so far as is practicable, but so far as was thought 45 reasonable under the arrangements which had been made. You cannot say it is impracticable merely because you desire to do things in a different way, and unless noble Lords intend to sacrifice our various classes, carrying out the different priorities inter se, if they mean to take a single list and make priority depend on that, that will as I have pointed out before, altogether upset the arrangements for the various methods of advances by cash alone, and by stock, and by stock and cash together.
Our view is that the object being to get rid of this block, you must, although you can indicate the general lines on which you wish to proceed, allow a certain latitude to the Estates Commissioners. If you do not you will find yourselves in the position which was pointed out very truly by my noble friend as likely to happen, that a number of pending agreements will be held up because some other pending agreement, which has a technical priority over them, on account of some question of title or some matter of the kind cannot be immediately settled; and if you are going; to make a fetish of priority you will positively find that there are people whose affairs are quite ready to be concluded and yet who are technically prevented from coming to a conclusion by the fact that some gentleman ahead of them has not been able to establish a question of title. That, I am sure, is not at all what your Lordships mean by desiring to maintain priority, and we must be careful not to tie the Estates Commissioners down too closely. I quite understand what is in the minds of noble Lords opposite on this matter of priority, and we do not differ from their view. In all these matters, first come first served is a reasonable general view. The man who makes up his mind to sell clearly ought to have an advantage over the man who has not made up his mind. But, of course, this must all be subject to the very peculiar financial considerations under which we find ourselves, and also subject to subsidiary causes of delay which may have the effect of making a particular case which has been entered for sale at quite an early date drag on, as I am afraid some have dragged on, for quite a lengthy period. I need not add anything further. I have expressed on behalf of the Government a general agreement with my noble friend's Amendment, and I can assure him if his Amendment should be withdrawn 46 and it is to become a subject of regulation, that the general outlines of his scheme will certainly be embodied, although with some modifications and additions to which I do not think he would be likely to object.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAfter the statement the noble Earl has just made to the House I cannot help thinking that my noble friend on the Back Benches will be well advised not to press his Amendment. There really have been two different proposals before the House His Majesty's Government desire that this question of priority should be dealt with by regulations issued by the Lord Lieutenant. My noble friend on the Back Benches desires, on the contrary, that the question should be dealt with within the four corners of this Bill. I am bound to say, speaking generally, that it does seem to me that the subject-matter of my noble friend's Amendment can be more conveniently dealt with by regulations than within the strict clause of an Act of Parliament. It does seem to me to be necessary that there should be some power of adapting the rules to varying circumstances and of varying these regulations from time to time, and that we require something not quite so stereotyped as the clause of an Act of Parliament. But be that as it may, the House has really decided in favour of dealing with the matter by regulations, because we accepted, with an Amendment, the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. The proposal submitted by my noble friend on the Back Benches is one to which he has evidently given very close and attentive consideration, and I was extremely glad to hear from the noble Earl that when these regulations come to be drafted the general outline of my noble friend's proposal is likely to be followed, because the Amendment of my noble friend really does seem to me to be in accordance with what I conceive is the policy of noble Lords from Ireland who sit behind me. Let me say this one word more before I sit down. Nothing has been further from my thoughts at any rate than that we should endeavour to fetter the Estates Commissioners by a hard-and-fast application of the rule that he who comes first must in any circumstances be first served. It is quite obvious that a certain amount of elasticity must be given as between the different classes of applicants under this part of the Bill; and all that we 47 care for is that in a general way the principle should be accepted by His Majesty's Government that so far as the circumstances permit, and as between the different classes of applicants, priority should be given to those who make their application first. That is the simple general principle, and if, as I hope, that principle is applied in the regulations which will be framed under this part of the Bill, I, for one, should be entirely content.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE said he assumed there were regulations in existence at present. There were regulations at the time of the late Government although they were modified after the change of Government; and he ventured to suggest, as had been done by his noble and learned friend already, that the Government themselves should embody in a schedule the regulations they were prepared in this first instance to submit to Parliament. That would not in the least fetter their power of changing, varying and adding to them, and would combine the advantage of letting their Lordships see in an Act of Parliament what was suggested.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I will ask my right hon. friend whether in his opinion it is possible to give now the general form which the regulations should take, but I am afraid it will be quite impossible to lay on the Table of the House before the Third Reading of this Bill the precise form which the regulations are likely to take, for reasons which I think noble Lords will appreciate. It would be very difficult for the Estates Commissioners, without having the Bill before them in its final form, to give advice to the Irish Office as to the form which the regulations under the Bill ought to take; but I will ask my right hon. friend whether it is possible—I cannot say that it will be—to submit any general heads of proposed regulations before the last stage of the Bill.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNECould we see the existing regulations?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will inquire into that also.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a clause in relation to applications under subsection (1) of the Act of 1903, to provide that the Land Commissioners, if they had reason for doubting if a holding offered sufficient security for 48 an advance, might make inquiry and declare that the provision of the subsection should not apply. He did not yield to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, in his desire to keep the zone system intact. The zone system was, in his opinion, free from the complaint made against it that it enhanced the selling price of property. In his opinion it had proved most effective in bringing landlord and tenant together for the purpose of purchase. It was because he was so-jealous of the reputation of the zone system and so anxious to remove from it every possibility of hardship that he ventured once again to appeal to their Lordships' sense of justice in the matter.
§ When the Estates Commissioners began their work, at a very early stage of their operations a proposal was made to them for the sale of a property under an agreement between landlord and tenant. The same property had also been proposed for sale under the earlier Land Purchase Acts, an agreement having been come to between the landlord and the tenants. Under the system then in force the Commissioners deputed an inspector to report on the property. The amount claimed was, he thought, £5,000, and the inspector reported that it was not security for more than £4,000. These were approximate figures. When the Act of 1903 came into force the Estates Commissioners saw that if they were bound to comply with all applications, the zone system could be turned into an instrument of fraud on the public Treasury, and for five years they acted in the belief that it was competent to them to decline to declare that a particular property should be taken to be an estate in the language of the Act until they were satisfied that the property was security for the amount they advanced upon it. But their jurisdiction in that respect had been called in question and the Court of Appeal had ruled that the Commissioners were not competent to withhold their assent to the property being declared an estate and were bound to make the advance. During the time the Estates Commissioners maintained that they had that power, assaults on the Treasury of the description he had mentioned had been rare in Ireland, but if things continued as they were now he himself could place no limit to the number of unconscionable assaults there might be perpetrated on the public funds; and he ventured to ask their 49 Lordships to take precautions to prevent the zone system being made the instrument of such attacks upon the public Treasury. He thought his Amendment would have that effect. He was of opinion that it was demoralising to the country and unfair to the Treasury that such bargains as he had indicated should be possible.
§ There was another reason for enabling the Estates Commissioners to inquire into bargains which came within the zones, and that was where after the judicial rent was fixed the holding was permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant, It was quite possible now for a landlord and a tenant to come to an agreement for the sale of a property which had greatly deteriorated since the judicial rents were fixed, which was the basis of the zone system; an estate might be partly destroyed by a bog-slide and have become of less value than it was when the judicial rent was fixed. He was one of those who thought that the Government had conferred on Ireland remarkable benefits by the Land Purchase Act of 1903, and no temptation should be placed in the way of any parties to abuse those benefits.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause:
§ '15.—(1) When application is made under subsection (1) of the Act of i903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commissioners, if they are satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances exist, namely—
- (a) that the judicial rent was fixed after the passing of the Act of 1903 by agreement or consent and not after judicial inquiry in court, and that there are reasons for doubting that holding is sufficient security for the advance;
- (b) that since the judicial rent was fixed, the holding has permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant, may make inquiry as to the security for the advance, and may by order declare that the provisions of the same subsection shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly as if these provisions had not been complied with.
§ (2) The Judicial Commissioner and the Estates Commissioners may make rules under section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 providing for the furnishing of such particulars with respect to rent and arrears and of such information with regard to the estate as may appear necessary for the purposes of this section and for the verification of the particulars and information in such manner as they think fit.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ LORD ATKINSON, in opposing the Amendment, said he did not wish to repeat 50 what he was afraid he had already said ad nauseam, that under the existing law if any advantage had been taken of a tenant he had the right to have the agreement set aside, and while that was so it was beating the air to talk of fraud and oppression and injustice that never had been established. There was no ground for saying that rents fixed by agreement out of Court had been excessive, or that they would not stand examination perfectly satisfactorily side by side with agreements made in Court. He had heard the Land Courts called by litigants "the Reduction Courts." Any one who knew the condition of things in Ireland knew perfectly well that the idea of a landlord coercing his tenant, the tenant being backed up and supported by public opinion as he was, into making an agreement adverse to the tenant's interests was a purely imaginary one. But why select 1903? The suggestion he supposed was that after the passing of the Land Act rents were fixed with a view to purchase under the Act of 1903.
§ LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the obvious reason was that there was no zone system before 1903.
§ LORD ATKINSON asked why if it was a genuine and real transaction it should not be done; the law provided a remedy in the case of a sham one.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said his point was that there was collusion between the landlord and tenant. That point the noble and learned Lord was evading.
§ LORD ATKINSON said it was beating the air to speak of collusion which had not been proved. From the year 1888 till the present day he did not think there had been five cases in Ireland of agreements being set aside on the ground of collusion. The new clause would enable the Commissioners to take certain steps if they were satisfied that since the judicial rent was fixed the holding had permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant. In all the annals of the Estates Commissioners could they produce ten cases where a holding had substantially deteriorated in value since the fixing of the judicial rent? He thought it was rather too much to ask their Lordships to legislate for the circumstances which were not proved to have 51 arisen simply on the suggestion that they might occur, and to set aside an existing system which had worked extremely well and but for which the vast majority of the agreements entered into would never have been effected at all.
