149 / 216
DECEMBER, 19231
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
in deference to our custom, and with a view
of emphasising and directing your notice
to some of the chief subjects which have
engaged our attention during
the year.
As a general observation in respect to that
period, I am within the truth when I tell you
that, in no year of the history of our Society
have matters of such grave importance been
submitted to the consideration of our Council;
matters concerning not only our own profes
sional interests, but matters affecting the
entire community, and the future of our
country.
Among these, two infringe upon ownership
to an extent which in past times and in
normal conditions, would have seemed a
serious trespass on the recognised rights of
contract and possession.
One of
these
is the continuance of the Rent and Mortgage
Restriction Acts.
The earlier of
these
enactments was intended to serve a transient
purpose and to meet difficulties which, as
was then hoped, would cease soon after the
expiration of the War.
But this hope was
not fulfilled, and the Act of this year was
consequently passed.
My .uninformed opinion and wish was that
the restrictions under the Act of 1920, should
cease on its expiration, but I was one of the
members of the Commission to whom it had
been referred to consider the advisability
of continuance or of amendment of that Act,
and the evidence which was brought forward
of the still existence of the conditions in
amelioration of which the Act of 1920 and
previous Act had been passed, left all the
members of the Commission convinced of
the advisability of continuance.
To a large extent these conditions were
the result of the Great War, but it is well to
remember that in no small measure the mis
guided legislation which was embodied in
the land clauses of the Finance Act, 1909/10,
contributed thereto.
These clauses failed
to satisfy the purposes for which they were
ostensibly enacted, and the taxes payable
thereunder fell for the most part on the
enterprising builder.
Thus in conjunction
with the rising price of labour and material,
such taxes proved a deterrent to the erection
of new buildings, so that even before the
Great War there was a shortage in
the
normal rate of building of houses in the
United Kingdom, which
shortage in the
course of the four years preceding the War
had accumulated as has been calculated to
200,000 houses less than the demand.
As regards this country, it may be noted,
that one of the reasons strongly urged in
support of those clauses, was that the popu
lation of Great Britain was increasing at a
rate of 400,000 a year, that hence the value
of land, especially in the vicinity of towns,
must be increasing, and with a freak of
reasoning the Act was applied to this country,
where at the time the population was decreas
ing at the rate of 45,000 a year.
In the political jargon of the day, this
alleged increase in land values was designated
" unearned increment." This is a phrase
to which it would be difficult to attach any
legal right or obligation, and I now refer to
these sections of the Finance Act as an
example of the danger of the legislature
following the dictates of the electioneering
platform in respect to the ownership of
property without reference to lawyers.
The other measure to which I have referred
is the Land Act, 1923.
It is noteworthy as
being an example, rare in the history of any
country, of compulsory acquisition by the
State of property on so large a scale.
It is
not, however, an acquisition by the State
for the community at large. Its object is to
satisfy the claims of the farmers who have
failed to secure purchase of their holdings
under previous purchase Acts, or of those
whose holdings it is considered desirable to
enlarge in agricultural and other interests.
The conditions which called for much of
the Land Legislation in this country have
ceased, but
the
land purchase
schemes
embodied in that legislation, and especially
that of this century, have rendered it advis
able, if not imperative, that these purchase
schemes initiated
by
the Parliament of the
United Kingdom should be continued and
completed.
Owners of land and farmers were led to
believe by the assurances of the Statesmen
of the day who were in power, that such
completion would be the care of and a charge
upon the British Treasury in the event of
separate legislatures, and for the land owners
it is certainly unfortuante that the completion
has fallen upon the Free State in their first