The Irish standard., 1909-06-05
Sample of Debate in the British House of Commons
Between the Irish Members and Lloyd George
on the Land Acts.
D|LL0NS REPLY TO CHANCELLOR OF EXCHEQuEB
Despite the Protest of the Irish Party Against Tax On
Division the Government Won By Very
Enormous Majority.

In the House OF Commons OH Tues
day. May is. Mr.. Vincont Kennedy
moved after that to insert
Except in tho case Of col,vcyanccs
or transfer on sale Of any lands pur-
chased under the provisions OF any of
the Irish Land Purchase Acts"
Mr.. Maurice Hcaly, who was chccrcd
on rising, said he had raised this very
question l3 years ago. 1t was now
raised again under circumstances
which seriously aggravated the gricv-
ance- Hc regarded this as a differ
cntiatiOn between the tenant who had
bought out his land and tho tenant
who had not. The complaint he made
was not that tho Stamp Duty was
doubled. IT that was done also In
England a. complaint would not in the
circumstances fairly lie. His COM
pIaint was that the Stamp Duty opcr-
nted in ireland in a way which it did
not do In England. In Ireland tho
duty was not doubled, but quadruplcd.
Suppose a tenant, instead of selling u
farm OF undor tenancy. sold one he
had bought out. Say that he got c 800.
Well, instead OF paying &c 1Os as he
would In the ono case, he would really
have to pay eco stamp duty on tho
other. Land purchase did not exist
in the same way in England as Ire
land, and this differentiation was as
between the man who had bought and
tho man who had not bought, and It
worked out unfairly RS to Ireland.
There was in Ireland an expensive
nuisance called local registration Of
title. II was not local, and 1t was not
cheap or convenient. At first 1t was
thought It might be Il boon, but 1t had
simply had the effect of passing into
the treasury fees that used to 70 into
the pockets OF tho solicitors. The real
difference between the two countries
chaser had practically no existence,
whereas in Ireland he prevailed by the
hundred thousand. He hopcd the
Chancellor OF tho EXchequcr would
not cvade the real issue in the case.
He warned him that there was no
use in his referring to the instalment
mortgage, which meant real loan
and not tho redemption OF tho rent.
There was no analogy between the
two cases. II he persisted in his pres
ent proposal he would have aggravated
to an intolerablc degree a grievance
which was already far too great.
Mr.. Lloyd George asked what was
the case of ireland as compared with
England. His proposal was that where
los. had been charged in future 2Os.
should be required. He had made no
land. llo simply doubled tho duty
everywhere, but anyone listening to
Mr.. Hcaly would think that he had in
vented some special means or oppres-
ing Ireland. No; he. was merely
doubling the sum. He had no special
arrangement
Mr.. NJ. Hcaly-Not in words.
Mr.. Lloyd Gcorgc-IIow did the mat
ter stand? Here was an enormous
transaction to be carried through at
the expense of the state for the con-
version of tho Irish tenant farmers in
TO tenant proprictors. 1t was a very
gigantic operations; 1t cost an enorln-
GUS sum Of money. There was bonus
OF IL per cent paid out Of the general
fund OF this country and, in addition,
the credit of this country was
hypothecated to carry out the tram
action. No one could say that the
tenant farmer in Ireland had any
thing to complain Of as compared
with the wealthy owner in this coun-
try and it worked out in this way, that
Of every s1oo required to carry out
that transaction, s25 had to be found
by the treasury.
d