COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 17 April 1891 vol 352 cc800-48

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 2, at the end of the Clause, to add the word,—"Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holding unless the making of such advance in that county shall have been previously approved by a resolution of the connty council elected to represent the county in which the holding is situate, under an Act of this or the next ensuing Session of Parliament."—(Mr. John Morley.)

Question proposed,

" That the words 'Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holding unless the milking of such advance in that county shall have been previously approved' be there added."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,

In line I, after the word"that," to insert the words" after the establishment of elected county councils in Ireland."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question again proposed," That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

(3.0.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

It appears to me that if this House is sensible of its agrarian or financial obligations to Ireland we should not be troubled with this question of local control. You are not established in that country as the friends of the Irish people. The land system has been a fearful curse to the Irish people and a frightful source of misery and crime. If you are now proposing not to put an end to the system, but to modify it, you do so primarily, not for the good of the Irish people, but to rescue the Irish landlords from an untenable position, and secondly, for the greater ease and tranquillity of the Imperial State. It is only ultimately and incidentally that you contemplate the good of the Irish people. The measure is one of Imperial policy, and therefore the responsibility should be Imperial. I have spoken of financial obligations to Ireland. When I remember that you have invested Ireland with full responsibility for your National Debt and that you have been exacting from her for many years a contribution to the Imperial revenue double what she can afford, I say that, far from taking of the favour you confer on us from your Imperial credit, if you were to make Ireland a present of the £30,000,000 it would go a very little way to rid you of the financial obligation you owe to her. I protest against the language employed by the Chief Secretary last night, when he spoke of Imperial credit as being yours in a sense distinct from ours. It is ours as well as yours and ours much more than yours. Ireland gives one-sixth of her earnings to the Imperial credit, while England only gives one-twelfth. The speech of the Chief Secretary in regard to this matter shows the hypocrisy of the theories of Unionism. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine that he was establishing an equipoise by putting a burden upon the Irish people and the credit upon the English people.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

My statement last night was to the effect that without the aid of Imperial credit the scheme of the Bill could not be carried out, because it would be impossible to work it if it were based upon Irish credit alone.

MR. SEXTON

The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to establish an equipoise of credit on one side and of burden upon the other. He put one against the other. There could not have been laid down a clearer line of demarkation and division. But I maintain that the credit to be pledged is as much Irish as English, and, therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman offers to the Irish people resolves itself into the old formula of"Heads I win, tails you lose." But if you follow the simple rules of equity and common sense an Imperial Guarantee will be unnecessary. If the price given for the land is merely the value of the tenant's interest, plus that of the landlord, there will be no necessity for the scheme to be backed up by Imperial credit, because there will then be a security approximating to double the value of the advance in the value of the land itself.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member appears to be re-opening a question that was determined last night. The question before the Committee is whether the approval of the County Councils shall be required in each case before the purchase takes place.

MR. SEXTON

Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was allowed to roam over the whole field of public policy.

THE CHAIRMAN

Only in connection with this question. I must repeat that the question now before the Committee is solely as to whether the approval of the County Councils should be required in cases of land purchase.

MR. SEXTON

I will close the matter in one sentence by saying that the personal guarantee would be absolutely sufficient except in the event of a public calamity. The argument is that in case of a deficiency arising in Ireland under the provisions of this Bill, which the Government appear to have arranged for, it is proposed to take the control of the matter from the House of Commons, and to hypothecate money which has been guaranteed to Ireland, and is absolutely her property under statutory contract, for the purpose of meeting it. If that argument is to hold good then at this moment Ireland is entitled to have her own Parliament, because the Act which gave it is older than the one which took it away. To hypothecate such money for such a purpose without the consent of the Irish people is an act of plunder which is only to be accomplished by-superior force. If by hypothecating the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund the Local Taxation of Ireland is increase 1, we should be committing an outrage upon the constitutional rights of the Irish people. In the next place, the security is illusory so far as the British taxpayers are concerned, because the Irish cesspayers would never consent to a levy being made, the proceeds of which are to be applied to purposes over which they have no control. I object in principle to hypothecation of Irish moneys under any circumstances whatever, but if the Irish moneys are to be hypothecated, then the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley) would mitigate the hardship of the proposal by directing that the transaction out of which liability might arise should be subject to elective popular control. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in his speech last night entered into a general criticism of the Liberal programme, but as I regard such a topic to be outside the scope of the present discussion I shall not refer to it for this reason, among others, that the arguments of the hon. Member last night were most conclusively answered by his previous speeches. In my judgment the Irish question is unaltered, and the only change in the political situation that I can perceive is that the point of view of the hon. Member for Cork has altered. The hon. Member for Cork has asked why it is that one of the Representatives of the Irish Party has not moved this Amendment, instead of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. In reply to the question I may say that the hon. Member for Cork has often been glad of the cooperation of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

The right hon. Gentleman has often been glad of my co-operation.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Order, order !

MR. SEXTON

The hon. Member for Cork declares the right hon. Gentleman has often been glad of his co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, be glad of the co-operation of the hon. Member in any sphere and to any degree in which circumstances would allow the Member for Cork to render useful service. The Irish Members are still glad of the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman, than whom, in this House, Ireland had never found a more capable and a more zealous friend. If the hon. Member for Cork, who in dark, critical, and trying times was glad to avail himself of the services of the right hon. Gentleman, means to convey to the Committee that those services have not an equal value at the present moment, I must respectfully say that the hon. Member for Cork is not expressing the opinion of the majority of the Irish Members, and of the vast body of the people of Ireland. I cannot help remembering that it was upon almost this day 12 months ago that the hon. Member for Cork moved the rejection of a Bill, in some degree absolutely identical with that now before the Committee. [An hon. MEMBER: It was a better Bill.] Yes, in some respects a better Bill—on the ground that it did not sufficiently provide for local control. Last year local control was everything, and was regarded by the hon. Member for Cork as being an indispensable safe- guard, and the one crucial point. Last year without local control in every transaction, to use his own graphic language, was nothing but a swindle. This year the Bill is everything. In the matter of local control the hon. Member has become a Laodicean, and he is content to accept that which last year he denounced as little better than a swindle. The hon. Member spoke last night as though the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle was about to be carried, and he altogether ignored the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member contended that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Newcastle would involve delay in carrying into effect any scheme for land purchase; but, in my opinion, it would not involve any delay at all. There is a balance of £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, and the Chief Secretary has [promised to introduce words to make it available. That balance would keep the Commissioners going for another year. The Chief Secretary has also promised that the repayments under the Ashbourne Acts should be available; they now amount to a considerable sum, and the balance and repayments together would probably give £2,000,000 available for land purchase, and sufficient for two years to come, by which time the utmost delay alleged by the right hon. Gentleman would have expired. How, then, can the Amendment lead to delay if County Councils are established this year or next?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Bill does not permit of the repayments under the Ashbourne Acts.

MR. SEXTON

Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that these repayments should be so applied?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I forget exactly how the matter stands; but I came to the conclusion that the re-lending of the £10,000,000 advanced under the Ashbourne Acts would be a new loan incurred by the Guarantee Fund.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Does the right hon. Gentleman announce that change?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

1 think I announced it last year.

MR. SEXTON

Then I invite the attention of the hon. Member for Cork to the fact that the present Bill is much worse than the measure which he opposed last year. It can be proved by Hansard that last year the right hon. Gentleman was willing to allow repayments to be made available, and now he says they are not to be so applied. The right hon. Gentleman's acquiescence in the application of repayments to fresh advances is to be found a dozen times in Hansard, and afterwards, on a copy of the Bill of last year being handed to him, he read a sub-section of a clause authorising the re-lending of the repayments, provided the aggregate of these additional advances did not exceed for the time being the amount to be repaid on account of the advances authorised.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I told the hon. Gentleman I was not quite sure. I had for the moment forgotten that that provision was in the Bill; but it was pointed out in the course of the Debate that it involved an additional pledging of British credit.

