He moved to omit the words "to the Leader of the House, who proposed to vendor." Amendment moved "In page 3, line 40, to leave out the words, 'to the vendor.'"-(The Earl of Belmore.) THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This Amendment is assented to. On Question, Amendment agreed to. Drafting Amendment agreed to. *THE EARL OF BELMORE said his next Amendment was to enable the Land Commission to advance to a vendor not only enough to re-purchase his demesne and other lands in his hands, but also his mansion house, or dwelling house, and other buildings thereon. Mr. Wyndham had contended in the House of Commons that "demesne included the buildings, and that the Amendment was unnecessary. This seemed too doubtful to be accepted. It had been laid down that the definition of demesne lands under the Land Code was "lands held by the owner with the mansion house (per Sir E. Sullivan, C., in Griffin v. Taylor; 16 Law Reports, Ireland). The Settled Land Act of 1882, Section 15, spoke of "The principal mansion house on any settled land, and the demesnes thereof." This seemed to differentiate between the two. Further, under Section 5 of the Land Act of 1896, demesne lands could be undemesned, whilst the house would still remain a mansion house. It did not seem clear, therefore, that the word "demesne" necessarily included the mansion house and buildings, and the Amendment was therefore necessary. Its principle had already been accepted by Mr. Wyndhamn. Amendment moved "In page 4, after line 5, after the word 'it,' to insert the following new sub-section(5) Any advance made to a vendor under this section for the re-purchase by him of any land may include the re-purchase of any mansion, dwelling-house, or other buildings thereon."-(The Earl of Belmore.) *LORD ASHBOURNE said the point raised by the noble Earl was dealt with in a subsequent Amendment standing in the name of the noble Duke the The Earl of Belmore. move that the expression "demesne" should include any mansion-house or other building thereon. *THE EARL OF BELMORE: Will that have the effect I desire? LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, that is so intended. Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. LORD DUNBOYNE explained that the object of his Amendment was to secure that the vendor should get an advance of one-third of the whole of the value of his estates whether they were sold at one time or at different occasions. Amendment moved "In page 4, line 5, after the word 'it' to insert the following new sub-section—‘(5) In estimating the amount which may be advanced under this section for the re-purchase by the mansion or dwelling-house or other buildings vendor of any demesne or other land, and any thereon, the Land Commission may take into account the aggregate amount of the purchasemoney of the holdings and other parcels of land sold by the same vendor, or by his predecessors in title, under this Act."" (Lord Dunboyne.) LORD INCHIQUIN supported Amendment. the *LORD ASHBOURNE said this was a matter which had to be dealt with from the Treasury point of view, and he had reason to know that the Treasury did not see their way to accede to the suggestion contained in the Amendment. *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE held that the Amendment would not involve the expenditure of a single extra shilling. LORD MACNAGHTEN took a similar view, and failed to see why the Amendment should not be accepted. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Treasury have had the Amendment under consideration this very day, and they do not see their way to accept it. LORD MACNAGHTEN: Perhaps they do not understand it. LORD DUNBOYNE said the Amendment could not cast any additional burden on the Treasury, because the limit of parcels of land rounding off his estate. £20,000 would still exist. Moreover, It might be argued that as the landMr. Wyndham had stated in the House lord was selling his property he would of Commons that a vendor might sell have plenty of cash to purchase this his property in various small portions land himself, but he pointed out that and re-purchase his demesne in equally the purchase money would in most small portions. Therefore the Amend- cases remain in trust, and the landlord ment placed no additional burden on the was not able to invest it in the purchase Treasury. of tenant rights on his own property. The great point to his mind was the one which would affect almost every estate in Ireland. It was that there were always to be found corners of land cutting into a demesne, and it was only right that power should be given to the owners to obtain such portions of land which would He begged to move to insert in the Bill be of great importance to their estates. the following new clause— THE DUKE OF ABERCORN suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment until the Report stage, so as to give the Treasury time to reconsider it. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I will endeavour to ascertain a little more accurately what the point of view of the Treasury is. Amendment moved, "To insert the Amendment, by leave of the House, following new clause. withdrawn. Amendment moved : "In page 4, line 5, after the word 'it,' to insert the following new sub-section (5) If the owner of any demesne, or other land or premises in his occupation, sold to the Land Commission under this section, does not repurchase the same within the prescribed time, the Land Commission may sell the same to any persons entitled to the estate sold under any settlement thereof, according as they may be successively entitled thereto under such settlement."