ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

£2 per
Cent. Consols.

£24 per
Cents.
(1905).

-(Sir John Hibbert.)

That they give leave to the Lord Watson to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Trusts Administration, his Lordship (in his place) consenting.

HOUSE TAX CONSOLIDATION BILL.

On Motion of Sir John Hibbert, Bill to Consolidate Enactments relating to the Duties upon Inhabited Houses.

Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 23rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

COAL MINES REGULATION BILL

MR. ASQUITH moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amand the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1887. He explained that it was a non-contentious measure, carrying out substantially the recommendations of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The amendments of the law which the Bill would effect could not be conveniently discussed before the Bill was in print, and therefore he hoped that the House would excuse him from explaining them in detail on the present occasion. The main object of the Bill was to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission that there should be special rules in regard to explosions in mines rendered dangerous by the presence of coal dust and damp. One or two alterations of the general Act were also proposed, the chief change relating to the subject of deductions in connection with the wages of miners.

Bill presented and read the first time; Return presented accordingly; to lie to be read a second time upon Monday upon the Table, and to be printed. next, and to be printed. [Bill 194]. [No. 203.]

[blocks in formation]

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.) time, their complaint being that the said, that he rose to take part in this present procedure was costly, slow, and Debate, which was of such supreme im- cumbrous, and that the Chief Secretary portance to Ireland, with a feeling akin had not attempted to remedy this evil. to despair. This feeling, however, was He rejoiced, therefore, that the right not due to any doubt entertained by him hon. Gentleman had announced his inas to the course which he ought to pursue, tention to take the subject in hand in because he had no doubt on the point. Committee. What was the present proIt was when he considered the difficulties cedure for the fixing of a fair rent? A lying in the path of the Bill that he tenant wishing to have a rent fixed almost despaired of the result. There served an originating notice on the were, in the first place, a number of Land Commission. That notice went Members in that House, and a large before a sub-Commission, comprising a number of people outside, who were legal gentleman and two agricultural exfirmly convinced that the Irish tenants perts. The tenant had usually to fee a had already obtained more than justice lawyer to fight his case, and, if either landat the hands of the Legislature. Then, lord or tenant disagreed with the finding, in dealing with the subject of Irish land, there was an appeal to the head Comthey were touching a question which mission. Other lawyers had to be feed, aroused the bitterest feelings and the another legal fight took place, and most unpleasant memories in Ireland costs were run up, which often exceeded itself. There were thousands and greatly the reduction of rent granted. thousands of tenants fighting against That was a costly proceeding. In its bad seasons, foreign competition, and place the Chief Secretary proposed that low prices, and smarting under what the tenant should serve an originating they believed to be wrong legal decisions. notice on the Land Commission, which On the other side there were landlords, notice was to cost 1s. The Commission with but a small margin of income left would then send down to the holding to live upon, and who saw that margin two valuers. In non-contentious cases, in danger of disappearing and naturally involving no complicated questions of fought to preserve it. These were the improvement, the decision of these valuers last people from whom one could expect might and probably would be accepted. calm reasoning or sober judgment, and Thus, in non-contentious cases, the whole that added greatly to the difficulties in costs incurred either by the landlord or the way of a Bill like the present. In the tenant would not exceed 1s. When, the third place, the measure was so com- however, either the landlord or the plex that he feared he should be unable, tenant declined to accept the decision of not being a lawyer, to make plain to the two valuers the right hon. Gentleman the House that which was plain to his proposed that an appeal should lie to own mind. He was glad that the a sub-Commission Court constituted as leaders of the Unionist Party had re- now, and he stipulated that this Court solved not to challenge a Division on of Appeal should consist of the permathe Second Reading. They had been nent servants of the Land Commission, taunted for that decision, but he did not and they would therefore be the very see any ground for the taunt, the men whom the Land Commission ap measure being one pre-eminently suited pointed now as Court valuers in appeal for discussion in Committee. He cases. Cases of appeal on points of supported the Motion for the Second law were, of course, to be reserved for Reading because he was convinced that the Judicial Commissioner, as at present for Ireland itself, and for the Union, He thought the proposal a reasonable there was no safety except in a manly and fair one, and one that neither the and resolute endeavour to grapple with landlord nor the tenant should object to. the land question upon lines just both Passing to the Bill itself, and without to the landlord and tenant. He would beating about the bush, he would go to first refer to the question of procedure what was the kernel of the Bill-namely, which the Chief Secretary had announced the 5th clause, which dealt with the his intention of dealing with in Com- question of improvements. What was mittee. The Irish landlords took a an improvement? He admitted the sound objection to the Bill as read a first definition of an improvement in this

[ocr errors]