§ LORD DUNBOYNE pointed out that Section 8 of the Act of 1881 dealt with the very thing with which the noble Lord sought to deal in his proposed new clause. He thought that nobody who had any experience of an Irish tenant would suggest for a moment that he was a man who would be likely to make a bargain which would be to his own detriment.
§ LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON did not think that the question of zones had the great importance that was sometimes ascribed to it, because he was satisfied that the cases in which there had been any sort of abuse were extremely few. At the same time the arguments of his noble friend were extremely forcible when he brought forward such a case as he did, and even if one case of collusion only was proved he thought it deserved notice and that their Lordships should see that some safeguard was provided. He thought, however, that his noble friend's Amendment went too far. Everybody who was familiar with land purchase in Ireland was aware that in many cases agreements had been entered into after the passing of the Act of 1903 merely for the purpose of getting within the zone, cases where there was no manner of suspicion that any collusion was intended. He was perfectly well aware that many vendors in Ireland did take that course and it was a perfectly legitimate one, but whether wise or not was another matter. He thought, therefore, that the Amendment went a little too far in ruling out all judicial rents fixed by agreement since the passing of the Act of 1903, and he suggested that words should be introduced limiting the clause to cases where the rent had been raised. He suggested, after the words "judicial inquiry in Court," the insertion of the words "and such agreement did not include an increase of Tent." If the noble Lord consented to that he would support him if he went to a Division.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD intimated his assent.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThis subject is one of considerable gravity, and I am 52 glad, therefore, that my noble friend behind me alluded to it as he did in his powerful speech. The argument that I understand is used against any interference with the zones is that they are so valuable a part of the Act of 1903 that they ought not to be touched in any way. The question of collusion between a landlord and tenant, and the possibility of it, is one which cannot be set aside. It is all very well to say that you cannot produce a great number of cases. It is the mere fact that you cannot produce them which makes the situation a serious one. If you have no means of making the inquiry you clearly cannot produce the necessary data. I do not suppose there is either a landlord or a tenant in Ireland—and I am willing for the sake of noble Lords opposite to add in England—who cares a brass farthing whether the State is properly secured or not, and naturally in entering into an agreement of that kind people try to get the best terms they can for themselves. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, used on a former Amendment a singular argument with regard to this question of collusion. He said that as long as there was a reduction in the rent it did not matter how it was arrived at and that the State security would not be impaired. That all depends on whether the rent was paid. If it was not paid, the mere fact that a rent was fixed at a certain amount is entirely irrelevant on this question of security. That, of course, applies in particular to the question of arrears, but my noble friend in his Amendment, in subsection (2), makes the question of arrears one into which the Estates Commissioners should have power to inquire, and I therefore think I am not wrong in alluding to it. We consider, I confess, that it is a serious matter to place the Exchequer entirely at the mercy of what people entering into these transactions may choose to do. As time goes on people get cleverer and cleverer in such matters in devising means. In a sense one does not blame them as long as they are acting within the law. But as years go on, and more and more agreements are made, there will be a tendency, it seems only natural to think, to attempt evasions, and although it seems clear that my noble friend has no chance of carrying his Amendment I feel bound to say that we regard with no little apprehension the absolute disappearance from the Bill of any safeguard in respect of these evasions.
THE MARQOESS OF LANSDOWNEThe difference between us, I think, is a perfectly clear cut one. We desire to maintain the zones, and therein I think we do not differ from the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. On the other hand we do not desire that the zones should be made use of for the purpose of shielding improper transactions, but we do not believe that in order to guard against improper transactions it is necessary to rip up the whole of the agreements entered into out of Court since the year 1903. We hold a very strong view that agreements entered into out of Court between a landlord and a tenant are deserving of respect as much as agreements entered into in Court.
§ THE EARLOFCREWEWhat machinery do you propose in the Bill as amended for making any inquiry as to possible abuse of what may take place within the zones?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWhen this question was debated the other evening I challenged noble Lords opposite to tell me whether it was not the case that under the existing law wherever there was a suspicion of duress or collusion it was competent for the Court to challenge it, and I referred to Mr. Cherry's Manual on the Irish Land Act, where the particular cases are cited and the particular regulations referred to. Noble Lords opposite have never been able to tell us that so far as collusion between landlord and tenant is concerned the existing law does not give adequate powers. That being so, we remain of opinion that it is not necessary to provide specially for cases of duress and collusion, and that other cases are sufficiently provided for by the law as it stands.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
*THE EARL OF MAYO moved to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 14—
(2) A person shall be deemed to reside on a holding within the meaning of this section if he occupies a house or resides in the immediate neighbourhood for the purpose of working or managing the holding.
He said the whole of the clause limited the operation of Section 1 (4) of the Act of 1903 whereby the Land Commission was empowered to advance to one purchaser a sum not exceeding £7,000. Clause 14 was retrogressive and even went
54
behind Section 2 of the Act of 1888, which permitted an advance to one purchaser up to a limit of £5,000 provided that the holding to be purchased was situated on the estate of the same landlord. It would be very hard under the clause on a tenant of a large holding, who, perhaps, for family reasons had to live away from his particular holding, that he should be debarred from obtaining the necessary advance over £3,000 to purchase his holding. Was that because the Government wished to break up the strong yeoman farmer class in Ireland, the men who were able to farm their land with their own capital and who occupied a strong and respectable position in the community?
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, lines 30 to 33, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Earl's Amendment seems to me not entirely to carry out what he desires, because the effect of omitting subsection (2) is simply further to limit the class of persons to whom advances can be sanctioned. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) forbids the making of an advance unless the tenant resides on the holding, or unless he lives on a holding and wishes to buy a holding ordinarily used with that on which the tenant resides. Subsection (2) enlarges the definition of residence, and if it is omitted the power will be entirely confined to persons under paragraph (a). I should like to point out another curious effect which arises from the clause as it stands; that is, in respect of the word "or" in line 26 [the "or" connecting paragraphs (a) and (b)], inserted, I think, on the motion of a noble Lord opposite at the last stage. The effect of that is that there is a normal limit of advance of £3,000, and where the Land Commission think that a larger amount, not exceeding £5,000, may properly be sanctioned, they can do it; but owing to the use of the word "or" there is a further class of persons—namely, tenants who reside on a holding, or near—who can receive an advance of an absolutely unlimited amount. There is nothing to prevent a million of money being advanced under subsection (a); therefore I think it will be necessary, if noble Lords desire to put the clause in a form to carry out what I take it they mean, although it has been altered from our view, 55 that the word "and" should be substituted for the word "or."
§ THE EARL OF MAYO withdrew his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
§ * LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD had a series of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 15. The clause ran—
§ 15.—(1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:—
- (a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value;
- (b) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion;
- (c) A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and
- (d) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after adequate provision has been made to satisfy the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection an advance ought to be made: Provided that no advance shall be made to the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value of more than thirty pounds, nor shall any advance be made to more than one son of the same tenant.
§ (2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, which has been made and is then unrepaid by the purchaser, or for which an application by the purchaser is pending, exceed one thousand pounds: Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
§ (3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this section in like manner as if the same was a holding and the purchaser was the tenant thereof, at the time of his making the purchase; and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section.
§ (4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that section shall be construed as a reference to this section.
56
§
His first Amendment, said the noble Lord, was merely a transposition of the last proviso in paragraph (d) of the clause as it stood. He had taken the liberty of transposing the clause of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, from that part of the clause in which it at present stood and had placed it in the situation from which the subclause had been removed. He did that with the object of making room, as it were, for his proposal, which was at the bottom of the page. In the first Amendment, so far as he could judge, nothing was done that was not already in the Bill or introduced into it on the last occasion when the measure was before their Lordships. The second proposal was to insert in paragraph (c) the words "and had been evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent." He saw that the same proposal was made by the noble Earl, Lord Wicklow, and the object of it was to prevent tenants evicted after the passing of that Act from claiming reinstatement as evicted tenants. It was, in his opinion, the intention of the Act of 1903 that tenants evicted after the date of the passing of that Act should not be able to claim the privileges of an evicted tenant of restoration to their holding. But that clause of the Act was so interpreted as to confer upon tenants evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 the privilege of evicted tenants, and was said to endow them with a claim for reinstatement. He thought it was desirable that an end should be put to this sort of claim and he therefore made his proposal. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the proposal which he now made was already incorporated in the Evicted Tenants Act which their Lordships has-passed. His last proposal, which he presumed he might mention at this time, was to delete paragraph (d) and to insert a new paragraph (e), as follows—
Any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, an advance ought to be made for the purchase of mansions, demesne lands, special grounds, plantations, and other such land, as, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is not suitable for distribution to persons of the preceding classes.
That was to give the Land Commission the power of selling demesnes, mansions, and gardens which had been sold by the proprietor, and to save them from the necessity of dividing the land among the neighbouring tenants.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 9, line 5, after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph:
'(b) The son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value not exceeding thirty pounds, provided that no advance shall be made to more than one son of the same tenant.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ LORD ATKINSON said he did not recognise at all that the Amendment was of the harmless character that the noble Lord had suggested. The provision about the son of the proprietor of the holding was part of the Bill as it originally stood and was deliberately struck out. It was provided by Clause 15 that three classes of persons were first to be considered—proprietors of holdings, persons who had surrendered their holdings, and evicted tenants. He would have a word to say later about the definition of an evicted tenant. It was after that that landless men and the sons of tenants, if they came in at all, came in under paragraph (d) after all the requirements of the preceding classes had been adequately provided for. What the noble Lord attempted to do was to restore the deleted subsection (d) into its original place in the Bill. That was to smash up altogether the Amendment which had been made. It was not merely to alter procedure but to smash the Amendment thoroughly. They had been told that the function of the Report stage was sandpapering. This appeared to him to be using the pickaxe rather than sandpaper. It restored what was knocked out on Second Reading, and he would suggest to the noble Lord that, as there must be some finality in these proceedings, there was no use in moving again upon Report things that had been fully debated in Committee. How did the matter stand? At present, according to the Bill, the three classes he had mentioned were entitled to have parcels of land allotted to them, and then, after their requirements had been provided for, any surplus lands might be given to any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, an advance ought to be made. It might be that landless men would come in under paragraph (d), but, as he had said, only after the requirements of the other classes had been fully met. The noble Lord defeated all that by putting in an earlier paragraph which would give all landless men an opportunity of getting advances, even in priority to those persons who had surrendered their holdings for 58 the purpose of relieving congestion. As to the evicted tenants question he hardly thought that necessary, because it was clear, under the Act of 1903, that it was only intended to apply to persons who had been tenants twenty-four years before the passing of the Act and were not tenants at the date of purchase. He did not know where it had been decided that men who were evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 were entitled to be treated as evicted tenants.