(The Earl of Donoughmore.) THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am advised that the sale ought to be, not to the remainder-man himself but to the trustees, and I would suggest the following modification "(5) If the owner of any demesne, or other land subject to settlement and sold to the Land Commission, does not repurchase the same within the prescribed time, the Land Commission may make an advance under this section to the trustees of the settlement, and in such case the land resold shall be held subject to the trusts of the settlement." *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE accepted the Amendment. "Where the tenant of a holding desires to sell his interest in the whole or any part thereof, and the landlord desires to purchase the same, the Land Commission may advance to the landlord the purchase money thereof on the same terms as to amount and repayment as are provided in this Act respecting advances to tenants for the purchase of their holdings."-(Lord Inchiquin.) THE EARL OF CREWE said he wished to say a word or two in support, to a limited extent, of the Motion. They all agreed that the retention of their de mesnes by the landlords in Ireland was one of the most desirable objects this Bill intended to promote. If that could be done more agreeably and amicably by the insertion of some words like those proposed, it would be an exceedingly desirable thing. On the other hand, he thought the wording of the Amendment was rather wide, and if the noble Lord would insert some words to limit the Amendment to the object which he had particularly in view-viz., the rounding off of demesnes, he should certainly press the Government to On Question, sub-section, as amended, accept it. But, as the Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. LORD INCHIQUIN said the object of the new clause which he proposed to move was to enable a landlord to borrow money for the purpose of purchasing stood, there was nothing to prevent the landlord buying anywhere all over his estate, and that seemed a very wide power to give. LORD CASTLETOWN said in the Act of 1896 a similar clause was brought in, dealing with the purchase of small holdings in the vicinity of, or adjacent *EARL SPENCER: I think that to, the demesnes. It was then agreed our experience of last year has taught that a portion of the guarantee deposit us new lessons with regard to the point. should be invested in the purchase of that I am going to raise. Is not this a those small holdings if found to be question which comes under the head of necessary. They could not lay sufficient privilege? It will be a considerable instress on the value of the Amendment. crease in the money advanced by the If the Government really meant what Treasury, and it may lead to a considerthey said, and desired to keep the able difficulty. Last year there were landlords in the country after they had extraordinary questions of privilege sold the larger portions of their estates, raised in connection with the Education it would be a wise policy, although with Act, and this may come in the same sort little expense to the Treasury, to assist of category. Does not this Amendment. them to purchase the holdings adjacent come within that class of proposal? I to their demesnes. have considerable sympathy with the Amendment as proposed, but it strikes me that it may be a question of privilege. *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite enter into the feelings of the noble Lords who desire to round off their demesnes. It is not in Ireland alone that people desire to add to their possessions in this manner. The Amend ment, however, as it now stands, goes far beyond that, because it enables the landlord to purchase any holding from his tenants, no matter where situate, and to receive for the purpose advances from the Land Commission. We could not possibly consent to so large a widening of the scope of the Bill. Although the noble Duke took us goodhumouredly to task for subservience to the Treasury in this matter, we have to bear in mind that this Bill is founded upon considerable concessions on the part of the Treasury, and it is not reasonable to expect them to add largely to the extent of those concessions. I would point out that it is not for the purpose of enabling Irish landowners to add to the land in their occupation that the Bill was framed, and that any attempt to do so would certainly be foreign to the general purpose and scope of the measure. The purpose of the Bill is to convert the tenants of Irish land into owners thereof, but the clause would effect an entirely different purpose. Therefore as the Amendment stands we certainly cannot regard it with favour, and I am moreover advised that under (lause 2 of the Bill there are already given facilities for the exchange and rearrangement of parcels of land which will enable vendors to bring about the kind consolidation which the supporters of the Amendment so much desire. Lord Castletown. Clause 5 agreed to. which gave the landlords power to buy the interests of the tenants' holding, and this Amendment merely suggests you should lend him the money. *LORD ASHBOURNE replied that pre-emption was another matter, and was put in the Bill for another purpose. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I doubt whether the question could be considered in any form. Certainly there is no question so far as I am aware, that this Bill was not intended to establish a question of authorising the Treasury to advance money to purchase anything but the fee on the property. The idea of purchasing the interest of the tenant is absolutely alien to the principle of the Bill. One noble Lord said it would not cost the Treasury anything. It may not cost anything directly out of their pocket, but all these proposals add to the amount which the Treasury has to find, and is required to lend. That is a matter on which the Treasury is entitled to have a voice, because the larger the loan which the Treasury is called upon to issue the more serious matter does it become for them to deal with. It follows, therefore, that the Treasury are distinctly interested in anything which increases the amount of advance they are called upon to make. Clause 6. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said he hoped the noble Duke would see his way to accept the next Amendment, which was only intended to make clearer what was the intention of the Government on this clause. As Sub-sections 4 and 5 now stood, two things were necessary to constitute a congested estate, and if both those conditions were carried out the Land Commission might purchase the estate at a higher price. His object was that no estate should be declared to be a congested estate unless the owner had applied to the Land Commission that this should be done. He might be told that it was no hardship to the landlord to have his estate made a congested estate, and that, on the contrary, it made it rather better, as a better price would be obtained. He thought, however, that noble Lords would agree that the mere fact of an estate being made a congested estate, placed it in a lower class, and, possibly, the initial value placed upon it by the Commission would be less than if it were an ordinary estate. That would not be counterbalanced by any condition made by Sub-clause 4 under the Bill. What he desired to make quite plain was that the owner must apply Amendment, by leave of the House, to have his estate made a congested estate, withdrawn. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said he thought words ought to be introduced into the clause in order to remainder-man. protect the Those tenants could only be dealt with outside the zone, and the remainder-man ought to be put into the clause. He would ask the Government to consider the question. *LORD ASHBOURNE said his noble friend would observe that even in this Clause 5 they had to be satisfied with the security, and that the agreed price was equitable. That would indicate that everything was taken into account. He would, however, consider the matter before the Report stage. and not until that had been done must the Land Commission certify to the Lord Lieutenant that it was so. Amendment moved— "In page 5, to leave out Sub-sections 4 and 5 and insert the words: (4) Where the owner of anestate makes an application in the prescribed manner under this clause, the Land Commission may certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and re-sale of the estate are de sirable, in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants, then such an estate shall be considered a 'congested estate,' and thereupon the Land Commission may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and, in such case, the condition in this section as to re-sale without prospect of loss may be relaxed to such an extent as the Lord Lieutenant may determine. shall be deemed to be a congested estate,' Provided always that no estate unless half the area thereof consists of holdings not exceeding £5 in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land, or not less than a quarter of the area of which is held in rundale, or intermixed plots.'" (Lord Oranmore and Browne.) *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Chancellor of Ireland. It was purely a I do not know whether I entirely follow legal point, and many noble Lords were the argument of the noble Lord. I do doubtless unacquainted with the proLot understand whether he is dissatisfied visions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896. with the clause as it stands. This is a The effect of this clause would be to clause which deals with sale and purchase enable the Estates Commissioners to force without reference to the zones. The the Land Judges to sell estates lying landlord under this clause goes and unsold in their Court. The number of offers his estate to the Land Com- such estates was very large, and the Land mission, who make inquiry and Judges refused to sell under an artificially satisfy themselves that three-fourths of depreciated state of the land market in the tenants are ready to buy. They then Ireland. His Amendment proposed that take the estate off the landlord's hands and the powers of Clause 7 of this Act should proceed to re-sell it. Then the clause only be put into operation in such cases goes on to say that in certain cases the as were within Section 40 of the Act Land Commission may buy and re-sell at a of 1896. To bring that section into loss to the Exchequer. That is another effect it was necessary either (1) for an instance of the liberal manner in absolute order for sale to be made by the which the Treasury has dealt with this Judge, (2) for a Receiver to be appointed, Bill. It is, however, laid down that these or (3) for the estate to be insolvent. The sales at a loss are only to take place object of the Amendment was that Section where the estate is a congested estate 40 of the Act of 1896 should apply to that is to say, where it falls within the these estates, and would, in fact, limit it to definition contained in Sub-section 5 of insolvent estates. the clause. That seems to be a most reasonable arrangement. I gather that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment desires that none of these things shall take place except with the knowledge and concurrence of the owner of the estate. But the whole clause, as I understand it, is covered by the words of Sub-section 1, and the whole machinery is, in fact, set in motion by the landlord. 66 Amendment moved – In page 5, line 21, atter 1858' to insert the words, and to which the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 apply.'”—(Lord Dunboyne.) *LORD ASHBOURNE : I do not know what useful thinks would be served here. I should purpose my noble friend think it might create danger to solvent owners. Why should words be introduced here which might practically have that effect? LORD DUNBOYNE said the effect of Clause 7 as it stood was that the Estates Commissioners could force the Land Judges to sell any or all estates now in their Court for sale, without consideration whether the properties were solvent or insolvent. He wanted to restrict that power to insolvent estates. what has been said by the noble Lord, but I must say that it will come with extreme surprise if there is any foundation for the dangers that have been suggested. I believe the effect of introducing these words might be to confine the operation of the section purely to insolvent estates, and the effect of that might be to prevent the most potent buyer in the land market in Ireland in the future from coming in and bidding for the *LORD ASHBOURNE: I will look into |