§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the estate of Sir C. M. Dom-vile, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether this decision carries out the intentions they held when the Bill of. 1909 was introduced, and if not, whether they intend to propose legislation to Parliament mitigating the hardships caused by this decision in this and similar cases; and to move for Papers.
§
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I say a few words on the subject of the Notice that I have put on the Paper, I desire to express my regret on two heads to the noble Lord opposite who represents the Irish Office. First, of all, doubtless I owing to the fact that I write a shocking hand, I have been totally unable to induce the printers to spell the name of Sir Compton Dom-vile correctly. I made two attempts, and I do not know which attempt was the worse. Also, owing to a lapse of memory which the noble Lord put right yesterday, I referred to the particular words of the clause in which I am to-day interested and asked the noble Lord whether they expressed the intentions of the Government when the Bill of last year was introduced. The noble Lord reminded me that they were introduced into the Bill on the motion of my noble friend Lord Dunboyne. I have looked up the records and remember the circumstances very well, and I hope this fault of mine in forgetting that fact has in no way inconvenienced the noble Lord in preparing for this afternoon's discussion.
579
If it has, I am anxious to offer him all the apologies I can. The fact, however, that these words were actually introduced as an Amendment from this side of the House I think strengthens my position in making the contention I desire to make this afternoon, for our impression of the significance of these words was very different from what the Courts in Ireland have construed them to mean. The particular words of the clause are—
in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission a fresh agreement is entered into.
§ It sometimes happens, not in a case of the sale of tenanted lands but of untenanted lands, that the Land Commission direct an alteration in the price. It may be an alteration in the amount or in the method of payment of the price, and it has been held by the Courts that this direction does not constitute a direction to alter an agreement. It has been held by the Courts that it entails an actual tearing up of the old agreement and the making of a new one. That, we feel is a very substantial grievance, and certainly contrary to what we hoped would be the construction of the Act when it was passed last year.
§ I am quite aware that the three cases in question are large cases, but this can arise in very small cases and very great injustice will be done if the state of affairs is to he allowed to remain as we fear it may remain as the result of the decision of last week. I may say I know of small cases in which hardship will be caused unless the Government, either by legislation or by administrative action are ready to help us out of the difficulty. Imagine the case of an agreement for the sale of untenanted land, the price being £1,000. The agreement, if it is before the Estates Commissioners now, was probably signed four or five years ago. The Estates Commissioners, when the turn of that estate comes to be considered, may say, "No, we will not advance £1,000 in this case." They need give no reason for saying that. They simply say, "We are only prepared to advance £900." The usual thing then is for the vendor, who may he the landlord or a trustee, to go to the purchaser and say, "The Commissioners will only advance £900; what are you going to do about the balance?" and probably if the man is a substantial man lie gives cash for the £100, or part of it, leaving the remainder on second mortgage. The purchase money would remain exactly the same; the only 580 change would be that the vendor would lose the bonus on the £100 that he takes in cash from the purchaser. All that has happened is that the Estates Commissioners have directed a variation in the method of obtaining the purchase money. But if the Court of Appeal holds in these particular cases—and there is no reason why the same procedure should not be applied to every case of sale of untenanted land in future—that the agreement once varied by the Estates Commissioners is at an end and that a new agreement must be made, it means that the vendor will have to take Stock instead of cash, that the bonus will be reduced in accordance with the new scale, and that the purchaser will have to pay the higher rate of annuity. It does seem unreasonable that merely by this very small variation, in almost every case merely of the method by which the vendor receives his purchase money and not necessarily of the amount at all, all the advantages which were expected at the time the bargain was made should be lost to both vendor and purchaser owing to this, as I think, unexpected decision of the Courts.
§ These bargains were made years ago, but they have not been carried through owing to the fact, for which no one is to blame, that the administration of the Act of 1903 has not proceeded so fast as the actual signing of agreements under it. I cannot help thinking that by this decision of the Court of Appeal, which I understand is a finaldecision, the Government are every bit as disagreeably surprised as we are, and I hope they will be able to tell us that either by legislation or some alteration in procedure this difficulty will be got over. I am advised that if they gave a direction for the agreement to be altered in a way that might, as the result of negotiation, be suggested by vendor and tenant, the difficulty might be got over, and in that way vendors and purchasers, who certainly in equity are entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1903 in place of the disadvantages of the Act of 1909, would have those benefits secured to them. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office will be able to tell us that His Majesty's Government are charitably disposed in this matter.
§ Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Tuesday, 19th July, in the case of the 581 estate of Sir C. M. Domvile.—:(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Motion has lost no time in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. I may say that there is no official report of what took place at the trial by the Court of Appeal in the case of Sir C.M. Domvile's estate, and we have to rely solely on a newspaper report. We have telegraphed to the Estates Commissioners, and they have given us to understand that in substance the report that has reached us is correct, but it must not be supposed as far as the facts are concerned that I am answering on any higher authority than the newspaper report. The noble Earl seems to me, in the speech he has made, to have altered the ground upon which he brings this case before your Lordships. If you refer to his Notice you will see that he at first asked whether this decision carries out the intentions of the Government in the Act of 1909. I understand lie now accepts the fact that the particular words with which he is concerned were not in the original Bill, but were inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne. He further, I understand, no longer claims that this particular case, at any rate, is one of hardship.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSI understood the noble Earl to state a hypothetical case only.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREOnly because the hypothetical case was a small case, and these are big cases, I wanted to show that this is not only a matter of big sales and holdings, but a case which will frequently happen, and very often in small cases.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSAt any rate the noble Earl does not now seem to think that there is any cause for legislation, and that very largely modifies the position he has taken up. I do not know that it is necessary to go very deeply into this case. It is a rather difficult and complicated one. The whole case turns upon the interpretation of words inserted at the instance of Lord Dunboyne, to the effect that the Estates Commissioners may make a direction in cases 582 in which some variation of the terms of purchase are contemplated, and that the effect of such direction on their part is to bring the new purchase under the terms of the old scale. It really turns upon that.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSYes, as the noble Earl says, to remain under the terms of the old scale. In this particular case there were three farms belonging to Sir C. M. Domvile, and in the year 1905 Sir C. M. Domvile came to an understanding with his tenants for the sale of those three farms at sums all exceeding £5,000. That was lodged with the Commissioners in 1905. The case was not reached until 1909. Then the Commissioners informed the trustees of Sir C. M. Domvile's estate that they could not advance more than £5,000 in any case. It seems then that the vendor came to an understanding with the tenants by which they were to pay the balance over and above the £5,000, and he applied to the Commissioners to see whether he could still obtain the twelve per cent. bonus and the cash under the old scale. He proposed to effect this in one of two ways, either by endorsing the consent on the existing agreements or by entering into fresh agreements by regarding the action of the Estates Commissioners as amounting to a direction. Upon that the Estates Commissioners applied to Mr. Justice Wylie, the Judicial Commissioner, and asked for a decision as to whether, if they gave a direction, the agreement would come under the old scale; secondly, if they gave no direction, whether it would come under the old scale; and, further, whether their minute saying they could not advance more than £5,000 constituted a direction. The Judge gave no opinion on the first point. He ruled on the other point in the negative—that is to say, that their Memorandum did not constitute a direction, and that, in the failure to give such a direction, the agreement would have to be regarded as a future purchase agreement; and that was confirmed on appeal, as the noble Earl says. But I would point out that there is nothing in this judgment to preclude the trustees front applying to the Commissioners for such a direction. I do not believe they have ever done it. Does the noble Earl know?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI do not know about this case. I know a case in which an application either has been made or is going to be made in a very few days.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSAt any rate there is nothing in this judgment to preclude their making such an application; nor is there anything in the judgment to prevent the Commissioners, so far as I know, from making such a direction. Therefore, if I may say so very respectfully, I think that in bringing this forward at this stage the noble Earl is somewhat premature. For all we know the grievance which he thinks exists may have disappeared in the natural course of administrative action. With regard to the question as to whether this is a hard case or not, I am perfectly prepared to admit that if the decision as to this particular purchase had been reached before November, 1908, the vendor and the tenants would have been entitled to the much better terms which then existed. But I should also like to point out that when the parties entered into the agreement for so large a purchase as this, they were aware that, under Section 1, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903, agreements for purchase of over £5,000 could only be sanctioned if the Commissioners regarded such sanction as expedient, and also that a refusal to sanction voided the agreement. They must have known in the year 1905 that they were running great risks of not getting the agreement they had made sanctioned. I may further say, in that relation, that had it not been for the Act of 1909 the hardship, of which they regard this particular case as an example, might have been very much greater, because after September, 1908, the original terms of the Act of 1903 automatically ceased.
It is very difficult to say how far this case is representative. This is the first case of the kind which has been reached. The Commissioners are quite unable to forecast how many similar cases there may be in front of them; but I would point out that it can only apply to a limited number of cases. For instance, all the cases which you may define as zone cases must go through automatically, and the Commissioners would not have any power to vary the terms of the purchases as they have in this case. I may say that it is not at all the intention of the Estates Com- 584 missioners that this should be regarded as a precedent of what is likely to happen in the future, and I think it is really too early to judge as to what the effect of the interpretation of this particular phrase in the clause may be. Meanwhile I cannot see what there is to prevent the trustees from making an application in the ordinary way to the Estates Commissioners, and after they have made that application it will be time for us, I think, to consider what action, if any, it is necessary to take in the matter.