§ LORD ATKINSONThat may be, but there is no decision entitling them to be. If there is any doubt about the matter I should welcome any Amendment to provide that the only persons intended to be relieved should be those who had been evicted before the passing of the Act of 1903. The noble Lord mentions the passing of this Act.
§ LORD ATKINSONThe noble Lord's subsequent Amendment says "evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent." Why on earth should this be extended to men who have been evicted between 1903 and 1909?
§ LORD ATKINSONBy whom? Besides, is it necessary that you should give legislative sanction to the blunders of the Estates Commissioners? They have chosen to interpret that Act in a way obviously never intended, because the phrases are phrases that were put into the Acts of 1896, 1903, and 1907. It was obviously intended that no person should be entitled to be reinstated as an evicted tenant unless he had been in possession of land twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903 and was evicted before the passing of that Act.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORDI think you will find it laid down in Mr. Cherry's book that tenants evicted after the passing of the Act of 1903 were held to 59 be entitled to, and as a matter of fact were granted, the privileges of evicted tenants.
§ LORD ATKINSON said he did not know how soon Mr. Cherry might be translated to a place where his decisions would have judicial weight, but he (Lord Atkinson) did not apprehend that his statement in the notes to his Act had any authority beyond the right hon. gentleman's own opinion. At all events, it was no reason whatever for giving the privileges of evicted tenants to men who had occupied up till 1908 and been then evicted. Everybody knew that the evicted tenants clauses were introduced to restore the original position in the case of men who were described as the wounded soldiers of the campaign which began in 1879 and who left their homes because they could not pay and would not pay, because they were told not to pay. It was never intended to apply to men who had occupied holdings which were at present held by them, and which they had continued to occupy up till the Act of 1908. If the noble Lord would confine his Amendment to persons who were evicted for non-payment of rent before the passing of the Act of 1903, he (Lord Atkinson) would entirely agree with him. He never could understand what particular virtue became concentrated in a tenant the moment he refused or was unable to pay rent. The noblest work of God, Pope said, was an honest man. According to the recent dispensation, the noblest work of Cod was a tenant who would not pay his rent; everybody's privileges must be invaded to restore him to the position from which he had fallen. The Amendment was, he thought, entirely misconceived. It must be considered with the Amendment of the noble Lord which attempted to deal with the surplus lands that were not required and to satisfy the claims of proprietors, persons who had surrendered, and evicted tenants. He could not see that the Amendment was in any way an improvement on the clause as it stood. It re-opened the entire matter and involved the rediscussion of all those Amendments that they discussed fully on the occasion of the Committee stage. If ever a question was chose jugée it was the question of the landless man.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEAs regards the first Amendment of my noble friend behind me (Lord MacDonnell) it doubtless has the effect which the noble and learned 60 Lord opposite describes of restoring to the son of a tenant or proprietor of the holding a certain priority which had been removed by the Amendment adopted in Committee. I see no object in again arguing that point, but, from some points of view, the more general provisions contained in the first part of Lord Atkinson's subsection is to my mind more satisfactory than the proposition of my noble friend behind me, because it does, at any rate, leave the general discussion to the Estates Commissioners after certain persons have been provided for, and it would even allow the admission of these later evicted tenants of whom the noble and learned Lord has no very high opinion.
I may also mention that we adhere to our objection that the single son of the same tenant should be favoured. In the clause as it now stands there is a somewhat curious result following from that. Parents are divided into two classes. If the parent's holding exceeds £30 in value, no son of his can come within the section. If he has more than one son, only one can come in; but, if he is a landless man himself, any number of his sons apparently can be introduced. The effect of that is surely anomalous. I remember when I was in Ireland receiving a petition to have a fine remitted. One of the grounds was that the culprit had "a long weak family of thirteen, all of them daughters only the two third youngest." Therefore as your Lordships will see from that rather enigmatical phrase, there were two sons, and if, in addition to having that large quiver full of children, the man was also a landless man these two third youngest sons could have received, under the clause as it stands, holdings from the Estates Commissioners.
As to the second Amendment, I should offer no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by my noble friend behind me; but as regards the third Amendment that, as I say, appears to us to be not so convenient in form as paragraph (d) as it stands. There is one point to which I should like to draw my noble friend's attention. He says after mansions, demesne lands, and so on "other such land as in the opinion of the Land Commission is not suitable to persons of the preceding classes." That would prevent any agricultural land being sold with a mansion, which is not, I am sure, at all what my 61 noble friend means, because in order to get a mansion sold it would very often be necessary to sell a home farm or land, which my noble friend's Amendment as drawn would prevent.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD then moved his second Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 9, line 10, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'and had been evicted before the commencement of this Act for non-payment of rent.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ THE EARL OF WICKLOW moved to amend Lord MacDonnell's Amendment by inserting in paragraph (c) after "apply," the words "and who was evicted from such holding for non-payment of rent." He wished further to add words not on the Paper, "and had made application for reinstatement before the first clay of May, 1907." The object of his Amendment was not quite what Lord MacDonnell had stated it to be. It seemed to him that, under the clause as at present worded, the only qualification necessary for an applicant to obtain a holding would be the ability to prove that during twenty-five years preceding the Act of 1903 he had been in possession of a holding of some kind. A ridiculous state of things might result from that. A man might have sold his holding for a considerable sum of money during any of those twenty-five years and then might have gone abroad or might have spent that money in any of the numerous ways in which it was possible to spend money. He could then go back to Ireland in a practically destitute condition, go to the Estates Commissioners and say "You are obliged to provide me with a new holding. Will you kindly do so?" How could the Estates Commissioners get out of it? By his Amendment the operation of the clause would be limited entirely to tenants who had really been evicted; and the addition of the words which he suggested, which were not on the printed Paper, would restrict the clause and, at the same time, give it the same application as that which their Lordships allowed in the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907. No tenant could claim the benefit of that Act unless he had made a claim for reinstatement before the first day of May, 1907, and it seemed desirable 62 to introduce a provision of this sort. It was manifestly undesirable to allow the question of the evicted tenants to go on to all eternity.
§
Amendment moved—
in page 9, line 10, after the word; 'apply' to insert the words 'and had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and had made application for reinstatement before the first day of May, 1907.'"—(The Earl of Wicklow.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Lord will, of course, be aware, that the rather delicate manner of describing the evicted tenant to which he took exception was adopted in 1903, and I have always understood it was so adopted because there was a certain unwillingness to allude to the evicted tenants as such by name in that Act. We have repeated what was put into the Act of 1903. The difference between the proposal of my noble friend and that of the noble Earl opposite is not a very serious one, and, of course, I must leave the House to decide which of the two proposals it prefers. I should myself have preferred to see the words as originally suggested by my noble friend.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said he had an Amendment on the Paper to include in the scope of the clause persons who were probationary occupiers of allotments attached to experimental farms established by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for promoting the relief of congestion. He would, he thought, be able to save the time of the House by postponing the statement which he had to make with regard to that and another Amendment which appeared on the Paper in his name for the first time that evening in the second marshalled list of Amendments. Unfortunately these Amendments were not circulated till late that evening, and as the main Amendment came at a later stage, and the Amendment to Clause 15 now before the House was consequential in its nature, he proposed not to move his Amendment to Clause 15 now, but to postpone it to a later stage. If he succeeded in persuading the House to adopt his suggestion of a new clause after Clause 44 63 he would then, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, as he believed he might, propose to insert the Amendment of which he had given notice.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONPerhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will tell me if I am right in supposing that I should be at liberty, if I do not move now, to move on Third Reading.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI have a drafting Amendment to Clause 17 [Facilities for the planting and preservation of woods] and an Amendment which represents the result of a conversation which your Lordships will remember on an Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cadogan with regard to the safeguarding of the planting of trees. I propose that the Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord desirous of selling estates under the Land Purchase Act, may authorise the landlord, if they are satisfied that it is desirable, to resume a portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, provided that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption and upon such terms as may be approved of by the Commission, including full compensation to the tenant. Perhaps your Lordships will agree to the drafting Amendment first.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 10, line 33, after 'grazing,' to insert 'or other.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe other Amendment is, as I say, an attempt to carry out a pledge. It is important, I think, to point out a fact which might not, at a cursory reading of the Amendment, be quite clear. As my Amendment is placed on the Paper it would not apply to pending 64 agreements. It says "The Land Commission, on the application, in the prescribed manner, of any landlord who is desirous of selling estate under the Land Purchase Acts." That closes the door to the large number of £53,000,000 of pending agreements. That, I think, would, in itself, be an unfortunate result. But, on the other hand—and I think in this your Lordships will agree—it is a somewhat strong measure to re-open a contract which has been arrived at between landlord and tenant and to withdraw a certain portion of land after an agreement has been made between landlord and tenant that the whole of the holding should be the subject of sale and purchase. It really is a question of whether the undoubted advantage of applying from a social point of view this provision to pending agreements is so great as to justify what I think we must all admit is a serious departure from our ordinary custom in the way of allowing a Court to amend an agreement which has been actually arrived at between two different parties. Feeling that that was a somewhat serious matter to undertake we have drawn the Amendment in the way I have described. As regards the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Cadogan), it would, I suppose, include pending agreements. I take it that the words, "Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant," would entitle the Estates Commissioners to take the steps for which he provides, but for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of your Lordships' House as to which of the two courses is the most desirable I will move my own Amendment, and hear what the noble Earl has to say.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, line 10, after the word 'purposes' to insert:
'(3) The Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord who is desirous of selling an estate under the Land Purchase Acts, if they are satisfied that it is desirable that the landlord should be authorised to resume portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption, may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant, and may make an order accordingly apportioning the rent and discharging that portion of the holding from the tenancy.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§
EARL CADOGAN, who had the following new clause on the Paper—
(3) Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant under the Act of 1903, and the vendor desires to exclude from the sale a portion of such land for the purpose of planting trees thereon or preserving ornamental timber already growing thereon, and it appears to the Land Commission that, having regard to the extent and character of such portion, the value of the holding would not be substantially affected if it were resumed by the owner, the Land Commission may make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms, as to compensation and Otherwise as may be agreed upon,
said he ought to explain why he had allowed his original Amendment to remain on the Paper. He had no opportunity of seeing his noble friend and conferring with him on the matter, and perhaps, after all, it was better that the two plans should be seen side by side. The speech which the noble Earl had just made in support of his Amendment would be a somewhat memorable one, because he had explained that the reasons why His Majesty's Government preferred their arrangement was that they were very strongly opposed to the breaking of contracts. He hoped the noble Earl's statement would be duly registered in the annals of the House, and he thought that probably the page on which it was printed would be frequently referred to in their future debates. Of course, under the circumstances he would withdraw his new subsection.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI ought to point out to my noble friend that it is not a question of breaking a contract, but of allowing a Court to vary a contract entered into between two people on particular terms.
§ EARL CADOGAN observed that what had just fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, was also a very refreshing statement coming as it did from the Leader of the Government in that House. He desired to know if the noble Earl would make a small addition to his new subsection by inserting, after "planting trees or preserving woods or plantations," the words "or growing timber." Those words had been represented to him as being necessary, and he did not suppose there could be any objection to them.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not know of any objection.
§ EARL CADOGAN said there was one question to which he would be glad to have an answer. It was as to why the word "full" was inserted before "compensation" in the subsection moved by the noble Earl. In his (Earl Cadogan's) original Amendment he stated, "the Land Commission may make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms as to compensation, and otherwise as may be agreed upon." The noble Earl's subsection, however, provided that the Land Commission "may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant." There was no reason to believe that there was any special significance in the use of the word "full," but he would venture to ask why it was inserted at all.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI believe the words "full compensation" are frequently used in this connection and that there are various precedents for them. The words have been used in more than one of the Irish Land Acts—in the Act of 1881 and others. The word "full" Has no specially offensive sense attaching to it. My noble friend has been so good as to withdraw his Amendment, but he did not specifically deal with the point which I have raised and perhaps some other noble Lord will give the opinion of the House upon it.
§ EARL CADOGAN asked what was the point to which the noble Earl referred.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEAs to the application to pending agreements.
§ EARL CADOGAN said he was quite prepared to accept the noble Earl's subsection.
§ LORD ATKINSON hoped the word "full" would not be deleted. If an occupying tenant had agreed to buy land, and the landlord desired to reserve a portion of the land, the tenant was to get "full" compensation, whatever that might mean. He hoped the word "full" would be preserved, as it would have a reflex-action on the compensation ion which was to be paid to the landlord under the compulsory clauses when land was taken from him.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to, with the addition after "plantations "of the words" or growing timber."
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINEORD moved to amend Clause 18, subsection (1)—
§ 18.—(1) In subsection (51 of section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate) "ten pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds." 67 by omitting the words "In subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1903," and inserting the words "From subsection (4) of section six of the Act of 1903 the words ' with the consent of the owner' shall be omitted, and in subsection (5) of the same section and Act." He said he was anxious to put himself right in connection with this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, had stated that it was improper on the Report stage to bring up a matter which had been disposed of in Committee. But he himself was under the impression that it was open to members of their Lordships' House to bring up on Report for the further consideration of their Lordships any matter, whether it had been rejected in Committee or not. If he were wrong in that belief, he would be glad to be corrected, because his Amendment was a request that their Lordships would reconsider a decision they had come to on the Committee stage. It was a matter to which he attached the very greatest importance, and in the interests of the relief of congestion in Ireland he thought it desirable that he should again press his views on the notice of the House.
§ When the Bill which became the Act of 1903 reached their Lordships' House, it contained no mention of the consent of the owner being requisite to the certificate which Section 6 of the Act of 1903 required from the Estates Commissioners before an estate could be treated as congested. The whole matter was one of price, and subsequently of expenditure in improving the congested estate. As their Lordships knew, the zone did not apply to congested estates. If the Congested Districts Board entered into negotiations for the purchase of an estate, the zones had no application. Section 6 of the Act of 1903 provided that if the Estates Commissioners submitted to the Lord Lieutenant a certificate stating that, in their opinion, it was desirable that a certain estate for which they were in treaty should be dealt with as congested, the acceptance of that certificate by the Lord Lieutenant brought the negotiations under that section of the Act of 1903 which exempted the negotiations from the operation of the zones, and enabled the Estates Commissioners to expend money in improving the estate. The effect of introducing the words "with the consent of the owner," which was done in their Lordships' House, had been that practically no certificates had been submitted to the 68 Lord Lieutenant, and that all attempts to relieve congestion outside the scheduled districts had been neutralised. The Estates Commissioners, in their last Report, stated that in only twenty cases were they able to relieve congestion under the Act, and they put their failure down to the presence in the section of these words. It was certain that, if these words were retained in the section, congestion outside the scheduled districts would remain as much unrelieved in the future as it had been in the past.
§ What objection was there from the vendor's or the landlord's point of view to agreeing to this Amendment? It would not limit the freedom of contract or the freedom of sale. It would not compel landlords to sell or to accept a price which they were unwilling to agree to. What it would do was to exclude from the transaction all inferences to be drawn from the zones and to enable the Lord Lieutenant to consent to the expenditure of public money on the improvement of the estate. It might be that a landlord selling a congested estate would not be able to get from the Estates Commissioners as high a price as he might get from his tenants if he could induce them to buy within the zones. But he was not prevented by the deletion of the words from the section from selling to his tenants within the zones. As the law at present stood it was possible in a congested district for a landlord to sell to his tenants within the zones, and for the transaction to pass through. But when he proposed to sell to the Estates Commissioners, then the removal of these words would enable the Estates Commissioners, when they had bought from him at a price he was willing to take, to spend money on the estate and bring it into a good condition. At the present time they were unable to do that. If their Lordships decided to retain these words in the section they would prevent negotiations between the Estates Commissioners and the owners of congested holdings, and would make it impossible to relieve congestion outside the scheduled areas.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, line 11, to leave out from the beginning of the subsection to 'which' in line 12, and to insert the words 'From subsection (4) of section six of the Act of 1903 the words "with the consent of the owner" shall be omitted, and in subsection (5) of the same section and Act.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ *LORD CLONBROCK remarked that the noble Lord opposite had rather surprised 69 him by saying he could not see that any possible harm could be done to a landlord through having his estate declared a congested estate and asking what objection there could be from the landlord's point of view. The noble Lord told them that the Congested Districts Board had received refusals from many landlords to have their estates declared congested estates. That being the case it was quite clear that they had an objection, and it was quite possible to conceive it was a well-founded one he trusted that their Lordships would not consent to the omission of these words, but would adhere to the course which they pursued in Committee.
§ LORD ATKINSON rather agreed with the noble Lord opposite. He did not see what protection the words "with the consent of the owner" afforded to the landlord. If the landlord wished to sell direct to his tenants the zones applied. If he wished to sell to the Congested Districts Board he had nothing whatever to do with the zones. The operation of the zones, if they acted at all, would be between the Estates Commissioners, who became the owners of the congested estate, and the sales from them to the tenants. The great advantage, as he understood, of having an estate defined as a congested estate was that the Estates Commissioners might sell to the tenants, although they thereby suffered a loss. He never could understand what protection these words gave to the landlord, because the landlord need not deal with the Estates Commissioners unless he liked. The definition
70§ of the estate as a congested estate only applied to dealings between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners. It did not apply to dealings between him and his tenantry at all. His noble friend Lord Clonbrock had said that the best proof that these words were required was furnished by the fact that landlords in many cases had refused to allow their estates to be treated as congested estates. One did not know what was the reason they gave for their opposition, but it appeared to him, as far as he had been able to follow it, that they gained nothing by the retention of these words, and would lose nothing by their deletion.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE thought that exaggerated importance was attached to the matter. One would almost have thought that in putting in words to say that the consent of the landlord should be necessary they were dealing with the preamble to a compulsory purchase clause. As a matter of fact, it was not that at all. As Lord MacDonnell had explained on a previous occasion, it had reference purely to voluntary purchase and voluntary agreements. The landlord would not be a bit more compelled to sell if the Amendment were adopted than he was before. This was a preamble enabling a preliminary step to be taken which might be followed out by an agreement between parties.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-contents, 20.
71| CONTENTS. | ||
| Devonshire, D. | Ardilaun, L. | Farnham, L. |
| Somerset, D. | Ashtown, L. | Forester, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Bagot, L. | Harlech, L. |
| Barrymore, L. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Belper, L. | Kenyon, L. |
| Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) | |
| Cadogan, E. | Castletown, L. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Cheylesmore, L. | Langford, L. |
| Cowley, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Lawrence, L. |
| Dartmouth, E. | Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) | Massy, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) |
| Essex, E. | Clonbrock, L. | Northcote, L. |
| Mayo, E. [Teller.] | Cloncurry, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Colchester, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Wicklow, E. | De Freyne, L. | Powerseourt, L. (V. Powerscount.) |
| De Mauley, L. | ||
| De Vesci, V. [Teller.] | Digby, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Hill, V. | Dunalley, L. | Silchester, L. (E. Lonrgford). |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Dunboyne, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Dunleath, L. | Waleran, L. | |
| Iveagh, V. | Ellenborough, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Blyth, L. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Denman, L. [Teller.] | St. David's, L. |
| Granard, L. (E. Granard.) | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Carrington, E. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.] | Save and Sele, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | IIaversham, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Kinnaird, L. | ||
| Allendale, L. | MacDonnell, L. | Welby, L. |
| Atkinson, L. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment negatived accordingly.