Bill differed somewhat from the defini- under the law. He was quite certain tion of an improvement in the Act of that if the sub-section were passed six 1870. According to the Act of 1870 an months would not go by before there improvement must be "suitable to the was a greater Adams and Dunseath case holding.' Those words were left out of than ever there had been in the history this Bill, and he approved of the of land in Ireland; and, not wishing to omission, for the presence of the words see that, he believed the sub-section had worked injustice. The landlords could not be allowed to pass as it stood. and their representatives contended that What did the sub-section mean viewed the present definition of an improve- in the light of the actual practice of the ment made "every expenditure of capital Land Commission? What was proved or labour which increased the letting before the Committee upstairs was that value of the holding" an improvement. when a rent was to be fixed, there was, They argued that that was a new de- first of all, a hearing in the Court, parture, and that it was unjust. In the and then the two agricultural experts first place, he demurred to the statement went upon the land. If they came upon that ordinary tillage and cultivation a house and out-offices they simply would increase the letting value of the ignored their existence unless the landholding; it would do nothing of the lord claimed them. It was so much a kind, and no Commission would hold matter of ordinary notoriety that the that it would. It was quite true that buildings belonged to the tenant that in tillage of a high character would increase 95 cases out of 100 the fact was unthe letting value, but where it occurred challenged, and the Commissioners never it was protected in the Act of 1870; the took the slightest notice of a house on definition of improvement there covered the land, and no rent was fixed upon it. the question of tillage and manures that If the Commissioners came across were unexhausted. He did not believe the drainage work or reclamation the tenant phrase "every expenditure of capital or had to prove the actual improvement labour that increases the letting value of work; it was not enough for him to say the holding" would cover ordinary tillage that a field was drained or that land had or cultivation, and he maintained that it been reclaimed, but he had to prove that ought not to do so. If the Chief Secretary the work had been done and what it intended it to do that he demurred, and cost. After the tenant had done that for the reason that the tenant got the the Commissioners allowed him a certain benefit of his ordinary tillage and culti- percentage upon his expenditure. So far vation in his crops, and had no right to as the overwhelming majority of cases get it a second time at the expense of was concerned that really covered the the landlord by way of improvement. If equity of the case, and if the transaction that was what the Bill really meant, the were not governed by the 4th section of landlord's interest ought to be protected the Act of 1870, if it took place solely by the addition of the words, "except under the fair rent section of the Act of ordinary tillage and cultivation." The 1881 by itself, he should consider it a very next sub-section dealt with the question fair proceeding, and, upon the whole, of increased letting value. That was a reasonably satisfactory. But in the question of comparatively little import- small number of cases in which there ance so far as the practical working of was an increased letting value over and the Land Acts was concerned; but, inas- above the percentage which the Commuch as it had been raised, and the land- missioners allowed to the tenant on his lords attached great importance to it, he expenditure, a great controversy had desired to make his position quite clear. arisen. There were three legal ComSub-section 3 of Clause 5 was, to his missioners. [Mr. J. MORLEY: "Four."] mind, the most enigmatic piece of print The fourth had not sat for a long time; he ever read. The other night the hon. he never left the office. There were Member for Cavan, who knew just as three who were examined before the much about casuistry as most people, de- Committee. He asked Mr. Greerclared and he had great sympathy with question 8,149the hon. Member's contention that that sub-section as it stood would give far more to the landlord than he got now

increased letting value, what has been your "Where you have decided this question of legal direction to the lay Commissioners?"

"My legal direction," he replied, "has been to them to give a percentage in a case of that kind of 5 or 6 per cent. upon the actual cost, and nothing more." All the rest went to the landlord. According to Mr. Greer, the landlord received the whole of the unearned increment, or, as the Law Courts in Ireland called it, the increased letting value. There was another legal Commissioner examinedMr. Laurence Doyle. He was a very tough customer indeed. Whatever prejudices he had could not be fairly said to be prejudices in favour of the tenant. He made no charge against Mr. Doyle, who gave his evidence in a most straightforward manner; he was a very able witness, and impressed every Member of the Committee. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked the witness

"At any rate, where the improvements give a letting value over the interest, the rest of the letting value goes to the landlord?"

and he affirmed that during the 14 years that had run since the Land Act of 1881 was passed the landlord had received in all these cases, be they few or many, and he thought they were few, that to which he was not entitled by law. He said that on the authority of Lord Justice FitzGibbon, who told the Committee

"Being suitable and ameliorative they (the improvement works) of course increase its letting value. But the works are one thing and the increased letting value another. The works executed by the tenant are wholly his and are to be completely protected and secured against confiscation, whether by imposition of rent on them or otherwise. But, so far as these works may have brought out latent powers and capacities of the soil and so increased its letting value, that increased value does not necessarily belong to the tenant."