MR. SEXTON

If the hon. Member for Cork wished to prevent delay he could not more usefully apply himself than by reinstating in this Bill that provision of the Bill of last year. That would be better than trying to emasculate the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. The Tory Party promised in 1886 to give Local Government to Ireland. That promise has remained unfulfilled ever since. If the Amendment is adopted they will be compelled to carry it out either this year or next. For this reason I think it is deserving of the support of every man who desires the extension of Local Government to Ireland. If the Amendment is rejected the Tory Party will not be eager to give County Government this year or next. For the specific and binding words of the Amendment the hon. Member for Cork wishes to substitute words which are no more than the expression of a pious opinion: and if the hon. Member for Cork succeeds, the Tory Party will be under an irresistible temptation to postpone a measure of Local Government, even if they come into power after the General Election. This view is emphasised by the exposition which has been already given of the probable conduct of County Councils, who, in the belief of the Chief Secretary, would materially embarrass the policy of land purchase. The Tory Party would say they believed that, with the expansion of land purchase, national aspirations would die out. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: Hear, hear! and a laugh.] I regard that cheer of the hon. and gallant Member as showing what is the view of the Tory Party, although that view may be a palpable delusion. The Tory Party believe that the establishment of County Councils would kill land purchase, and that will be the argument of the Chief Secretary before English audiences. Is the hon. Member for Cork willing to put such an argument in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman? It will not bind him to establish County Councils, but is merely a declaration that a certain thing is to be done after they are established. I do not know whether the hon. Member has realised what the effect of his Amendment would be. Whilst the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle would cause no interruption, that of the hon. Member for Cork would have an effect which he never intends, and even if the Tory Government came in again it would postpone indefinitely, and for as long a period as the Tory Party might remain in power, the concession of Local Government to Ireland. For these reasons I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. Even if the Amendment be defeated it will serve a useful public purpose. It will have a salutary effect on the operation of the Land Act by foreshadowing what is to come, and it will have a useful effect in binding the Liberal Party to a specific policy of rapid development of this phase of Local Government in Ireland, and it will stand on record to guide and direct the House of Commons at no distant date. Though now it may be a barren declaration, hereafter it will be an important help and assistance. Now, the hon. Member for Cork fell into an error of fact when he said this question had been left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, though I say if it had been left to him it would be left in very competent hands; but let me point out to the hon. Member for Cork that there stands on the Paper for discussion at a future day an Amendment in my name which proposes to deal with this very question in a manner I hope will not be objectionable either to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle or the hon. Member for Cork. That Amendment, it will be seen, is in the following terms as an additional sub-section to the clause:— (4.) No Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance for the purchase of any holding, unless the making of such advance shall have been previously approved—

1. (a.) until elective county councils shall have been established in Ireland by a resolution of the hoard of guardians of the poor law union in which the holding is situate;
2. (b.) after elective county councils have been established in Ireland by a resolution of the county council elected to represent the county in which the holding is situate."

The Amendment provides for local control, and provides against any delay in the operation of the Act. I admit that beards of Guardians are not perfect bodies. I admit that they are very imperfect bodies for the purpose; but in this matter we have merely" Hobson's choice," and the beard of Guardians, I may say, is the only body in rural districts which has an elective element upon it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary complains of beards of Guardians because five years ago they passed resolutions in reference to the qualifications of a Parliamentary candidate, or expressing approval of the conduct of a public man, criticising matters of public policy or condemning the action of the Executive, if they have gone somewhat beyond their functions in those and other matters let it be remembered that they are the only bodies outside the towns which have any element of popular representation, and when the Chief Secretary attacks beards of Guardians he forgets that they are composed half of ex officio numbers, Justices of the Peace, and landlords. [" No, no !"] I think I may say that every Justice of the Peace in a rural district is a landlord or an agent to a landlord. ["No, no!"] There may be a. few exceptions, but 99 from every 100 are of that class. Now, if beards of Guardians do sometimes act in a manner objectionable to the taste of the right hon. Gentleman, is that not due to the neglect of these ex officio members to all matters in connection with their office, and that landlords are indifferent to all local matters except those in connection with rent? I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot object to Boards of Guardians in this connection, seeing that fully half of the members of those beards are landlord representatives, and by the plural vote that class no doubt exercises influence over the election of the remainder. To the hon. Member for Cork I say if the beard of Guardians in any case were to allow a transaction under this Act we should be none the worse, and when they veto a transaction it will be because an unusually excessive price is charged for the holding. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Cork thinks, and I agree with him, that the absence of local control is one of the greatest blots on the Bill, he will no doubt give his support to an Amendment which secures some form of local control in the interim before the establishment of County Councils. County Councils cannot be established in a day, and meanwhile I invite the hon. Member for Cork to agree with me in preventing the delay in the operation of the Act by the use of the only means of local control which the state of Irish life renders available to us at the present moment. I shall oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork and support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in its original form, and I respectfully invite both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cork to consider this Amendment of mine in a friendly spirit.

(3.37.) COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

The Committee will, I think, not deny me the right to occupy a few minutes, seeing that up to the present only one other Irish landlord has taken part in these discussions, and because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle strikes at the very existence of the Bill and opens a very large scope of criticism as to the effect it will have on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which we hope may endure for many years to come and have an influence on the Empire at large. The hon. Member for West Belfast has made one statement of which I must take notice. The hon. Member called the Bill a landlords' Bill, a Bill having an Imperial object, and a Bill to satisfy the wishes of the Irish people. I quite agree with the latter part of the definition, but I utterly deny that this is a landlords' Bill. Stating my opinion as a landlord, I should say that I dislike the Bill. If I were asked to state the effect I believe it will have upon the landlord class in Ireland, I should agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who, to my surprise, the other day took up the cudgels on behalf of that class he is in the habit of cudgelling. I believe this Bill will not have a good effect upon the interests of the class to which I belong. I believe the effect of the Bill will be that the incomes of landlords will be diminished by one-half, and sometimes by two-thirds. As a landlord merely, I should oppose the Bill; but I support it for Imperial reasons and for Irish reasons. The first duty of every Irishman is to assist legislation which will benefit his native land, and as I firmly believe that the Bill under discussion will benefit Ireland, I support it. The Imperial reason which will mainly induce the House to pass the Bill—because it will not be passed out of sheer love for Irish landlords or tenants —is that by its operation it will build up a class who will array themselves on the side of law and order. The hon. Member for"West Belfast complains that the Bill will throw a burden on the Irish people; but I have never heard of a people who regarded themselves as burdened by having £30,000,000 placed on their shoulders. If a plébiscite were taken in Ireland, there would not be a single county which would not wish to have the Bill in operation within its borders. A strange attitude is taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the Rush cliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis), an Amendment which most of the Irish Members on the other side supported, and which was to the effect that so long s coercion existed no Imperial advances should be made to Ireland; but now it seems that hon. Gentlemen are so persuaded that coercion is only a term, that they adopt the policy of Her Majesty's Government—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment and not to the policy of the Bill.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

I take the Amendment to be this—the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle—that pending the esta- blishment of County Government in Ireland, this Bill should not be effective. The hon. Member for Cork has informed us that he is in favour of the policy initiated by this Bill, and I conceive, therefore, that the more simple and straightforward course on the part of the hon. Member would have been, instead of putting his emasculating Amendment —as the hon. Member for West Belfast has termed it—to speak and vote directly against the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. Now what is the meaning of this Amendment? It is a destructive Amendment, which, if carried, will destroy the Bill. Practically, it postpones land purchase in Ireland to the Greek Kalends, because to decide that the policy of the Bill shall not have effect until County Government is established in Ireland is to indefinitely postpone the Bill-to postpone it indefinitely, absolutely indefinitely. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear !] I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian cheers that statement, because the Government do not intend the Bill to hang in any way upon Local Government. The Bill is to be judged, and accepted or condemned, upon its own merits. If the Government and. the House were to accept the Amendment and carry the Bill with it, I should like to ask what would be the effect if at the next General Election the Unionist Party were defeated and the Separatist Party came into Office? We are told that dealing with the land is one of those subjects upon which all the Nationalists of the Irish Party are agreed, whether they belong to one faction or the other, and therefore if we pass a Home Rule Bill—as may be possible if the House of Commons ever goes mad—the result will be that we shall establish a Parliament in Dublin which, in dealing with the land question as it pleases, may upset the system of Local Government introduced by the Amendment and upset what is supposed to be a guarantee for the British taxpayer, and all previous legislation by this House in reference to land purchase will not he worth one rush. All our guarantees founded on County Government will not then be worth a straw. As to the interest taken by Irish ratepayers in the contingent guarantee afforded by the Irish rates, it is absolutely illusory. In the Irish mind there is not conceived the remotest possibility that that guarantee will ever be touched. The Irish people have proved by the way in which they have paid their instalments under the Ashbourne Acts in the past that there need be no anxiety as to their paying in future, and I believe hon. Members opposite are entirely mistaken if they think they will be able to raise any great opposition to the Bill in Ireland on the ground of this possible contingency. Hon. Gentlemen last year did not say so much about this guarantee; they opposed the Bill at first, but they supported it at last because they found the overwhelming voice of their constituents was in favour of it. If they go back to their constituents again they will find they are opposing a measure to which the Irish people look as conferring the greatest benefit to the country and to all classes—except, the landlord class. Let me point out what will happen if we carry this Amendment. It will afford limitless scope to the capacity of Debate displayed by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Keay); he will be able to point to the possible action of the Irish County Councils, and again influence the House by the glamour of his eloquence on financial affairs, showing how absolutely worthless is the guarantee in view of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The point of importance in considering this Amendment, and upon which hangs the very existence of the Bill, is, what is really the view of the Irish people on the subject. We are legislating for Ireland and the Irish people, and I am sure we all hope that our legislation will conduce to their happiness and prosperity. It is important, therefore, to ascertain what are the opinions of the Irish people on this matter. But who represents the Irish people in this House? Only last year hon. Members above the Gangway opposite turned to the hon. Member for Cork to learn the opinions of the Irish people. Now we are informed by his former colleagues that the hon. Member for Cork represents neither the opinions of the people of Ireland nor even those of his own constituents. Then to whom are we turn? Are we to turn to the hon. Member for West Belfast or to the hon. Member for North Longford? But, as far as I know, those hon. Members represent only themselves.