§ *LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved the omission of the words:—"(1) In subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate), 'ten pounds' shall be, substituted for 'five pounds.'" He said that if the Amendment were carried, of course the condition of things would revert to what it was under the Act of 1903. He confessed he moved the Amendment with some trepidation because he knew he should expose himself to the righteous indignation of the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, and to the wrath of the ghosts of the Devon Commission which sat seventy-five years ago. But he consoled himself with thinking that if he had their disapproval he ought at any rate to secure the approval of members of their Lordships' House on both sides, and also that of those who were members of the House of Commons on both sides in 1903. He found on reference to the debates that this clause was passed without any suggestion that the conditions which described a congested estate should be in any way enlarged. The definition of what constituted a congested estate given in the fifth subsection of Section 6 of the Act of 1903 was the definition given by the Government of that day and accepted by all parties as a good definition of congestion; and if they attempted to increase and extend that definition from £5 to £10, they rendered the problem very much more difficult to solve. Lord MacDonnell would say that was not a reason for not attempting to solve it, but the fact remained that it made the problem much more complicated and difficult. He pointed out some time ago that a congested holding did not always mean that the people on it were extremely poor. His noble and learned friend had described them as hungry, wretched-looking people who were pleading at the bar of their Lordships' House. But the fact that people were on congested holdings did not at all mean that 72 they were in that condition. On the contrary, heaps of them had a great deal of money. They took land for grass farms, and in many cases they got employment as labourers. Their Lordships must remember also that the whole problem had been much changed through the granting of old age pensions, which had made an immense difference to the comfort of the people in the West of Ireland. His chief reason for suggesting that this change was not necessary was that the problem would become so great as to be almost insoluble without another Act of Parliament to settle it. He suggested that His Majesty's Government would do well to confine themselves first of all to relieving the most pressing cases of necessity, and after that had been successfully done they could turn their attention if necessary to the larger problem.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, lines 11 to 13, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
§ *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said that there was no longer room for indignation in his mind, which was oppressed with sorrow that a noble Lord coming from one of the most distressed parts of Ireland should find a reason for refusing to relieve that distress in the hardness of the task. Instead of raising the holdings from £5 to £10, the noble Lord would prefer to leave the value at £5 and let the people eke out a miserable existence on old age pensions and the wages of labour. That was not the spirit in which their Lordships as a whole approached this question, and it was not the spirit in which the problem could be solved. When the noble Lord referred to £5 as being the limit which was preserved in the Act of 1903, he failed to remember that some time before that, in the Act of 1891, the limit of £20 was incorporated by the Legislature. Those who had looked through the evidence of the Dudley Commission 73 must have been struck with the unanimity of feeling which prevailed, wherever the Commission took evidence, that £10 was the lowest valuation for a holding from which a family could derive a decent subsistence. There was a large mass of evidence to show that £15 was a more reasonable figure, while many people were in favour of £12 10s., and nobody proposed anything less than £10. He thought it would be a waste of time to argue that the question of congestion in the West of Ireland, or in any part of Ireland, could be remedied if the House entertained a proposal which would keep people on a holding of £5 valuation, and bid them look for a means of eking out the subsistence they wore now obtaining through old age pensions and migratory labour. He was sorry that a proposal of this description should have emanated from a member of their Lordships' House.
§ *LORD ASHTOWN differed from the noble Lord opposite. He did not believe anybody lived on the proceeds of a holding of £10 valuation, and in a great many cases those people were not in the poverty-stricken state that some noble Lords appeared to imagine. He knew one small tenant who lived on a holding of £7 valuation and paid him £90 a year for grass land. It was absolutely unnecessary to say that a man must starve in his holding, because these people did not live, as he had said, by their holdings alone.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Lord who has just sat down has drawn attention to the well-known fact that everybody who lives on a small holding is not necessarily a pauper, but I do not think any one who knows even the comparatively little that I do of the condition of things in the West of Ireland will deny that—though undoubtedly to a somewhat decreasing extent owing in a large degree to the action of the Congested Districts Board—there are vast numbers of persons who are living on the very edge of pauperism and eking out a miserable existence by various forms of casual labour. It seems to me that noble Lords go almost too far when they deny, as they seem to do, the existence of anything like a problem of congestion in the West of Ireland. Noble Lords say "No, no"; but that seems to be the point to which the arguments of some noble Lords opposite are directed. I must confess that to my mind the acceptance of the Amendment 74 must have a most serious effect on the operations for the relief of congestion as described by my noble friend behind me.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am disposed to agree with the noble Lords who have pointed out that it by no means follows that the occupier of a holding under £10 valuation is necessarily in an uneconomic or miserable condition. I think it is within the knowledge of most noble Lords who are familiar with the congested districts of Ireland that there are many men with holdings of less than £10 valuation who have actually more land than they can properly cultivate. But in spite of that it does seem to me a very serious proposal to alter this £10 limit to one of £5, as proposed by my noble friend. The £10 limit is that insisted upon in the Report of the Dudley Commission, upon which this Bill is founded. We have, I think, to remember that what is proposed in this clause is not that it should be admitted that every holder below £10 is necessarily in such miserable circumstances as to require assistance at the hands of the Government; but that this is to be taken as a general definition as to what; ought to be considered in the eye of the law a congested district for the purposes of this Act. I cannot help feeling, as the noble Earl who leads the House has told us, that it would be a very serious modification for us to make in the first principle on which this Bill is founded, and I regret to tell my noble friend that, if he goes to a Division, I shall not be able to support him.
§ *LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said that after what had fallen from the noble Marquess he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He would like to say, however, that he did not look upon a great many of these small tenants as farmers at all, but as labourers who had the advantage of holding five or six acres of land at the same rent that they would pay for a small allotment in England.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
*LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 18—
(2) Where an estate not being a congested estate within the meaning of the said section as so amended, comprises within its area one or more congested townlands, the Land Commission,
75
or in the case of townlands situated in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board, may declare all or any one or more of such townlands to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and such townland or townlands shall thereupon he deemed for those purposes to be a separate congested estate,
by inserting, after the word "may" ["in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board may"], the words "with the consent of the owner." This Amendment, he said, was consequential on the Amendment which their Lordships carried in Committee, and which the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, had moved to omit.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, line 18, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the owner.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Lord says this is a consequential Amendment. With that statement I cannot agree. It is in reality a very considerable extension of principle, but His Majesty's Government will not divide the House on the question.
§ LORD ATKINSON had given notice of an Amendment to add, "Provided that any person aggrieved by anything done by one Estates Commissioner shall be entitled to have the action of which he complains reconsidered by three Estates Commissioners, who shall make such order on the matter as they shall deem just, on the terms however, that the person so requiring the action of the aforesaid Estates Commission to be reconsidered shall be liable, should his complaint be held to be frivolous or unfounded, to pay to any person pecuniarily interested in the matter complained of, such costs, not exceeding £10 in amount, as the three Commissioners aforesaid may award."
§ He said that Clause 24 enabled the Estates Commissioners to delegate all or any of their powers to any one of their number, and provided that anything done by any one or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation should be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners. He did not wish to use extravagant language, but, considering 76 the powers conferred on the Estates Commissioners, that was a monstrous proposition. He quite saw, on the other hand, that there were many petty matters of detail in regard to which the procedure would be rather cumberous if it was required that they should be settled by two or more Commissioners. He thought it was impossible to define what should be done by one Commissioner and what should be done by more than one. Therefore he moved his Amendment, which he recommended to the consideration of their Lordships as providing a certain amount of guidance in the matter. Under his Amendment, if any person felt aggrieved by anything that was done by one Commissioner he would have the right to have the matter which be complained of reheard before three Commissioners sitting together. Lord Dunboyne had put down an Amendment to add after "three Estates Commissioners" the words "sitting together." He thanked the noble Lord for his suggestion, and he accepted it. He had provided for an abuse of the right conferred under his Amendment by providing that the Estates Commissioners might fix with costs, not exceeding £10, any person raising a frivolous or unfounded objection. His noble friend Lord Dunboyne had put down an Amendment to the effect that all ministerial acts relating to the details of the carrying out of any transactions might be performed by one Commissioner. The difficulty arose however, of defining what were details and what was a ministerial act, inasmuch as nineteen-twentieths of the work was administrative.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 13, line 23, after 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'Provided that any person aggrieved by anything done by one Estates Commissioner shall be entitled to have the action of which he complains reconsidered by three Estates Commissioners sitting together who shall make such order on the matter as they shall deem just, on the terms however, that the person so requiring the action of the aforesaid Estates Commission to be reconsidered shall be liable, should his complaint be held to be frivolous or unfounded, to pay to any person pecuniarily interested in the matter complained of, such costs, not exceeding ten pounds in amount as the three Commissioners aforesaid may award.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ LORD DUNBOYNE thought that Clause 24 was extremely wide in its application. The Act of 1903 required all the Estates Commissioners to perform all the duties. 77 It did not make use of the words "sitting together," but the context showed the intention that it should be so. What took place was that one Commissioner sat alone to hear a case and make an order upon it, which was sent to another Commissioner, or the other two Commissioners, to be initialled. The order then passed as the order of the three. He believed an instance had occurred where a Commissioner who heard a case had actually been overruled by the two who did not hear it, and in consequence of their refusal to initial the order the matter fell through. He had placed on the Paper an Amendment that the powers of the Commissioners should be exercised by any two of them "sitting together," and he thought some such provision was essential to the proper conduct of their duties. He was glad those words had been accepted by his noble and learned friend.