THE EARL OF MAYOMy Lords, it seems to me that the whole crux of this matter lies in the question asked by the Estates Commissioners of the Judicial Commissioner. I can understand him giving no answer. This has happened before. It happened in my case when I sold my property. I arranged with the tenant when the sum was over £5,000 that he was either to find the rest of it or it was to remain on second mortgage. But what I complain of is that His Majesty's. Government have expressed no wish to settle this matter. This is really a test case, and the noble Earl asked what they were going to do in the matter. The Government have referred the matter back, so to speak, to the Estates Commissioners. They say, "If the trustees choose, they can go to the Estates Commissioners." But I must point out that the Estates Commissioners asked a question of the Judicial Commissioner which is the crux of the whole thing, and that question is not answered. I do not see that the Estates Commissioners, if it is going to be referred back to them, can say anything more about the matter. The bargain was made under the 1903 Act; then came the Act of 1909, and when it is a question of the twelve per cent. bonus it is very easy to say, although we do not think it is quite right, "We do not look upon this as the original bargain; there has been a variation by the Commissioners." I can quite understand that upon that variation the Commissioners, or people in authority, may say, "Oh, no, this bonus cannot be paid on the full sum; a new direction has been granted by us." That is the whole reason why Sir Compton Domvile's trustees had to take the matter before the Courts. The answer the Government have given us now is to refer us back to the Estates Commissioners, which I consider most unsatisfactory.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSThe ease has never been raised in a substantive form. The Judge refused to give a decision on a merely hypothetical case. If the trustees apply to the Estates Commissioners then the case would come forward in a substantive form before the Judicial Commissioner.
THE EARL OF MAYOThen he can really answer the question that they put to him. Now we have got to the crux of the matter, because that is the thing on which the whole question turns. I hope that the trustees of Sir Compton Domvile will refer it back to the Estates Commissioners, and then I hope the Judicial Commissioner will see his way to give a direct answer. We shall then know where we are. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, for explaining that point, and I have nothing more to say about the matter at present.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI have to thank the noble Lord for the hint he has given us, as regards this first question, that we should approach the Estates Commissioners, and I hope from the way he has addressed us this afternoon that we may look for as favourable a decision from them as we should get from the noble Lord if we were applying to him.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLONBROCK rose to ask His Majesty's Government for the following information as to the working of the Irish Land Act, 1909, during the period ended June 30, 1910—
- 1. How many vendors have lodged originating applications for direct sales from landlord to tenant and other sales;
- 2. What is the total of the advances applied for under such applications;
- 3. How many purchase agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged;
- 4. What is the total of the advances applied for under such agreements;
- 5. How many originating requests have been lodged fur sales of estates direct to the Land Commission;
- 6. How many holdings are comprised in those requests.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Questions that stand in my name on the Paper with the object of obtaining information on these various points. At first sight Question 2 and Question 4 might appear to be identical, but they are not so, because Question 2 refers to originating applications which contain besides tenanted land parcels of untenanted land, whereas Question 4 refers only to the advances and the purchase agreements confined solely to tenanted land. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me the information asked for.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSMy Lords, the information the noble Lord asks for is as follows. The Estates Commissioners report that from December 3, 1909, to June 30, 1910, thirty-five originating applications were lodged by vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the tenants. In answer to Question 2, 352 purchase agreements for the sale of holdings on these estates have been lodged, and the purchase money applied for therein is £106,979. In four of these estates no purchase agreements have yet been lodged. In reply to Questions 3 and 4, 2,379 agreements at three and a-half per cent. annuities have been lodged, and the advances therein applied for amount to £611,226. These figures include those given in answer to the second Question, and the difference represents purchase agreements lodged for sale of holdings on estates in which the originating applications were lodged prior to the passing of the Act of 1909. The reply to Questions 5 and 6 is that fourteen originating requests have been lodged by the vendors for the sale of the estates therein comprised direct to the Land Commission. The estimated number of holdings comprised in these requests is. 480.
LORD CLONBROCKI should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state how soon the Annual Reports of the Irish Land Commissioners and of the Estates Commissioners respectively for the year ended March 31, 1910, may be expected to be in the hands of the public.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSThe Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1910, has been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. It is now in the printer's hands, and will be 587 resented to Parliament in the course of a few days. The report of the Estates Commissioners is in course of preparation. The major part of it is already in print, and it will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSI cannot say. It will be laid as soon as possible.