MR. SEXTON

Our constituents.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

The hon. Member for West Belfast says that he represents his constituents, but he certainly will not do so long. Why, there is no place in Ireland at the present moment where either of those two hon. Members would be able to address a meeting in the open air without police protection. Then we come to the hon. Member for Londonderry, but he represents the Irish priests, not the Irish people. Well, on the whole, I think that I myself speak in the name of the largest part of the Irish people. I represent, at any rate, that part of the Irish people who are in favour of law and order, and I believe those are the majority. And I feel perfectly convinced that there is not a county in Ireland which, if asked its opinion of the Bill, would not give overwhelming decision in its favour.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Go to Sligo or Kilkenny.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

Well, I should have thought the hon. and learned Member had had enough attendance at Irish elections. I think I know the feeling of the Irish people as well as hon. Members opposite, who though they represent Irish constituencies live in London. I know as a fact, and can assert without fear of contradiction from any one who knows anything of the desires and feelings of the Irish people, that no measure has ever been introduced into this House which has received in every part of Ireland, North, South, East, West, more approval than the present Land Purchase Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But what about the Amendment?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

I say as I said at the outset of my remarks that I support the Bill against the interest of the particular class to which I belong. A rough definition of statesmanship is the making use of past experience embodying it in useful legislation. Past experience, at any rate during the last 30 or 40 years, has shown us that in dealing with the Irish people and successfully governing them, two attributes are required—firmness and justice—and I believe the policy of the Government, which, I repeat, would be destroyed if the Amendment of the right hon. Mem- ber for Newcastle were carried, is teaching the Irish people at the present time that if we are just we can also be generous. This is proved by the reception which the Chief Secretary and other Members of the Government met with when they recently travelled through the country, notwithstanding that they had been described in it by Irish Members as persecutors and exterminators; while, on the other hand, the so-called Nationalists cannot hold an open meeting in Ireland without police protection. That fact leads me to believe that our present efforts will be attended with success in Ireland, and, believing that the Bill will conduce to the welfare of the country, I heartily support it. The hon. Member for West Belfast hit the right nail on the head. I believe he struck the right key-note when he said the effect of the passing of this Bill will be to permanently destroy Home Rule. I believe it will. I believe it will erect in Ireland a great class independent of Irish demagogues and agitators, that it will create in Ireland a class which realises at last who their true friends are, and recognises that the Union with this country has been to Ireland a great blessing, and not a curse. I oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, because I believe it would, if carried, continue in Ireland that political fermentation which is really the foundation and basis of the separatist policy, and I believe the Bill as it stands will be for the good of the Empire at large, that it will bring peace in its train, and that it will hold out the hopes of prosperity to my native country.

(4.2.) MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

The Committee has now really under consideration three separate Amendments—the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the alternative Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton.) The Committee is aware, from observations I have made on this subject upon previous occasions, that I agree very much with the object which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle has in view, but it will be no disappointment to my right hon. Friend when I say that I can- not support the form in which his Amendment is put. It is a misfortune of that Amendment that it lends itself to the suspicion that it is a destructive and a dilatory Amendment, intended to prevent the speedy operation of the Bill. Knowing as I do the opinions which my right hon. Friend has formed on the Bill, as a whole, I confess I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say I think if his Amendment had a dilatory and destructive effect be would not regret it. In that matter I differ from my right right hon. Friend. I believe the Bill to be a good Bill. I accept it most cordially, and, although I should like very much to make it better, still I would infinitely rather have it as it is than not have it at all. Consequently I cannot support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, although I desire to secure some of the objects he has in view. Then there is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. To that exception is taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, because, he says, it would have the effect of postponing Local Government for Ireland. That seems to me a very extraordinary objection. It is only true, if it be the fact, that Local Government is hostile to land purchase, and it is my point in this matter that the introduction of Local Government into a Land Purchase Bill would strengthen land purchase, and consequently that the Government would have no object whatever in postponing Local Government if they carried the Land Purchase Bill first. But I have a different objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, which I take also to the new Amendment which has been suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast. What are the objects we may fairly have in view in suggesting the intervention of the Local Authority? There were three objects. In the first place we desire that the Local Authority, or the constituencies which the Local Authority represents, should have given their assent to the pledging of their credit. To mortgage their securities without their consent is, at all events, a very strong piece of legislation. As regards that object, it would undoubtedly be secured, not only by the Amendment of the hon. Member, but also by the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that there should be a plébiscite taken of the district before the Bill is put in operation to obtain its consent to the pledging of its credit. But there are two other objects which we ought also to keep in view, and which the suggestion of the Chief Secretary does not secure, and therefore I take this opportunity of saying, as the suggestion was kindly made by the Chief Secretary, to some extent in the hope of satisfying the objections I made to the Bill in its present form, that it does not satisfy me, and that consequently, if I am unable to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further, as far as I am concerned, I do not think the introduction of the proposal by itself would be a sufficient improvement to justify a separate Amendment on the subject. The other objects, however, which I want to keep in view are these: In the first place, I say we want to give an interest in land purchase to every class in Ireland, not, as has been said, to a limited proportion of a limited class, and the advantage of all sections of the community would be secured by the intervention of the Local Authority under circumstances which would give to the Local Authority a large interest in the successful administration of the scheme. Further than that we must all feel there is a possibility, although we all hope a distant one, that at some future time, when schemes of land purchase have been largely developed, there may once more be an agitation which would be directed, not against the payment of rent, but against the payment of the instalments, and the best security against Such an agitation would undoubtedly be the existence of a healthy public opinion in favour of the honest fulfilment of obligations. What we have to regret in Ireland at the present time is that there is so large an amount of public opinion which justifies the non-fulfilment of obligations. How can we create the public opinion we desire to see in Ireland better than by introducing the locality, through the Local Authority, into the administration of the Act? What I have always thought would be a possibility, and what I have always desired to impress upon the Chief Secretary is a plan of this kind, that the Local Authority should not merely have the right of vetoing or of consenting to the application of its credit, but that after the transaction had taken place, and after the land had been agreed to be bought and sold, the Local Authority should stand in the position of landlord for 49 years until the tenant became the absolute freeholder; that during that period the Local Authority should collect the rent, that it should pay over to the Central Authority the amount due for instalments and interest, and that the whole of the remainder, which would be a very considerable sum, should be for its own use—that is to say, for the advantage of the constituency whose affairs it represented and administered. If that were the case—and I will deal with the objections directly—if you could secure a state of things of that kind, consider how it would necessarily affect public opinion. In that case you would have a Local Authority which, in the course of a short time, would have all the instincts, and perhaps some of the prejudices, of a landlord, and you would have this Local Authority acting on behalf of the whole community with a distinct interest that rent should be fairly and fully paid, knowing that every deficiency in the payment of rent on the part of any tenant would be followed at once by a deficiency in the sum it had to apply to public purposes. What is the objection to it? The objection is one that does apply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for West Belfast. The Chief Secretary says two things, as I understand him. He says, in the first place, that there would be a possibility, if you gave this power to the Local Authority, that, acting under the influence of some class of agitators, they would prevent altogether the adoption of the measure which Parliament is now passing. Well, as to that point I really think a moment's reflection will show that any such action on the part of the Local Authority is absolutely impossible. What have we just heard from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and what have we heard from hon. Members on this side of the House? More than that, what do the actions of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House prove but that every class in Ireland is prepared to accept the benefits of the Bill, and will look askance at any one who interposes. to prevent it? I say what proof have you? Why, just look at the action during the past few days in Committee of such Members as the Member for Longford and of West Belfast in a less degree. The discussions of the past few days has shown perfectly clearly to hon. Members with any intelligence that these hon. Members and some of their friends hate this Bill, and would like to destroy it. ["No."]"No" says one. What did the hon. Member for West Belfast say in the course of his most interesting speech this afternoon? He said that the action of the Tory Party in this Bill was to rescue Irish landlords, and to pour millions into their pockets.

MR. SEXTON

So it is.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Well, if that were the object of the Bill, do you not suppose the hon. Member for West Belfast would oppose it? And am I not justified in saying that the Bill which be describes in these terms is a Bill which, if he could, he would destroy? But what is his position and the position of his friends? The position of hon. Members is this: that they are" willing to wound, but afraid to strike," and they dare not oppose the Bill because they know public opinion in Ireland is strongly in its favour.

MR. SEXTON

What I say is this, that though no doubt the main object of the Tory Party may be to rescue the landlords, the effectuation of that object by the Tory Party does not limit the effect of the Bill. There may be other effects which I value.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I submit gladly to his statement, but when he speaks again I trust he will balance these various effects and give the Committee his conclusion on the whole subject. One effect of the Bill says the hon. Member is to rescue Irish landlords. What I ask are the effects of the Bill on the other side, which the hon. Member sets against it, and the conclusion he arrives at on the whole subject? What I say in the meantime is that the action of the hon. Member and his friends during the last few days has been directed to delay the Bill—I will not say to obstruct it though I think I might say so; and if he does not go farther it is only because the vast majority of his constituents are of a different opinion. If that is the case I say there is absolutely no fear that under any circumstance it will be in the power of the Local Authorities to prevent the Bill coming into operation, and to interpose between their constituents and the benefits the Bill proposes to confer. But there is another objection taken by the Chief Secretary which I think is a more serious one. He said that it would be possible for the Local Authorities to act unfairly and unjustly under the influence of personal or political motives—and from past experience we have no reason to suppose that such a possibility might not arise. Well, that is perfectly true, and that would be the objection to the Amendments of the Members for Belfast and Cork, because, as I understand it, they propose that every separate transaction should come before the Local Authority to be discussed and to be approved by them. I quite admit that would leave room for intrigue and political prejudice, and that it might be open to the most serious objection. But that is not my proposal, and I do not think the suggestion I have made is open to a similar objection. I have suggested that after the Bill has come into operation, whether by the Resolution of the Local Authority or by plébiscite as proposed by the Chief Secretary, then the separate transaction should go, as proposed in the Bill, to the Land Commission — that is, the tenant and landlord, having agreed as to the terms, should go to the Land Commission, who would complete the transaction; and it is only after the Land Commission, who would be an impartial body not open to the objection which I have referred, has decided that the matter would come back to the County Council or other Local Authority, which would then be placed in the position of temporary landlord for 49 years, collect rents and so on. I say, then, that while I admit that there might be serious objection to allowing such Local Authorities as are seen in Ireland, or, indeed, any such Local Authority as it is possible we can hope to create for a considerable time to come, to deal with matters of such deep personal issues as the question of Land Purchase, I think it might be possible to leave to them the first origination of the Act—the decision as to whether or' not it shall be applied to a particular district—and the administration of it after the Act of Purchase has been completed. I am not very sanguine that I shall be able to persuade the Chief Secretary to accept any such suggestion as that, because it would involve more than a single Amendment in the Bill. Probably it would involve one or two new clauses in the Bill to carry it out effectually. All I have to say in sitting down is that I have explained why I cannot support the Amendment of the Member for Newcastle, although I desire some of the objects he has in view. If they can be accomplished, I believe the Bill will be improved, that the security of the taxpayer will be increased, that the chances of peace in Ireland will be improved, and that a better feeling will be created between landlord and tenant, because if the tenants of the Local Authority paid regularly, it would have a very considerable effect in inducing the tenants who had not purchased to pay regularly also. While I believe in all these good effects, still I am grateful for the Bill as it stands; and if the Chief Secretary does not see his way to make the alterations suggested, I can only hope that experience may show that the right hon. Gentleman has judged the situation more correctly than I myself have.

(4.22.) MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I rise for the purpose of asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to a matter of fact raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I warned the Chief Secretary last night that his plébiscite proposal was one of the considerations that would still affect the minds of Members in voting for or against my Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham gave reasons why he could not support my Amendment, though he is aware of the object in moving it, and, on the whole, agrees with it. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham gave amongst other reasons that the Chief Secretary was about to bring before the House a plebiscitary proposal, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has entirely misunderstood the proposal of the Chief Secretary. His interpretation of the plébiscite is quite different from that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He imagines it to mean that the vote ,"aye" or" no" will be taken as to whether or not the Act is to be applied. That is not the case. The inception of the operation of the Act is not in the view of the Chief Secretary to depend on a vote. That is not the question submitted to the ratepayers by plébiscite. According to the proposal of the Bill the Act is to come into operation without any assent from the ratepayers. Then the advances are to be made up to the total amount of 25 times the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, and then when that is exceeded, £8,000,000 in all the county constituencies will be consulted as to whether they will sanction any further advance. I will ask the Chief Secretary whether my interpretation is right or that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

rose, but there were loud calls for the Chief Secretary.

(4.26.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should have preferred to wait until I had heard observations from other parts of the Committee on the subject. The hon. Member for Cork expressed a hope that before the Debate closed I should make a statement as to my intentions as to the proposal for a plébiscite. As the Committee knows, the action of the Government will largely depend upon declarations from various parts of the House. So far I have not heard any distinct demand from below the Gangway.

MR. SEXTON

We do not know anything about it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Nothing in support of it fell from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MR. PARNELL

I said I thought it was an element of local control, though deficient.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I beg the hon. Members pardon. He did give a qualified support to the proposal. A qualified opinion has been advanced, but nothing more. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Saunderson), who spoke on the general question just now did not say anything to make me believe that he and his friends in the North of Ireland) looked on the proposal with favour, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, if he rightly understood it, would not receive.it formally. My proposal never went the length of giving immediate power to the localities to reject the Bill. I did no more than suggest that at a certain stage the locality should be given the opportunity of saying that no further hypothecation of its funds should be allowed. Therefore I am not specially encouraged to make any proposal on paper with regard to a matter which I only threw out as a method of compromising the differences that seem to be in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that to explain the attitude of the Government on the question. As I am on my legs I may say one word as to the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. On that part of it which I dealt with last night I will not add a word to what I then said. Let me make this one remark which is to express my entire concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman in one matter. If we had funds at our disposal to. enable us to give a large bonus to the localities to collect the rents and to interest them, in some substantial form, in the payment of the annuities, I should rejoice as much as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I entirely agree with his desires on this matter. The only reason why the Government have not adopted that plan is that we have been forced to the conclusion that we have not money to do it with. We could not give the Local Authorities 5s. per cent. without taking money from the tenants, and we thought that to do that would be to interfere with the proper working of the Act. It was not because we differ from the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, but because we could not propose a scheme which would give all the necessary benefits to the tenants, and at the same time confer these benefits on the Local Authorities, that we had to content ourselves with what I admit to be the less satisfactory proposals of the Bill before the House. But on the subject on which I am specially called on to give an opinion, I hope I have adequately explained what is the nature of the suggestion I have thrown out, and what are the views of Her Majesty's Government upon it.

(4.32.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I wish to point out to the Committee that there are now being discussed no fewer than four distinct propositions, each of them involving the principle of local control under the operation of the Bill. There is first of all the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, and, secondly, that of the Member for Cork; thirdly, we have the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast; and, finally, there is that hazy proposal in reference to a plébiscite which has been informally advanced from Members sitting on benches in different quarters of the House. I will deal first of all with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? The first thing he proposes is to arrest land purchase in Ireland. [" No, no."] I say that there can be no dispute on this point. The hon. Member for West Belfast has tried to prove that this is not so, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is not necessary, the reason he advanced for this contention being that there was still a residue of something like £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, which would be sufficient to carry the Government on until County Councils could be established in Ireland. It is easy to say there is a residue of £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, but I want to know how much of it has already been applied for? Not less than £9,000,000 out of the £10,000,000 have been sanctioned up to the present time, as I understood from the Chief Secretary, but if that he so the balance of the whole £1,000,000 may have been applied for already so that there may not be a £1 sterling to carry on operations with during the interval between now and the establishment of County Councils. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, we are not to have Land Purchase until County Government comes into operation. He and other hon. Members on this side of the House blame the Government for delaying passing a County Councils Bill. Yes, but it should be remembered that more Governments than one are responsible for that delay; ever since I can remember the question of the reform of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland has been a practical political question, and one Government after another has given that political and burning question the go by. I do not think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is justified in simply charging the present Government with delaying County Government in Ireland. The charge is one that applies to every Government in England during the last 25 years. My contention is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle by his Amendment proposes to hang up the whole operation of the Land Purchase Department and prevent another sale taking place until it is sanctioned by the Local Bodies to be set up under the intended County Government Act. If I take the interpretation put upon the Motion by the hon. Member for West Belfast, the Amendment is one intended to enforce and compel Local Government, and to hang up Land Purchase until that is obtained. Supposing the County Government Bill were passed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle hinted last night, Irish Members on the other side of the House are opposed to granting Local Government in Ireland. For my part I am not hostile to that proposition, on the contrary I am anxious to see it. I shall support and vote for it when the time comes, but at the present moment, because I am disposed to give to Ireland the same measure in principle as has been conceded to England and Scotland, I am not fool enough to imagine that even after we get Local Government in Ireland, we are going to have the millenium. What is the proposal before the Committee? Before you set up County beards, and know what kind of beards they are to be, and the work that will devolve upon them, you are prepared to submit to those bodies a question involving an appeal to every passion and prejudice and selfish interest on the part of the whole body of the farmers of Ireland. We used to hear a great deal in bye-gone days of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian having committed a great constitutional question to an entirely new electorate; but if you pass this proposal, you will be committing to an unknown body in Ireland, without any experience of what it has to do, one of the greatest risks which any Government could possibly allow. What would happen amounts to this: that a landlord and tenant may agree for the sale and purchase of the holding, they may be perfectly satisfied as to the terms of the transaction, and consider them fair and reasonable. The Land Commission may have investigated the whole of the circumstances and be satisfied as to the security being ample, and yet, after all this has been brought about, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle proposes to bring each individual transaction before the County Council, which will be fiercely political and selfishly agrarian, case by case, farm by farm, leaving those men subjected, as I have said, to political passions and prejudices the right of vetoing every sale and of absolutely arresting the entire process of land purchase in Ireland. In other words, he proposes to give one party to the bargain, namely, the farmers of Ireland, who will themselves be the purchasers, the absolute right in their position as County Councillors of themselves fixing the price and the managing of the sale. I say that I cannot assent to anything of the kind, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will stand firm in resisting any such proposal. It may be, and probably will be, said that this objection would come more appropriately from the other side of the House. All I can say is that ever since this question of local control was mooted in Parliament—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham consulted me about it a few months ago—I have taken pains to inform myself in Ireland as to what is the existing state of opinion on the subject in Ulster. I have spoken to the farmers on their own farms, and ascertained their views. Indeed, we have lately had a sort of Ulster land demonstration here in the Lobby of this House when a deputation of Ulster farmers came up upon this question. I say that those farmers are willing to pay a fair price for their land, and that they do not look upon this measure as a landlords' Bill. To call it a landlords' Bill is all very well for an English platform, before those who know no better, but the Irish tenant farmers do know better; they consider this Bill to be the greatest boon ever offered to the Irish tenants by the Imperial Parliament, and they are willing to accept the boon, paying a fair price for the land. I speak on this in the name of the Pro- testant tenants of Ulster, whose representatives 'I saw in the Lobby. My hon. Friend immediately below me saw them, hon. Members below the Gangway saw them, the Chief Secretary for Ireland saw them, and not one of those practical agriculturalists, not mere citizens of Belfast, but farmers working on their own land every day of their lives, are unanimously opposed to this County Council arrangement being allowed to come between them and their bargains as to the purchase of their holdings and retarding progress. I have authority for saying that the Gladstonian candidate for North Antrim at the last election is as anxious as any man living that this Bill should be passed, and is giving it as loyal and hearty support as any man in the North of Ireland. With regard to what has been said as to a plébiscite, so far as I understand it, the principle it is proposed to adopt is this: that before this Bill comes into operation, a vote something similar to what takes place under the Borough Funds ct is to be obtained as to whether the funds of the county shall be mortgaged for the purposes proposed, the county being in this way consulted as to whether its funds shall be so used or not. This is not open to the same objection as the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. It does not bring every case into the County Council. There are hon. Members of this House who are also members of English County Councils. What, I ask, would they think of having the sale of every holding in England brought before them? I oppose this Amendment because my constituents oppose it. I have consulted them, and they have given me their directions on the subject. Let us take the case of a county where the majority of the voters are not farmers but labourers. These men are not ratepayers, or rather they do not pay the main portion of the rates as the farmers do. I put it to the Committee what would be likely to happen if this plébiscite were dependent upon such a body? What is likely to be t he result if a question regarding the Contingent Fund were submitted to the labourers, whose interests are not only not the same as those of the farmers, but fre-frequently are diametrically hostile to the farmers' interests? They might regard land purchase as not being in their interests, and might consequently put the management of the whole business into the hands of men who would act in direct opposition to the wishes of those who are desirous of this boon and who are responsible for the payment of the rates. I do not say that this would be so, but I say that it is a possible case. Now, apart from all this, what is to be said of the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle? If he were here, I should say much more willingly what I am going to say now, that he re too much accustomed to assume the rôle of Jeremiah. As regards the Irish question, he is eternally on the lament. He wishes the Irish Local Authority to come between the English Government and the Irish farmer, as a kind of buffer. He fears a period of distress, and he conveniently ignores the Insurance Fund which provides against it. He walks past it as if it were not in the Bill. Then he fears what will take place in the time of tumult. I prefer to go by the experience we have had rather than look forward to those evils. The right hon. Gentleman need not be so much afraid. The British taxpayer will know how to recover his money just as well as the Irish landlord, and 1 do not believe the British taxpayer is in the slightest danger. I believe the money will be honestly and cheerfully paid. The Irish farmers know perfectly well what a boon they are getting, and they are not going to throw it away in any reckless scheme of repudiation. I think the Imperial taxpayer, and especially the British taxpayer, is morally bound to pledge his credit for this purpose. He tore out by the roots the Irish land system, and he planted the English system of tenure with the disastrous results which followed; he planted the Irish landlords where they are, and, therefore, I think the British taxpayer, if he recognises his moral obligation, ought to come to the rescue. But in the case of a general settlement like this, and in face of the general desire to let byegones be byegones, and have this interminable land question disposed of, it is not too much that the Irish taxpayer should be willing also to do his small share of the work—a share which involves no risk to him. I hope the Chief Secretary will resist I this proposal, which would hinder the practical working of the Bill.

(4.50.) MR.MAHONY (Meath, N.)

I find myself for once in agreement with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, in his concluding observations, wherein he pointed out that the present position of the land question is due to the British taxpayer. If he has any influence with the Government I would ask him to use it in inducing the Chief Secretary to omit from the guarantees at any rate the most irritating of them—some of those called the contingent guarantees. The hon. Member says that the Irish taxpayer should take his share because this is a final settlement. I do not think it is.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I said a general settlement.

MR. MAHONY

Well, a general settlement. It is not a general settlement, because it is only going to settle a portion of the question. It was significant last night that the Chief Secretary should say that it was out of the range of practical politics for any Government to propose to advance British money without having Irish security for it. If that is the case we have the Chief Secretary and his supporters to thank for it, because of the speeches they made in their anxiety to oppose the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in 1886. I ask—What are you going to do when this £30,000,000 is exhausted and you have no further Irish securities to fall back upon? That is a very strong argument in favour of dropping some of these securities, and relying, at any rate to some extent, on what ought to be the real security, the value of the land sold and purchased. Then if, as I hope, this land purchase scheme works well, and you have to come to Parliament again for a further advance, you will still have some Irish securities to fall back upon, and you will find the Irish people very ready to give these securities. As regards the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast says it will bind the present Government to bring forward within a definite period a Local Government Bill for Ireland. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the present Government will ever bring in a Bill which the hon. Member for West Belfast would care to accept, but if he supports this Amendment, he would be to a certain extent bound to support a Local Government scheme he did not like, in order that land purchase might go on. I believe that the Irish people desire land purchase, and I do not see my way to voting for any Amendment which would endanger the continuance of that system of land purchase in Ireland. We are told that the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) would practically do away with the whole value of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I cannot agree with that; I do not think any Amendment you could pass in this House would bind the Government more than they are already bound in honour, by their declarations, to bring in a Local Government Bill. If they break through their obligations, their opponents will know very well how to take advantage of their breach of faith. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast were passed, it would in spirit do all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork proposes to do. It would prevent delay in putting this Act into operation, because there were no County Councils in existence, and that is all that the hon. Member for Cork wants to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is anxious that the Local Authorities should have some power of giving or withholding their consent to the use of their securities; but he also wishes that they should derive some direct benefit from the operations of this Act in return for pledging their securities. That appears reasonable upon the face of it, but you cannot get out of this—that if you give to Local Bodies in Ireland a considerable portion of the annuities which are to be paid year by year by the tenants— you must either increase the amount to be paid by the tenants or diminish the amount to be received by the landlords— I would suggest to the Chief Secretary that it is possible to give the Local Bodies some sort of interest in the working of this Bill by continuing some small payment from the purchasers to the Local Bodies after the 49 years have expired. Several hon. Members have objected to giving Local Bodies control over every transaction, on the ground that Local Elective Bodies are not bodies particularly fitted to deal with the exceedingly delicate matters involved in bargains of the kind contemplated, and I admit there is very great force in the objection. In fact, those who ask that Local Bodies in Ireland should have power to consider each individual transaction, ask that these Local Bodies should have more power given to them in return for their security than the Imperial Parliament has ever required, it should have in return for the security it has given in the past. The Imperial Parliament has had another security and a very important one; it has had security in the fact that it has had under its control the body charged with the examination of the security for the advances under the Act—namely, the Land Commission. No one would propose to set up a number of bodies for the administration of the Act under the control of the Local Bodies. The control of the administration of the Act must remain under the Land Commission, but I want to suggest to the Chief Secretary a compromise, which I think he might very fairly accept. As I understand his proposal it is that by a plébiscite localities should have the power of saying whether the Act is to operate in their localities or not, but that they shall only have that power after the" cash portion of the Guarantee Fund is exhausted. The concession I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make is to alter that so as to make it immediately applicable. The cash portion of the Guarantee Fund belongs to the localities just as much as the contingent portion. Whether there is any default in payment or not it is proposed to take away £40,000 of the Contingent Fund for a period of years, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do that at a time when local taxation is pressing very heavily on the people. In Kerry, my own county, I have to pay at the present moment in county cess alone about 5s. in the £1, and in poor rate close on 3s. in the £1. And yet, whether there is any repudiation or not, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away £40,000 a year. That is his idea of generosity towards the Irish people. I ask him to re-consider that scheme for locking up this £40,000.

Another proposition I make is that the right hon. Gentleman should, in the first instance, allow the people of the locality to decide by plébiscite whether they would pledge the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, and then if they decide to pledge that which guarantees about £8,000,000, then after the sum has been expended, they should be asked whether they would pledge the contingent securities. The advantage of that would be that when the £8,000,000 were exhausted the localities would be in a position to judge whether the Act had been fairly administered or not. If it had been fairly administered, they would have no difficulty in deciding by a fresh plébiscite to pledge their other securities. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said land purchase is so popular that there is not a single county in Ireland where the people would not decide to pledge their securities. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have asserted that they also are in favour of land purchase. Under such circumstances, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should hesitate to give the people the control I suggest.

(5.10.) MR. PINKERTON) Galway

The hon. Member (Mr. Mahony) is much surprised to find himself in accord with the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I am not surprised at that, seeing that the hon. Members are supporters of the present Government. In fact, I myself am very strongly in sympathy with the major portion of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member alluded to the deputation from the North of Ireland which waited upon the Government upon this question. I met that deputation, and I can assure the Committee that while that deputation was intensely in favour of land purchase, it was very strongly opposed to all guarantees. Every member of the deputation, with one exception, was a practical farmer, and every practical farmer in Ireland knows that there is no necessity whatever for any guarantee. It is proposed to pledge both the tenants' interest and the landlords' interest for the repayment of the money, but everyone who has spoken to-day has advanced a fresh theory. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has suggested that some bonus should be given to the Local Authority for collecting the rents, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone has gone far beyond that, for he practically says the guarantee scheme is humbug, and there is no necessity for it. I am anxious that land purchase should be carried, but carried upon lines which will confer benefit to the tenant, and not seriously injure the landlord. I do not for a moment advocate a system of landlord robbery in Ireland. I believe it is possible to benefit the landlord and also to benefit the tenant at the same time; bat, so far as delay is concerned, I hold that you may pass county government and Home Rule before purchase is carried out. I hold in my hand a statement with regard to an estate in the North of Ireland, where an agreement was signed by landlord and tenant four years ago, and the bargain is not yet completed. An Inspector was sent down from the land purchase authorities to inspect the holdings, and the objections put forward were of such a character as to indefinitely postpone the settlement on that particular estate. I am particularly interested in the matter, as I am a tenant upon the estate. It was cast in my teeth that I had signed an agreement to purchase years ago, and had opposed land purchase. If land purchase is to be carried out on the principle suggested, I am prepared to oppose it, because it is only a palpable attempt on the part of the authorities to fill the mouths of the tenants with an empty spoon. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said that, as an Irish landlord, he is opposed to land purchase; but, as an Imperialist, he is prepared to risk British credit to promote land purchase. 1 hold that this measure is framed so as to benefit the landlords in the South of Ireland, where rents are not regularly paid.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! So far the hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the Amendment.

MR. PINKERTON

I admit I am out of order; but I am only following the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must remember that the hon. and gallant Member was rebuked.

MR. PINKERTON

As a farmer I object to be taxed in order to guarantee the repayment of the annual instalments of, it may be, an improvident neighbour. If I accept responsibility for a neighbour I ought to have a voice in the making of the bargain. It is a fact that men who have no intention to pay are the men who rush in and express a readiness to give 25 and 30 years' purchase. The men of Ulster are men who are prepared to pay 20s. in the £1, and they are most anxious that bargains are made on such a basis that no repudiation will be necessary. The purchase scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton was opposed in the North of Ireland because of the baronial guarantee. Seventeen years was the average number of years' purchase last year. Tenant right in Ulster is selling for 20, 24, and sometimes 25 years' purchase. Can any man imagine that the Government would allow tenants to run 16 or 17 years in arrear even if they were foolish enough to wish to do so? In the tenant right alone the Government have ample guarantee, so anxious are the people for land purchase that in spite of all its shortcomings nine-tenths of them will support this scheme; but is the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh prepared to put his sincerity to the test by offering his tenants an opportunity of purchasing? It is all very well to talk of general principlesx2014;

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

MR. PINKERTON

I am most anxious the measure should be passed, but I am strongly of opinion that it should be passed in no half-hearted fashion; I appeal to the Government to pass the measure in such a way that it will put an end, as far as possible, to the agrarian difficulty which has disturbed Ireland in the past.

(5.22.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The hon. Member for Galway has said a great deal with which I thoroughly agree, but I must say it was a case of very valuable matter in the wrong place. We have already discussed the question of guarantee. All Irish Members are agreed in preferring that the guarantee should come from the Consolidated Fund or from money voted by Parliament, rather than from local resources. We have a strong argument in the enormous taxation we pay. But that is not the question at issue. If the Front Opposition Bench accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork the issue will be a very simple one; it will be that when County Councils are created, they shall have the right of vetoing any purchase. There is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question. There is a great deal to be said for the view of the right hon. Gentleman of West Birmingham. He did not like a general veto. The only objection to that is that perhaps there would be too much red tapeism. On the other hand, it would provide complete local supervision over all sales. Supposing the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cork is not adopted by the Front Opposition Bench, in what position shall we be placed? We shall hang up the Bill for an indefinite time. Fifteen years ago I proposed the establishment of County Boards. County Boards are not yet created, and I am afraid we may have to meet many years before we see them in Ireland. Are we to hang up this purchase scheme until County Boards are set up? Why do my constituents and farmers and small tenants in the West of Ireland generally desire most to be proprietors of the land or to have County Councils to manage their affairs? I unhesitatingly say they prefer to be proprietors of their farms and to take the chance of County Boards.

(5.26.) MR.MACNEILL (Donegal.S.)

I rise to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I think that Amendment would give the Government an opportunity of redeeming their character; it would compel them to fulfil their promise to bring in a Local Government scheme for Ireland. They won the last General Election with a promise to set up a Local Government system in Ireland; but from that day to this they have made no effort to redeem their pledge. A very interesting observation was made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland last night. Replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle the Chief Secretary said— This machinery of land purchase is a costly-one; it cannot be made cheap, and the whole expense of this machinery is borne, not by the localities in Ireland, not by the ratepayers whose cause hon. Members opposite plead, but by the British ratepayer for the purpose of settling a question which, moreover, directly affects only a small corner of the United Kingdom. As an Irishman I would be the last person in the world to object to the mulcting of the British taxpayer, and for the reason that I know if a debtor and creditor account were prepared, Ireland would be enormously on the creditors side. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the last General Election was won upon the promise of Her Majesty's Government to redeem their pledge of bringing in a Local Government Bill for Ireland. They also undertook that they would not relieve the Irish landlords at the expense of the British taxpayer, and yet now they are bringing in a Land Bill unchecked and uncontrolled; and if this Amendment be not adopted, the British taxpayer will incur very heavy liability. I should like to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to some observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—observations to which surely he ought to attach much importance. That right hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that he had always supposed that the establishment of Elective County Authorities in England and Scotland would be associated with a similar measure for Ireland. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham can at all reconcile that announcement of his with the vote he is now going to give. I do not desire to trouble the House with any lengthened observations; but before I sit down I should like to remark upon the regret with which I, in common with many other Members, notice the absence from these Debates of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. I have not the honour of the noble Lord's personal acquaintance, but still we all regret his absence, because we know that in the course of these conversations he would have played the part of a candid friend of the Government; and when he found Her Majesty's Ministers obstructing the proposal to join Local Government with land purchase, he would have said a good deal in condemnation of their conduct. I have often thought thatHansard's Debates form very interesting reading to those who are in the know, and I never was more pleased with the reading than when I commenced the perusal of some of the noble Lord's own observations in reference to his pledge made when he was leader of the House on the question of Local Government for Ireland. I say that you are' simply obstructing Irish Local Government in the interests of Irish landlords. I say, also, that the plan of the Government in giving £30,000,000 for land purchase in Ireland is simply a cover for a proposal to divide that sum of money among their own supporters. They know very well that if the operation of the Bill were made dependent upon the adoption of Local Government for Ireland popular veto would prevent the distribution of the money in the channels they desire, and would make it utterly impossible to do as was done with the sum of £1,000,000 provided under the Ashbourne Acts and distributed amongst five supporters of the Government, one of whom was a brother of a Cabinet Minister. Now, I have before me a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington three years ago, on the 5th April, 1888, in which he said that he adhered in their integrity to the pledges he made at the time he was leader of the House of Commons, in favour of a large and liberal measure of Local Government being granted to Ireland. In one of the speeches he delivered about the same time, the noble Lord remarked that in 1886 the Chief Secretary for Ireland had opposed a measure of Local Government brought forward from the Irish Benches on the ground that Ireland was in a disturbed state and unfit for it. The noble Lord added— But whether Ireland he disturbed or not, it is a fundamental principle of our policy that Local Government should be granted. In conclusion, I can only say that the Government obstruction of this Amendment is really a sacrifice of principle in the interests of the landlords. The Government never intended that the money to be advanced under the Act should go to the tenants, but always have treated it as a largesse for the landlords and their friends.

(5.40.) MR. T. M. HEALY

No doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork has good ground for complaining of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I should have imagined that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cork to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle was exactly in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because it would have committed the Government to the expression of nothing but a pious opinion in favour of a general abstract principle of Local Government, and it would still have left at large the question of its final consummation. Yet, for some extraordinary reason which the right hon. Gentleman did not explain in his speech he has left the House in the dark as to whether the hon. Member for Cork will have his support in the Lobby. I rather take it that he will not, because if the hon. Member for Cork, with his corporal's guard of six Members, are found to be the only supporters of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would cut a remarkable figure as sergeant of the guard. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has declared that there was no value in recalling the pledges given in favour of Local self-Government, because every Government for the last25years has been steeped up to the chin in Local Government pledges, and it really was no matter whatever at the present time whether they combined to fulfil those pledges. It is true that every Government for the past 25 years has promised Local Government to Ireland, but no Government except the present Government has passed Local Government schemes for England and Scotland, and has got into Office on a declaration of simultaneity and similarity for the three Kingdoms; and, therefore, we have as against the present Government objections and arguments which cannot be urged with equal force against any Government which has sat at any time upon the Ministerial Benches since the Act of Union was passed. I say, therefore, that as against the present Government we have a peculiar grievance, and that the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone will not hold water. I was also much surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not secure more gratitude from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Even the hon. Member for Cork was more complimentary to him. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was more adroit than the hon. Member for Cork, but I think he might have been a little more effusive in his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Nobody has greater admiration for the abilities of the Chief Secretary than I have. In the case of this present Bill, he has managed to load it with every principle objectionable to Irishmen so as to make it difficult for us to accept it, and, at the same time, to give the Tory Party every species of temptation to support him. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast dealt very properly with one branch of the Chief Secretary's devices when he said that by pledging local control in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman was setting up additional arguments against the establishment of County Boards. In my judgment, the Chief Secretary gratified both branches of Tory sentiment; Home Rule is staved off by the Imperial guarantee, and Local self-Government by the local guarantee. I have been waiting to hear some explanation of the new enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Cork and his Colleagues for this measure. It cannot be denied that this Bill is a less boon to Ireland than the Ashbourne Act. We know it has been the great boast of the hon. Member for Cork that it was he who in 1885 induced the Government to bring in that Act. That was immediately before the Home Rule Bill was brought in. Three years later the fund out of which the Act was worked required replenishing, and so in 1888, when another £5,000,000 was required for the purposes of that Act, I find that the hon. Members for Cork, Galway, and Meath, who now declare that it is undesirable to postpone this Bill in order even to have a pledge of Local Government, voted en bloc against the proposal to grant the additional sum. What are we to think of gentlemen of this sort? We have heard of the fox who has lost his tail, but we who are not in that predicament stand exactly as we stood in 1888. This new enthusiasm wants explanation. Even in 1890, on the 21st of April, the hon. Member for Cork moved the rejection of the Chief Secretary's Bill of last year; he opposed the Bill, not on a single ground, but firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, just like one of those"souping Protestant parsons" he is so fond of denouncing.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I rise to order. I ask, Sir, what right has the hon. Member to call any Protestant minister a souping parson?

MR. T. M. HEALY

The hon. Member for South Tyrone does not see my point. It is a quotation from the hon. Member for Cork himself, and I quoted it for the purpose of denouncing the insult.

MR. MAHONY

In the absence of the hon. Member for Cork, may I take the liberty of saying that the hon. Member for Longford has misquoted him?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Longford would approach the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Imitation is not unnatural. I shall be able, if permitted to do so, to verify this interesting quotation which gives such offence both to the Liberal Unionists above the Gangway and to the Tory Unionists below it. Last night the hon. Member for Cork delivered a very strong speech in favour of this Bill, unfettered by any pledge of Local Government for Ireland, but he opposed the Bill of last, year on the grounds of the absence of consent of the locality to the security, and of local control over the application of the money. His words on the 21st April were:" My next objection to the measure is that it exhausts our local credit without our consent." Surely that objection has just as much force to-day as it had in 1890. The hon. Member for Cork also said that the Bill, in the absence of local control,"was a parody on land purchase and a swindle on the British taxpayer." He objected first that the Bill was not an honest Bill; secondly, that it afforded no solution of the question; and, thirdly, that it would lead to farther agitation. I declare that the explanation which the hon. Member has attempted to give of his change of attitude this year is"a parody on Parliamentary Debate and a swindle on the Irish public." He admitted in principle his anxiety to give some amount of local control; he put the infant idea before the House, but no one seemed to like the look of the child presented for sponsorship. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said it was no child of his; the hon. Member for South Tyrone would not be godfather, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham refused his blessing, and the only person to whom he could look for sympathy and comfort was the hon. Member for Cork—"faithful among the faithless only he." But, for my part, I would thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give us some fuller explanation of his scheme than we have yet had. He may have confined it to the hon. Member for North Armagh; he may have told it in secret to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or the hon. Member for Cork. But we who are outside the charmed circle of Government confidence are at least entitled to be told what is to be this system of a plébiscitum he proposes to invent. We have had in former times some schemes containing remarkable proposals. We had the Drainage Bills, in which it was proposed to expend a million or two and to call for some local contribution. That local contribution would have amounted—I speak offhand and subject to correction—to a few hundred thousand pounds; but the Chief Secretary felt so strongly the necessity of some local opinion upon the expenditure that he invented a species of local representation. Are we not entitled to have to-night, before we proceed further in regard to this clause, some statement of whether he refuses such representation to the people of Ireland with regard to the advance of £30,000,000 and with regard to the hypothecation of all local resources, and, furthermore, the taking away from the localities the grants for education, medicine, pauper lunatics, and a number of other local purposes? Are we not entitled to be told why that which was granted in those drainage questions is to be refused in this far more important matter? It may be that the Chief Secretary does not altogether believe in the sincerity of the support of the Member for Cork—perhaps he has been reading some of the speeches of the hon. Member upon land nationalisation. I do not know whether he has perused these remarkable addresses; but if he has, that would be sufficient ground, perhaps, for the Chief Secretary taking up an attitude of doubt as to the amount of real and effective support that will be given to him by that hon. Gentleman and his supporters, for so recently as the 14th of March last he told the people of Dublin he had always believed in the principle of the nationalisation of land. That being so, it seems to me very remarkable that on an occasion of this kind, when the Government are only asked to insert a proposal to the effect that the Irish people should have over local affairs and local taxation some amount of control, that the gentleman who believes in the nationalisation of land, which involves the giving of local control over this entire land system apart altogether from the question of purchase, should refuse to vote in favour of local control disconnected with nationalisation, and connected only with peasant proprietorship. On these grounds we are entitled, having regard to the present action of the hon. Member for Cork, to vote down his Amendment. I do not believe in the sincerity of his Amendment, I do not believe in it from a gentleman who spoke six weeks ago in favour of land nationalisation. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh ! Leinster Hall]—who spoke 12 months ago against this Bill, and three years ago voted against the advance of £3,000,000 under the Ashbourne Act. For my part I am inclined to doubt the sincerity of the Amendment, which, I believe, is put down for the purpose as it were of drawing a red herring across the trail without any effective intention, and accordingly I shall cordially give my support to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.

(6.7.) MR. PARNELL

I wish to make some reply to one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Member for West Belfast, and which were taken up and repeated, with the acrimony to which we have become accustomed from him, by the hon. Member for Longford. These hon. Gentlemen have called attention to the vote which I gave in 1887 against a grant of £5,000,000 and the vote I gave in 1890 against the Second Reading of a similar Bill to this, and to my action upon the present occasion and this year, in the preceding stages of this Bill, and they have asked me what has happened in the interval to make me change my action in reference to this Bill. I have to say to both these hon. Gentleman that they should first have asked their own leader, the hon. Member for Londonderry, why he has changed his action also before they address that question to me. And they should have first asked themselves why they have changed their action. Those two hon. Members and their present leader, the hon. Member for Londonderry, also voted in my company, and under my protection, against the grant in 1887, and against the Second Reading of the Bill in 1890. Did the hon. Member for Longford vote against the Bill in 1891? And if he did not have the courage of his convictions of 1887 and 1890—if they were convictions—what has happened in the interval to change the convictions and the mind of the hon. Member for Longford?—

MR. T. M. HEALT

Your misconduct.

MR. PARNELL

And the mind of his leader? And why is it to-day that, instead of having the courage of 1887 and 1890 to openly oppose this Bill, he joins in a combination of the Liberal and Radical Members below the Gangway and above the Gangway, to do that by stealth and by disguised methods which the hon. Member and his leader have not the courage to do openly, and which they know perfectly well their constituents would not allow them to do. I have done with those hon. Gentlemen and their consistency, and I await knowledge of the reasons for their change. Now, let me say to the House why I supported, and was not afraid to support, the Second Reading of this Bill. I did not sneak out of the House to avoid expressing any opinion—aye or no—on the vote for the Second Reading; I did not run away from the Second Reading like the hon. Member for Longford; I voted for the Second Reading because I believe that the Irish tenant farmers want this Bill to pass. They have viewed with disfavour, and will continue to view with disfavour, your attempts to obstruct it. I believe, further, that the method which has been devised by the Chief Secretary of counter-guarantees, although it is glaringly and grossly unfair to us, has satisfied the scruples of the English taxpayer. I do not believe there is any reality in the opposition of the Liberal Members below the Gangway, or that their constituents care two straws whether the Bill passes or not. So much for my reasons for voting for the Second Reading. Let me go on to say, regarding the present Amendment, that the hon. Member for West Belfast has misrepresented the substance and the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member stated in defence of his conduct in voting for an Amendment which, if carried, will destroy this Bill, and which he knows well will destroy it, that the Amendment, if carried, would pledge the House and the Government to introduce Local Government for Ireland in this or in the next Session. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman does nothing of the kind. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from compelling or pledging the House or the Government to propose or carry a Local Government measure for Ireland this Session or next Session, would effect this—that if, owing to any circumstances, it is impossible to pass a complicated measure like a Local Government for Ireland Bill in this or in the next Session of Parliament, and if the House failed in this or in the next Session to carry such a measure of Local Government for Ireland, this Bill would be absolutely destroyed, and never could be brought into operation. So that under the guise of voting for an Amendment to secure local control, some of the Irish Members—and let it be known to their constituents — are voting, in an underhand way. it is true, but nevertheless in an equally effective way, for the destruction of the principle of this measure, and—unless an impossibility can be brought to pass, unless a Local Government Bill for Ireland be passed this or next Session—to prevent this Bill, enabling the reduction of rents of one in every three of the tenants of Ireland by from 30 to 40 per cent. being passed, keeping it inoperative for all time. I do not know whether the Committee will accept the Amendment I have proposed or not, I am tolerably certain they will not. The Amendment which I have proposed will probably have very small support, but it was designed to make the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle carry out what it pretends to carry out and does not, and what its supporters among the Irish Members have suggested and urged that it does carry out. If they choose to take the responsibility of voting it down, as announced by the hon. Member for Longford, they can do so. It has been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast that I am fighting a shadow in arguing against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. If I am doing this, then is not the hon. Member for West Belfast supporting a shadow in supporting that Amendment? It appears to me that if one statement is true the other is true. If I am wrestling with a shadow he is supporting a shadow—

MR. SEXTON

If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, it is, in my opinion, idle to argue against this Amendment as if it were about to be adopted; but, on the other hand, as I said earlier, it is useful to vote for the Amendment, though it may be defeated, because it will place on record a declaration binding the Liberal Party. It may thus be of future use to the people of Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

In the history of Parliaments no more original excuse has ever been heard for voting for a pernicious Amendment. The hon. Member votes for it because he knows it will be defeated! I should have said that it would have been better not to support the right hon. Member for Newcastle in wasting the time of the Committee in arguing for an Amendment which the hon. Member knows is bound to be defeated, and which he would not vote for if he knew it was going to be carried. If the hon. Member votes for the Amendment, then he will vote for an Amendment which would be destructive of the Bill. He is taking a course not calculated to facilitate the progress of this Bill or to advance the wishes of the great majority of the tenant farmers in Ireland. Our time would have been much more profitably occupied if, instead of discussing this inoperative Amendment, we had gone on to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast—a similar Amendment to mine, and against which every argument the hon. Member has advanced against my Amendment can be used with more crushing force.

(6.20.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I do not know how far the hon. Member for Cork represents Ireland, but he takes very much upon himself when he speaks for the English constituencies. The hon. Member has-told the Committee that our constituents do not care whether this Bill is passed or not. If the hon. Member had known anything of what took place at the General Election in England he would be aware that Home Rule was lost because a Land Purchase Bill was-brought in by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. It is to that Bill that the Conservative Party owe their seats,. and to the fact that they protested against it. We have always been opposed to land purchase, and we shall continue to be opposed to it to the end. But I did not rise to take notice of the observations of the hon. Member, but to say that we shall vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The Bill is a bad Bill, but it will be made slightly better by the adoption of the Amendment. But I wish it to be clearly understood, and I think I am not speaking for myself alone, but for many Members on this side of the House, that in voting for the Amendment we in no kind of way pledge ourselves to any land purchase scheme for Ireland with an Imperial guarantee, whether approved or disapproved by the ratepayers of Ireland. I do not want to detain the House from a Division for & moment longer. I only want to make our position clear that neither directly or indirectly do we support an Imperial guarantee for land purchase.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I asked a question with reference to the reason of the change of view in 1888, 1890, and the present year. The hon. Member for Cork has not answered that question. I would like to hear him on the point.

(6.22.) MR. PARNELL

I merely wish to say in reference to my Amendment that it has been pointed out to me by the hon. Member for West Belfast that my Amendment may interfere with that of the hon. Member if it is negatived and not withdrawn. I think many Members will agree that both the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle and my own might be withdrawn, and then the Committee might proceed to divide on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, which practically seeks to carry out and does carry out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has argued for in his Amendment, but which goes a great deal further.

(6.23.) MR. SEXTON

I take the liberty to point out that my Amendment ought to satisfy both the hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Member for Newcastle, because it provides for local control and no interruption in the proceedings of purchase. I certainly have a preference for my own Amendment, but it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. PARNELL

Under the circumstances I ask leave of the Committee, and withdraw my Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may point out that, on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman being put last night, the first words only were submitted to the Committee, involving the principle of local control, leaving out the specific way in which that control is to be exercised. If those first words are negatived, the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, as well as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, will also be negatived. Is it your pleasure the Amendment to the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of" No."]

Question," That the proposed words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

MR. SEXTON

In view of your ruling, Sir, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle whether in view of the fact that my Amendment provides for a continuing control pending the passing of a Local Government Act, he proposes to take a Division on his Amendment, or will he consent to take a Division upon mine?

(6.25.) MR. J. MORLEY

In answering the question I may remind the Com- mittee that last year I placed on the Paper an Amendment to the Land Bill making the assent of the Board of Guardians a condition of the operation of the Act. In substance, therefore, I am perfectly willing to assent to the hon. Member's view. While the hon Member was speaking I felt that there would be no difficulty on my part in allowing the hon. Member's Amendment, to which in substance I have no objection, and which coincides with my view last year, to be accepted. My object would, therefore, be served by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member instead of my own, and I am willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn. [Cries of"No."]

Question put, That the words ' Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holdings unless the making of such advance in that county shall have been previously proved ' be there added.

(6.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 170; Noes 247.—(Div. List, No. 138.)

The next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as follows:— Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end, add"In the construction of the Land Purchase Acts for the purposes of this scheme, ' landlord' shall include a mortgagee with power of sale. The purchase in the name of the Land Commission of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock, equal in nominal amount to a purchase annuity, shall be a good discharge of such annuity. Immediately after the passing of this Act the Land Commission shall ascertain as to each county what estates are for sale in the Chancery Division, the tenants upon which are willing to purchase their holdings under this Act, and the Land Commission shall within the limits prescribed by this Act purchase the same for resale to the tenants, and the Guaranteed Land Stock provided by this section shall be applied to such purchases in the first instance. Where, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission purchase land from the Land Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland (Chancery Division), the purchase-money may be paid by the issue to the Accountant General of the said Court of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock equal in nominal amount to the purchase money.

THE CHAIRMAN

This Amendment really contains three Amendments, none of them appropriate to this clause. The first is relative to the Interpretation Clause, the second to the 2nd clause, and the third ought to be brought up in the form of a New Clause altogether.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end of Clause, to add the words," Half-yearly returns, ending on the thirtieth day of April and thirty first day of October respectively, shall he presented to Parliament by the Land Commission, giving the following particulars respecting cases of default in the payment of any purchase annuity: — Name of purchaser; province, county, and townland in which the holding is situate; date of purchase; area (in statute acres) of holding; tenement value of holding; rental of holding when purchased, and whether judicial or non-judicial; amount of purchase-money; amount of instalments paid; amount of instalments in default; proceedings taken for recovery."—{Mr. J. E. Ellis.)

Question proposed,"That those words be there added."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no objection to urge to this Amendment.

(6.45.) MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

The Amendment is defective, so far as I can see, in many particulars. It does not give that which would be the most valuable information—that is to say, the name of the landlord whose land has been sold under the Act. I, therefore, move as an Amendment to insert, after" Name of purchaser," in line 5 of the Amendment, the words '" Name of vendor." I think it can hardly be denied that this information would be most desirable, for we know it may be difficult in cases of default to find out the particular landlord who has sold his land, for he may withhold his name through modesty or some other cause. I am sure that no vendor who effects a sale to his tenants fairly will object to allowing his name to be known.

(6.46.) Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the words"Name of purchaser," the words" Name of vendor."—(Mr. Knox.)

Question proposed"That those words be there inserted."

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I hope the Government will raise no objection to this Amendment.

Question," That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

(6.47.) MR, M. HEALY (Cork)

I would suggest that particulars should be given showing how far the guarantee deposit has been called upon to supply the default in the payment of the annuity; whether or not any attempt has been made to sell the holding, and whether or not such attempt has been success ful—

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.