§ *LORD ASHBOURNE remarked that the position as regarded the proposed Amendments required consideration. He agreed almost entirely with Lord Atkinson, but thought that was not a convenient place to introduce the modification. Lord Dunboyne proposed to omit Clause 24 altogether and insert a new clause, and he thought Lord Atkinson's Amendment should be added at the end. He would like to ask what was the technical meaning of "sitting together." Was it contemplated that the Commissioners would sit together in a kind of judicial position? He did not believe that would be the way in which business was carried out, but it would be done in the manner most convenient for the despatch of work. He supposed that in nine cases out of ten they would exchange their views without technically sitting together, and finally conclude that they had come to a point where they could agree. Although the three Commissioners had not been sitting together their minds might have been working to the same object, and accomplishing the same result. Putting it shortly, he would be satisfied with the first part of the clause of his noble friend Lord Dunboyne, with the exception of the reference to the Commissioners sitting together. He was not sure about the proviso, but if his noble friend thought it desirable he had no objection to it; but then there came into consideration the difficulty pointed out by Lord Atkinson of differentiating in such a jurisdiction between a judicial and a ministerial act. 78 The vast majority of the work was ministerial if they chose so to regard it. It had the flavour of being judicial occasionally, but it was not easy to mark out clearly what was judicial and what was ministerial. He thought the Amendment of his noble and learned friend would come in with great force if Lord Dunboyne's proposal were taken, so that if one Commissioner made an order which was open to objection then any aggrieved person could, in the words of Lord Atkinson's Amendment, require the action to be heard again by the three Commissioners, but should his complaint be held to be frivolous or vexatious he would have to pay costs. He thought it would be wiser in the interests of the drafting of the Bill for Lord Dunboyne's Amendment to come first if that were the desire of the House, and for Lord Atkinson's Amendment to come in after.
§ *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD thought it would be a most dangerous thing to give to the Estates Commissioners the power of delegation which it was proposed to give. It might be that one of the Estates Commissioners took a particular view of his duties and another took another view, while the third differed from the other two. It was quite possible, if the delegation were carried out, to have a system which would differ according to the idiosyncrasy of the particular Commissioner who presided. There would be nothing like uniformity of procedure and serious inconvenience would arise. That, he thought, was a very great danger which their Lordships ought not to incur. He thought the Amendment of Lord Dunboyne, if the words "sitting together" were omitted, was the best solution which could be found if they altered the existing state of things at all. As things were conducted at present the Estates Commissioners did not always sit together. They did so sit when an important case was to be heard; but otherwise a great deal of their work was done by means of the circulation of papers. An opinion was expressed by one Commissioner, the next Commissioner initialed it if he agreed with it, and then it went on to the third. In that way business was conducted in an expeditious manner. When an important matter was to be decided all three Commissioners, when there, sat together. He thought the object should be to preserve that system as much as possible, and if any alteration was to be made so that the work done 79 by two Commissioners was to carry the authority of all, that could be done by leaving out the words "sitting together." If those words were inserted an inconvenient limitation would be imposed upon the procedure of the Commissioners. He should prefer to omit the clause altogether and leave things as they were, when the opinion of the majority carried the day; but if anything had to be done, he should prefer the proposal of Lord Dunboyne with the omission of the words "sitting together."
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think it is not entirely unreasonable if this power remains in the Bill to impose upon it certain limitations, but in our view the limitations proposed by the two noble Lords opposite are of such a character and would have such results that of the two we should prefer to see Clause 24 omitted altogether rather than to see it amended in the manner which noble Lords opposite propose. The effect of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would be that any person who considered himself aggrieved by anything done by an Estates Commissioner would be entitled to have the action of which he complained reconsidered by three Estates. Commissioners. If the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to stand I think he would have to say "anything so done," because he cannot mean anything done anywhere by an Estates Commissioner in any capacity.
§ LORD ATKINSONIt is a proviso, of course.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEAnybody who considered himself aggrieved, however trivial the matter, if he were willing to risk a £10 note, as a great many litigious persons are, could cause this trivial matter to be considered by three Estates Commissioners sitting together as a tribunal. If anything of that kind were done it would be necessary to make the liability very much greater than the £10 proposed here, because the cost to the other party might be infinitely greater than £10 if he had to go to Dublin from the other end of Ireland in order to defend a case before the three Commissioners sitting together. Therefore we object to the phrase "sitting together," and very largely on the grounds which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, stated just now. Lord Dunboyne talked of a matter being settled 80 by a mere initial as though that involved some complete neglect of the subject-matter which had to be decided. The noble Lord knows very well that infinitely more important matters than the questions that come before the Estates Commissioners are settled every day by initials, and it does not follow because you write your initials on the back of a document that you have not given it the closest possible study and arrived at a very definite decision upon it. If all these trivial matters had to be decided by the three Commissioners seated side by side in an almost judicial manner I would very much rather not see the clause in at all. As regards the Amendment of Lord Dunboyne, I confess I do not know how you could distinguish between ministerial acts which could be done by one Commissioner and other acts which could not. I have no clear conception in my mind as to the distinction which would be drawn, and how in the event of somebody complaining that some decision had been arrived at by a Commissioner by which he, the complainant, considered himself aggrieved, what meaning in a Court of Law would attach to the word "ministerial" in this relation. For that reason I am afraid we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. We do not take the same exception to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord provided that it does not involve the sitting together of the three Commissioners, but we should, of course, greatly prefer to see Clause 24 stand as it is in the Bill as amended in Committee.
§ *THE EARL OF MAYO thought a great many noble Lords behind him from Ireland would fall in with the view of the noble Earl and have the clause deleted altogether from the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Earl does not, I think, understand me. What I said was. I would rather see the clause out than surrounded by all the restrictions proposed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne.
§ *THE EARL OF MAYO said he had never heard any argument why the Estates Commissioners might delegate any of their powers to any one or two of their number. Why was that put into the Bill? What was the good of it? What was the object of it? What had been said was perfectly true, that the Estates 81 Commissioners did not sit on a bench in one room as a judicial body. Their business had to be done in the way that all business was done. One man had to do one part of it and the other another part, and these schemes were brought from one to the other and initialled or not initialled as the case might be. For his own part he could not see the object of this clause at all, and he could fall in with the noble Earl's idea that the clause was much better out of the Bill. That would be much better than the Amendments that had been brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne, and he hoped noble Lords from Ireland would fall in with this view, because it simplified matters very much and left the Estates Commissioners free to do their business in the way they thought best. He had never said a word against the Estates Commissioners and he hoped he never should. They had had a most difficult task to perform under most difficult conditions, and he could not see the object of this delegation clause.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe suggestion made by my noble friend behind me seems the most promising of which circumstances permit. On this side of the House we have a decided objection to the clause as it stands. On the other hand, the noble Earl opposite and his friends take exception to both of the Amendments on the Paper. Is not the obvious way out of the difficulty that we should agree to omit the clause altogether, leaving the Estates Commissioners to do their business in the way which all bodies of that kind do theirs?
§ LORD ATKINSON said he had no objection whatever to withdrawing his Amendment. He disliked the clause as much as it was possible, and he only introduced his Amendment with the object of reforming it to a certain extent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD DUNBOYNE said that as his noble and learned friend had withdrawn his proviso he (Lord Dunboyne) proposed to move the first part of his Amendment—namely, to leave out Clause 24.
§
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 24."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
§ *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to insert a new paragraph in Clause 31. He said this was another of the paragraphs which their Lordships deleted from the Bill in Committee, and which he thought it his duty to ask their Lordships to reconsider. The effect of the clause as it stood would be that holdings would become consolidated into larger holdings, that publicans and money-lenders would buy up holdings that were offered for sale, consolidate them into estate?, and let them to tenants for whom their Lordships' House at some not very far distant date would have to pass rent laws and protection laws. It seemed to him to be a very unwise procedure to abolish the system of landlordism now prevailing in Ireland and to lay the foundation of a system infinitely worse. Their Lordships already knew what the acquisition of land by publicans and money-lenders in Ireland meant, so that he need not labour the point.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 15, line 27, after 'namely,' to insert '(a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, would exceed the sum of five thousand pounds, and if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI should like to press upon your Lordships the reconsideration of this question. The omission of the clause was proposed, I think, by a noble friend of mine who, I am sorry, is absent this week owing to illness, Lord Inchiquin. He, I think, proposed the omission of the clause on the ground that the strong farmer will be altogether replaced by the small holder. I do not think that is as good a reason as the noble Lord seemed to think, whereas the other reason which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord MacDonnell I believe to be a very real one. The noble Marquess opposite, when the clause was being discussed, rather derided the notion that anybody would wish to mass holdings together in Ireland. I think it is very likely you will not again see estates run into many tens of thousands of acres, but the sort of purchase by a local moneyed man, who is 83 also not unlikely to be a lender of money, and the consolidation of a block of holdings in his hands, is a possibility which ought not to be ignored, and consequently we desire to press very strongly once more on your Lordships the importance of restoring this paragraph to the Bill.
§ *LORD LANGFORD said he had great sympathy with Lord MacDonnell's contention because he saw a possibility of that terror to all Ireland, the gombeen man, coming in and acquiring these farms. It was a well-known fact that a great many parcels of land bought under purchase annuities had changed hands. The Government could not do anything so long as the purchase annuity was paid. Although he had more than once in their Lordships' House stood up for the big farmer, he could not help thinking that a provision such as this would be very advantageous to the small holder and would prevent the one terror in the West of Ireland in the form of the gombeen man and the publican acquiring, as they did acquire, the land on which the small men were paying the purchase annuity. The Government were going to try a great experiment in the West of Ireland as regarded congestion, and he was afraid there would be a very great temptation to the men, whom he should not name but who were now so well known, once they got possession of this land, to pass it on to the two classes of men he had mentioned. Therefore he had a very great sympathy with this clause for that reason.
§ *LORD CLONBROCK agreed that the gombeen man might get hold of too much land to the exclusion of the small man, but the sum of £5,000 represented about 250 acres only, and surely it was not thought desirable that no man in Ireland should hold more than 250 acres. Surely the right view was that if the landlords left the country—as he was afraid many would under the operation of this Act—there should be some substantial men to take their place, and that farms should not be stereotyped to a size not exceeding 250 acres.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIf the noble Lord looks at the first line of the proposed paragraph he will see that practically there 84 is no limitation on the Land Commission's power of consent.
§ *LORD CLONBROCK said the limit might be disregarded under some special reason, but to put the sum at £5,000 looked as if it were intended by the Government to limit farms in Ireland to 250 acres.
§ *THE EARL OF MAYO wished to ask Lord MacDonnell a question with regard to this matter. Supposing a tenant was a purchaser under the 1903 Act, he was then a proprietor was he not? Very well, the farm was put up to auction by the Estates Commissioners because the man had not paid his rent to the State. Was the proprietor of any other farm under the 1903 Act debarred from bidding and buying at that auction?
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD replied in the negative, and pointed out that the Amendment said that the proprietor should not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance had been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, exceeded the sum of £5,000; and so long as the advance made to the person who was bidding and the advance made on the property for which he was bidding did not exceed £5,000 he was at liberty to bid and to buy.
THE EARL OF MAYOIf I am a proprietor, cannot I buy when the Estates Commissioners put the farm up to auction because the man has not paid the State rent?
§ LORD ATKINSONSurely there must be a mistake. The sum advanced on the farm bought as well as the sum pending on the farm of the buyer are not together to exceed £5,000?
§ Amendment negatived accordingly.
§ LORD BARRYMORE moved to insert a new clause to remedy a flaw in the existing law under which, in cases where there was a middleman and an unexpired term of less than sixty years, it was impossible to sell to the tenants. This clause, he said, was put down but not reached owing to the closure in the House of Commons for both the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill by Mr. Maurice Healy, who was, perhaps, as well acquainted with the technical working of the Land Purchase Acts as any man in Ireland, and it was put down because there were a very large number of cases, certainly in the South and South-West of Ireland, where these conditions existed, and where, consequently,
86§ On Question?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23: Not-contents, 64.
85| CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor). | Denman, L. [Teller.] | Pentland, L. |
| Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Digby, L. | St. David's, L. |
| Glantawe, L. | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Carrington, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.] | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Haversham, L. | ||
| Allendale, L. | Langford, L. | Weardale, L. |
| Blyth, L. | MacDonnell, L. | Welby, L. |
| Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) | O'Hagan, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Ashbourne, L. | Harlech, L. |
| Devonshire, D. | Ashtown, L. | Hindlip, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Atkinson, L. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) |
| Bagot, L. | Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Barrymore, L. | Kenyon, L |
| Lansdowne, M. | Belper, L. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Knareshorough, L. | |
| Camperdown, E. | Castletown, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Cheylesmore, L. | Massy, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) |
| Devon, E. | Monteagle of Brandon, E. | |
| Mayo, E. [Teller.] | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Oranmore and Browne, B. |
| Shaftesbury, E. | Clonbrock, B. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Waldegrave, E. | Cloncurry, L. | Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.) |
| Wicklow, E. | Colchester, L. | |
| De Freyne, L. | Sanderson, L. | |
| Churchill, V. | De Mauley, L. | Sandys, L. |
| De Vesci, V. [Teller.] | Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Dunalley, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Dunboyne, L. | Ventry, L. | |
| Iveagh, V. | Dunleath, L. | Waleran, L. |
| Milner, V. | Ellenborough, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Farnham, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. | |
| Ardilaun, L. | Forester, L. |
§
it was impossible for the landlord to sell or the tenant to purchase when both were perfectly agreeable to do so. Section 15 of the Act of 1903 was passed, he believed, with the intention of dealing with this state of things, but difficulties had arisen through a decision in the King's Bench in Ireland in 1905 in a case entitled "Lambkin's Estate ex parte Deane." In that case Mr. Deane was a middleman, holding under a lease of which less than sixty years was unexpired. He could not, therefore, sell to his tenants because he could not qualify as a vendor under the Land Purchase Acts. His interest was accordingly assumed to be what was called an "intervening interest," which could be redeemed under Section 15 of the Act of 1903, and on this assumption the head landlord, Mr. Lambkin, entered
87
into purchase agreements with the occupying tenants of the lands comprised in Mr. Deane's lease. After the agreements had been signed a question arose as to whether the tenants were still liable to continue paying their rents to their direct landlord, Mr. Deane, and to test this point Mr. Deane instituted ejectment proceedings against one of them. The points involved came before the King's Bench Division, who held unanimously that the case was not within Section 15 of the Act of 1903, because the whole of the lands in the lease from Lambkin to Deane were found to have been sub-let by Deane. He had a copy of a letter from the agent of the estate with regard to this matter. The agent was well known to him. He was a clear and level-headed man, and he wrote this account of what was a typical case under Section 15 of the Act as at the present moment construed—
The King's Bench Division in Ireland decided unanimously in a considered judgment that the head landlord could not sell under the Act of 1903 to (ho occupying tenants on a middleman's estate where the middleman held for less than sixty years, and the entire of the lands included in the middleman's lease was sub-let. The case was argued at length. I was agent over the head landlord's estate. The circumstances were as follow: Lambkin was head landlord. Deane was middleman with twenty-eight years un-expired of his lease. Lambkin, under counsel's advice, entered into purchase agreements under the Act of 1003 with Deane's sub-tenants, and when the following Gale day of the occupiers' rents fell due Deane brought an action in superior Courts against his largest tenant, who, relying on his purchase agreement with Lambkin, refused to pay the half-year's rent that accrued due after the date of the purchase agreement. The case was argued at length, and the Court reserved judgment and gave the decision I have mentioned.
This agent told him that he had a large number of estates under him, including from 100 to 220 tenants, all of whom were anxious to buy and the landlords were perfectly willing and ready to sell; but the whole business was stopped by the decision in the case of Lambkin v. Deane. The estates of that class were probably as a rule smallish estates and probably the estates of all others on which it was most important and advisable that the tenants should be made possessors of their holdings. Of course, there was a remedy. The head landlord could buy out the middleman or the middleman could buy out the head landlord, and in that way become the sole landlord and thus be able to deal with the tenants; but in most of these cases neither the head
88
landlord nor the middleman had the money to do it, so that the difficulty remained. He understood there was a certain doubt among lawyers as to the reading of the sections of the Act, and it would appear that this case of Lambkin v. Deane had not been fully reported and was not very well known among lawyers. But the judgment existed, and it was preventing the sale of estates similarly situated. If the noble Earl or his Law Officers had any doubts as to the necessity of such a clause as the one he proposed, and were prepared to look into it, he would suggest that he should be allowed to carry this clause, or, at any rate the first part of it, and that the Law Officers should look into the matter between now and the next stage, or else that it should be considered when their Lordships' Amendments to this Bill came before another place.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
§ '.—(1) Where the immediate landlord of any holding or holdings has not an interest sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the next superior landlord having such an interest shall be deemed to be a person having power to sell to occupying tenants under the said Acts notwithstanding that the said holding or holdings constitute the whole estate of such superior landlord, and section fifteen of the Act of 1903 shall apply accordingly.
§ (2) On a sale by any such superior landlord any arrears of rent due by the occupying tenants shall be dealt with in such manner as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, as may be decided by the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
§ (3) The interest payable by the occupying tenants pending the completion of the sale, shall in such case be payable to such persons and in such proportions as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, as may be decided by the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.'"—(Lord Barrymore.)
§ LORD ATKINSON said that as this was more or less a technical matter, perhaps he could assist the noble Earl. Deane's estate was a case where all the land was held by a middleman, and it was decided that it did not come within Section 15 of the Act of 1903 because that section enacted that in the case of the sale of an estate the Land Commission might, if they thought fit, declare that any person who, as a subtenant, was in the exclusive occupation of a parcel of land comprised in the estate, should be deemed the tenant of that parcel. It was obvious that did not apply 89 to tie case where the entire of the estate was sub-let by a middleman to one individual tenant. It would be desirable that the head or superior landlord should be able to sell direct to the sub-tenants and that the middleman's interest should be redeemed out of the purchase money.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the further explanation, although the noble Lord, Lord Barrymore, who, like myself, is a layman, gave a very clear account of the difficulty which has arisen under Section 15 of the Act of 1903. The noble Lord is quite right; I did find myself in some difficulty with regard to this Amendment because the case is not a reported case, and, therefore, we were not in possession of the particular circumstances on which the noble Lord relied. To a layman, although I think I follow the point of the noble and learned Lord, it does seem somewhat absurd that the mere fact of an estate being in that single occupation should keep it out of subsection (1) of Section 15, but I am quite willing, I need hardly say, to take the noble and learned Lord's word for that fact. I think the best course to take would be that suggested by the noble Lord opposite, that he should insert his subsection (1) of the new clause in the Bill, and then we should be able to consider whether we could accept it exactly as it stands or whether it might be possible to do so with some modification. I would assume from what has been said by Lord Barrymore, though I have been told otherwise, that there is a perfect unanimity and agreement between the superior landlord and the middleman as to the desire of the tenants to become purchasers under the Act, but that it was prevented by the construction placed on Section 15 of the Act of 1903.
§ On Question, subsection (1) of the Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM moved the insertion of a new clause to provide that where a number of the tenants of an estate had not agreed before the passing of the Act to the terms of purchase arranged with the other tenants the Estates Commissioners might order, subject to the consent of the Treasury, that the tenants so refusing should not be placed in a less advantageous position with 90 regard to the rate of advance than the tenants who had previously agreed to purchase, and that the percentage payable on the purchase money of any such transaction should be calculated on the same basis as for the rest of the estate.
§ The clause was designed to prevent possible friction arising between landlords and tenants in future and also to prevent any trouble arising from the fact that tenants living near each other were paying different rates of annuity it was also brought forward with the object of assisting estates where some of the tenants had not so far come to an agreement. He believed that since 1871 the rate of annuity had decreased steadily until the introduction of the present Bill, and it would be a pity if anything were done at this time to put a stop to the sale of land that had so far gone on satisfactorily. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the clause.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause:
'38. Whore a number of the tenants on an estate have not agreed before the passing of this Act to the terms of purchase arranged with the other tenants, the Estates Commissioners may order, subject to the consent of the Treasury, that the tenants so refusing shall not be placed in a less advantageous position with regard to the rate of advance than the tenants who had previously agreed to purchase, and that the percentage payable on the purchase money of any such transaction shall be calculated on the same basis as for the rest of the estate.'"—(The Earl of Clanwilliam.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am afraid we cannot alter the view we expressed on the noble Earl's Amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. We are bound to consider, quite apart from the question of privilege the fact that the Treasury have arranged as large an advance as they could possibly agree to, and an advance which we consider to be on a liberal scale. Quite apart from questions of privilege it is not advisable, by a clause here and a clause there, to make additions to that amount. We do not see why it is reasonable that a certain number of tenants on a particular estate, having, it is true, desired to come to an agreement but not having been able to persuade the requisite number of other tenants on the said estate to join with them—we do not see why they should obtain an advantage over those tenants in the future who may be, morally, in precisely 91 the same position because they might have been actually willing to come to terms but have had no opportunity of expressing their willingness to do so. I am afraid, on the various grounds I have mentioned, we cannot agree to the insertion of the noble Earl's Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON did not wish to press the noble Earl the Leader of the House; but he would ask him if he would tell their Lordships what was the legal position of tenants who, at this moment and before the passing of the Bill, proposed to come in. What was the position of those who came in before the passing of the Act? He understood it was held by lawyers of repute that every tenant who chose to come in before this Act was passed would be debarred in future from coming in at three and a-quarter percent. He was entitled to come in at three and a-quarter percent, now, and therefore the date which had been put in, 15th September, was practically ultra vires. Would such a tenant come in under the three and a-quarter per cent. of 1903 or would he come in under the more restricted provisions of this Act?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am sorry to say I overlooked the point raised by the noble Viscount. If he will allow me I will take a note of it now and give an opinion—which certainly will not be my own, because it is not a point on which I am competent to form an opinion—at the next stage of the Bill.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThere seems to me to be a certain difficulty in applying this clause in the form in which it is put down on the Paper. Take the case of an estate where the bulk of the tenants have had an opportunity of buying under the terms which existed before this year. Part of them take advantage of the opportunity; part of them do not. If this Amendment is added to the Bill I understand the effect will be that the tenants who did not avail themselves of their opportunity would be afterwards, so to speak, brought up to the level of the tenants who did take advantage of their opportunity. If that were done might it not be very unfair to the tenants on an adjoining estate who never had an opportunity at all? If the tenants whom my noble friend wishes to rescue are left out in the cold it is, ex hypothesi, owing to their own fault; and I must say it seems to me it would be 92 rather a strong order to give to them the same advantages that were given before to their more enterprising brothers.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved to insert a clause, at the beginning of Part III, dealing with the incorporation of the Congested Districts Board. The clause was, he said, omitted from the Bill by mistake during the Committee stage.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause:
§ '38.—(1) From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board for Ireland shall be a body corporate, bearing the name of the "Congested Districts Board for Ireland" with a capacity to acquire and hold land, and to sue and be sued by its corporate name.
§ (2) The Board shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and such seal shall be authenticated by the signature of a permanent member of the Board, or of the secretary.
§ (3) In the execution or performance of any power or duty conferred upon or transferred to the Board, by or in pursuance of any enactment, the Board shall adopt and use the style and seal of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland.
§ (4) The powers and duties of the trustees of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland under any enactment, shall on the appointed day, be transferred to the Board.
§ (5) Subsection (3) of section thirty-four of the Act of 1891 and subsections (2) and (3) of section two of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1893, shall cease to have effect as from the appointed day.'"—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI have no objection to the reinsertion of the clause.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause dealing with the constitution of the Congested Districts Board. He said that on the Committee stage of the Bill the personnel of the Congested Districts Board remained unsettled, and his Amendment altered its strength as little as possible. At the present time the Board consisted of eleven members, eight appointed members and three ex officio members. There was, at present, a distinction between temporary and permanent members of the Board, but it was now proposed to abolish that distinction which really never had any great significance. His proposal provided for a twelfth member of the Board, a paid member appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. 93 The other members were, following the existing practice, appointed by His Majesty, but he saw no reason why the paid member of the Board should not be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant who appointed all the other high paid officials, members of the permanent Civil Service, in Ireland. He also provided that one half the existing permanent members should retire when this Act came into operation. At the present time three or four members held office for four years. The rest held office for life. It would be in their Lordships' remembrance that the Bill as it came from the House of Commons provided for the retirement from office of all the existing members of the Board who were not officials, but it seemed to him very desirable that a certain number should retain office and so afford a transition stage and a means of perpetuating the traditions which the Board had hitherto inherited. The only question of importance, in his opinion, was the proposal that half the existing members should retire. He thought it was desirable that there should be fresh blood introduced into the Congested Districts Board. He was aware that certain people considered that if these vacancies were created they would be filled in a particular way. For his own part he believed they would be filled with the sole object of placing upon the Board members who were more or less acquainted with the conditions of the West of Ireland—men of independent character and of standing in the country whose presence on the Board would be of great use.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause:
§ '.—(1) From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board shall consist of the following members—
- (a) The Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland and one Estates Commissioner taken in rotation:
- (b) Seven members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as appointed members):
- (c) One paid member appointed by the Lord Lieutenant (in this Act referred to as the permanent member):
§ (2) One half of the non-official members of the Congested Districts Board, as existing at the date of the passing of this Act, shall retire by lot on the appointed day and the second half shall retire on the expiry of one year from the appointed day, but members so retiring shall be eligible for re-appointment within the number of seven provided by this section.
§ (3) An appointed member shall hold office for four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
94§ (4) The permanent member shall hold office during pleasure, and shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at their disposal such annual salary as the Lord Lieutenant may determine.
§ His Majesty may fill any casual vacancy in the office of appointed member, and the Lord Lieutenant may fill any such vacancy in the office of permanent member, by appointing a person to be a member in the place of the member whose office is vacant.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
§ LORD ATKINSON opposed the Amendment. At an earlier stage he proposed an Amendment that the time had come for the abolition of the Congested Districts Board and the division of its duties between two other bodies. That did not find favour. On the other hand, the Government proposed that the Board should henceforth be elective, thereby putting upon the Board those who represented the constituents they were returned to represent and so representing various antipathies. The noble Lord had said he preferred the congests to the landless, or lawless, men. He said the existing Board had done good work; their powers were extended, and they had money that they never had before. The way the noble Lord rewarded them for all that was to abolish them within twelve months. The policy was different, the agencies were different, the personnel was different, the aims were all different; and the result would be that if these men were put upon the Board as nominated members the same force that had compelled the Government to create a Board, the real object of which was to prefer the landless men to the congests, would compel the Government to place upon the Board, through nomination, men animated with exactly the same ideas and having the same views as the elected members. This matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill. Everybody, he thought, rejected the elected members. Every noble Lord saw clearly that the nominated members would be of exactly the same kind, having the same views and the same objects as the elected members; and therefore it was desirable to give the present Board a chance—a Board of which everybody approved, which everybody complimented, which everybody said was a success, and which everybody was willing should continue. And yet, in the face of that success, it was wished to abolish them and place in the hands of the Government the power of putting in their place seven nominated members. The noble Lord himself provided 95 that immediately three nominated members were to disappear, they were to be followed twelve months after by the remainder of the nominated members; and then there were to be introduced immediately three nominated members and in twelve months three more. The result would be that before twelve months were over their place would know them no more. Lord MacDonnell had said he was fully convinced they would be men who would be wholly animated with a desire to promote the relief of congestion. He did not question the sincerity of that belief for a moment, but he confessed it was not his belief. He had read with great interest all the evidence given before the Congested Districts Board, and he thought there would be seven "Mr. John Fitzgibbon representatives "; and Mr. Fitzgibbon had deliberately said he preferred the landless men to the migrated congests. If men of that policy were to be upon the Board then the relief of congestion became an absolute impossibility. Everybody knew who was the real author of this Bill—who was behind it. His impression was that the nominated members would either be the dogs of war or the kennel huntsmen.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not propose to speak at any length on this Amendment, because, as your Lordships know, not merely the constitution of the Congested Districts Board but its powers and the area of its operations have been so altered from the propositions contained 96 in our original Bill that it would serve no useful purpose if I were now to compare the various methods which are proposed for replacing them. There is only one observation which the noble and learned Lord made to which I must call attention with a view of indicating that it is not entirely accurate. The noble and learned Lord said "You have got so much more money." I must point out that you have not got it, and whether you get it will depend in no small degree upon the composition, the area, and the powers which it is proposed to give to the Congested Districts Board. The noble and learned Lord must not assume that the one clause in the Bill of which they have always heartily approved, giving the sum of £163,000 extra to the Congested Districts Board, will necessarily stand part of the Bill if all the Amendments which noble Lords have been good enough to make in relation to the Congested Districts Board are insisted on at all stages.
§ LORD ATKINSONThat is the first time it has been suggested that that was the price of their extinction.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Further consideration adjourned till To-morrow, and to be taken first.
§ House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Three o'clock.