Asked whether he meant that this increased letting value should go to the landlord, Lord Justice FitzGibbon said

tration of the Act of 1881, on the evidence of one of the Judges who had decided the case of Adams v. Dunseath, and who probably was one of the ablest judges on the Irish or any other Bench, that the Irish landlords had for 14 years been receiving a share of this unearned increment which did not belong to them according to law. This matter probably concerned the north of Ireland more than the south, because those cases arose more in the north than in the south; but the view of the tenants,

Mr. Doyle, cautious as he was said "I do "Not only not the whole of it, but in every passage (in the judgment on Adams. Dunnot admit that in every case." The hon. seath) in which it is referred to it is stated Member replied, "But that is the law, that the interest of landlord and tenant in is it not?" Mr. Doyle-"I should say that remainder was to be had regard to." it is." The House would see how cautious The landlord party in the House had he was; he was not to entrapped. At been hurling charges of confiscation all events, he was forced to admit that against the Government and against whatever he did as a legal Commissioner hon. Members who were supporting the that was the law he was bound to Bill. But he said, on the evidence of administer-namely, that where un- the officials charged with the adminisearned increment arose it belonged to the landlord. The third legal Commissioner examined was Mr. Bailey. He asked that gentleman, "Is this your procedure under Adams and Dunseath? It is proved that a tenant has expended £100 on improving his holding, that the expenditure has increased the letting value of the land from, say, 10s. to 15s. an acre. Is it the law that you will simply deal with the £100, and that the whole of the increased letting value will go to the landlord?" Mr. Bailey replied, "That is the law." He had elaborated north and south, was that, while the point, because very great efforts were being made to confuse this simple issue. They were told that certain lay Commissioners divided the unearned increment. What he wanted to impress on the House was that this was a question of law, and not of value at all. So far as it was a question of law under Adams and Dunseath, it was for the judgment of the legal Commissioners, and not for the judgment of the lay Commissioners, Mr. T. W. Russell.

the soil and its inherent capacities belonged to the landlord, the landlord, in letting to them the land for 15 years, let also its inherent capacities, and that therefore, the result of what they might choose to do with the land during that period belonged to them and them alone. In that view he did not, however, agree. He desired simply to stand as a juror indifferent between the parties, and to try to do his duty at once to the House

and to the landlords and tenants respec- to get consideration which was not extively. He did not, therefore, agree with tended to a man who simply walked the tenants' view, though it was strongly on to the land without paying anything, held by the tenants of Ulster. If the he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; and the whole of the evidence before the Land Commissioners, in fixing rent, took Committee showed that regard was paid into account the improvability of the to this point in the fixing of the rents. soil and its inherent capacities, he should But the Irish landlords put a very say the tenants were entitled to the different interpretation on the fourth whole result. But that was precisely sub-section, with, he should say, something what the Land Commissioners did not like just reason. Lord Waterford, for do. He was bound to say that if the instance, was clearly of opinion, accordLand Commissioners did do so they ing to his published letters

on the

be better to make the matter quite clear. He had stated, over and over again, that all he wanted in this matter was to make the Land Act of 1881 carry out the intentions of its authors. This question of occupation right was fully discussed in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords during the consideration of the Act of 1881. Speaking on August 10, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian said :--

would double the rent of Ireland. They question, that it meant that, when a fair dealt with the land as it stood; they rent had been arrived at, a reduction calculated its carrying powers at should be made on account of occupation the moment, whether in corn or right or interest. It would, therefore, cattle, and they never considered the question what the land would produce if it were in the hands of an enterprising tenant with capital. Therefore, as the Land Commissioners fixed the rent on the land as it stood, he said it was the tenant's for 15 years; but at the end of that term the Commissioners, on going on the land and finding it improved, ought to judicially decide in each case how much of the improvement was due to the expenditure of the tenant and how much was due to the capacities of the soil which belonged to the landlord, and so in determining the rent decide what the landlord ought to get and what the tenant ought to get.

7 expressions which led to the belief that the "They [the Lords] had introduced into Clause value of the tenant's interest was to be deducted from the fair rent before the fair rent was fixed. That the Government had always disclaimed. The Government denied that any deduction was That to be made They believed that the tenant's was his view of the question. The interest should be fairly estimated on its own House, however, should never forget that ground under Clause 1, and the fair rent simithe question was more academic than larly estimated under Clause 7." real. [Nationalist Cries of "No, no."] Speaking again on August 15 the The Commissioners examined upstairs right hon. Gentleman said :— agreed that it was academic, and some of them stated they had never met a case in which the point was raised. An issue of far greater importance was the question of the occupation-right of tenants. He would like to know what was meant by the fourth sub-section, which directed the Land Commissioners to have regard to the interest of the tenant in fixing rents. If the Chief Secretary meant by the occupation-right or interest of tenants the difference between a competitive rent and a fair rent, he thought regard ought to be paid to it; and, indeed, regard was paid to it even now, for no one proposed to fix a competitive rent in Ireland, because, as Mr. Doyle had said before If, therefore, Lord Waterford's constructhe Committee, that was a rent which tion of the sub-section was right, it was a no one could pay. If the Chief Secretary departure from the clearly expressed inmeant that the tenant in possession was tentions of the authors of the Act of

"When these words came before the Lords (i.e. the interest of landlord and tenant respectively) they were viewed as being intended to bring in again an idea which the Government the value of the tenant's interest in the holding had always emphatically disclaimed-viz., that was to be legitimately deducted from the rent which would be otherwise due to the landlord." Lord Selborne, in the Lords, said on the same question of occupation-right:

"On the one side and on the other it would be the duty of the Court not to lay a rent upon the tenant because of the value of the tenant

right in the market, and, on the other hand, not to deduct from the landlord rent justly due because of the value of the tenant-right in the market.'

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »