CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 01 June 1891 vol 353 cc1416-60

As amended, considered.

New Clause—

(Payment by purchaser of sinking fund payments in guaranteed land stock).

Where a person liable to pay a purchase annuity either—

1. (a) redeems the annuity or any part thereof; or
2. (b) pays on a gale day or within fourteen days thereafter the instalment due on that gale day;

the payment of the redemption money or, as the case may be, of one-fourth of the instalment may be discharged by the prescribed transfer to the National Debt Commissioners of an equal nominal amount of guaranteed land stock, and such transfer may be made through the medium of a post office savings bank,)—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

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

This clause is intended to carry out a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny. As far as the first part of it is concerned, it does carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion, and will confer very considerable benefit on, at any rate, the larger of the purchasers under the Act, but I think the latter part of the clause, respecting transfer through the Post Office Savings Bank, requires some amendment. I have carefully looked at the Savings Bank Act of 1880, which is the only Act under which Government Stock can be transferred through the medium of the Post Office, and that only gives power to transfer to a person who has invested through the Post Office Savings Bank.

(6.52.) MR. M. HEALY (Cork)

Will the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say whether the construction placed on the clause by my hon. and learned Friend is correct? The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny was that the person who was liable for the payment of the annuity should, instead of paying the amount in cash, be permitted to purchase Land Stock.

(6.54.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

I confess I see nothing in the clause which does not carry out the spirit of the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "and rules providing for such transfer through such medium may be made by the Treasury with the consent of the Postmaster General in the same manner that rules may be made under 'The Savings Bank Act, 1880,' or any Act amending the same."—(Mr. Knox.)

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

(6.58.) MR. GOSCHEN

I would suggest that if you put in the words "in the prescribed manner" it would answer the hon. Member's intentions. We quite appreciate the object of the Amendment.

MR. KNOX

The only difficulty I have in accepting that suggestion is that the Rules made under the Savings Bank Act of 1880 are made by the Treasury with the consent of the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General would not be consulted under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

MR GOSCHEN

We will arrange that he shall be consulted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, after "bank," to insert" in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Goschen.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause—

(Power to issue two-and-a-half per cent. guaranteed land stock.)

(1.) If at any time after guaranteed land stock to a nominal amount of not less than ten million pounds has been issued, the Treasury are of opinion, having regard to the average market price of the said stock for the period, not less than twelve months, then immediately preceding, that the market price of a like stock, but bearing dividends at the rate only of two pounds ten shillings per cent. per annum on the nominal amount of the capital, would be one hundred pounds cash for an equal nominal amount of stock, they shall cause notice to be given that after the date specified in the notice the following provisions will apply, and the same shall apply accordingly; that is to say,—

1. (a.) The guaranteed land stock issued for advances under any agreement made subsequently to the said date shall yield dividends at the rate of only two pounds ten shillings per cent. per annum on the nominal amount of the capital;
2. (b.) The annual sinking fund payment for stock issued for such advances shall be at the rate of one pound two shillings per cent. on the nominal amount of the capital;
3. (c.) The county percentage shall continue to be at the rate of five shillings per cent. per annum on such advance;
4. (d.) The purchase annuity for the repayment of any such advance shall be at the rate of three pounds seventeen shillings percent. instead of four pounds per cent. per annum on the advance;
5. (e.) The provisions of this Act with respect to guaranteed stock, and the dividends thereon, and the sinking fund payments for the same, shall apply to stock issued for such advance, with the substitution of the last mentioned amount of dividends and sinking fund payments for those mentioned in such provisions," —(The Chancellor of the Exchequer,)

—brought up, and read the first and second time.

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

If the Treasury find, in the course of time, that they can effect a saving of a quarter per cent., the question I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, why that saving should not go to the relief of the tenant purchaser? I am at a loss to understand why the Sinking Fund should be put at £1 2s., and I, therefore, move to strike out 2s.

Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "two shillings."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'two shillings' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GOSCHEN

The Sinking Fund is put at £1 2s., because it must be rather larger in the case of a 2½ per cent. Stock than when you establish a Sinking Fund to redeem a 2¾ per cent. Stock.

MR. SEXTON

If the Sinking Fund is wholly re-invested in Land Stock, I wish to know why there should be such a large addition as 2s.?

MR. GOSCHEN

I can only inform the hon. Member that the calculation has been made, and £1 2s. is found to be necessary. I put forward the explanation for what it is worth.

MR. SEXTON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KNOX

I beg to move, in line 24, page 30, after the word "thereon," to insert the words, "and the redemption of the annuity." I do so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be enabled to say how the redemption of the annuity would be arranged under this provision.

Amendment proposed, in line 24, after the word "thereon," to insert the words "and the redemption of the annuity."—(Mr. Knox.)

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

MR. GOSCHEN

I do not think the words are necessary, the object of the hon. Member being already met by the clause.

MR. KNOX

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added.

New Clause—

(Reference to Privy Council of objections to Lord Lieutenant's decision.)

(1.) Not less than one month before the decision of the Lord Lieutenant as to the share in any fund or sum or the rights or burdens of any county, local authority, or person in respect of payments out of the Guarantee Fund or the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account is finally given, notice of the proposed decision shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and if during such month any authority or person pecuniarily interested sends to the Lord Lieutenant an objection to the proposed decision, in writing, stating the reasons for the same, then such objection and reasons shall be referred to the Privy Council, and after hearing the objector and any other authority or person, if such objector, authority, or person appears to the Privy Council to be pecuniarily interested and desires to be heard, the Privy Council shall advise the Lord Lieutenant thereon, and the decision of the Lord Lieutenant shall be suspended until the advice is given, and shall be in accordance with such advice. (2.) The Privy Council may order costs to be paid by or to the objector or by or to any authority or person appearing. (3.) This section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to a declaration by the Lord Lieutenant as to the proportion between the total number of holdings and those of a rateable value exceeding fifty pounds, and in that case any ten persons whose position (whether as vendors or purchasers) as respects advances under this Act may be affected by the declaration, shall be deemed to be pecuniarily interested,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(7.23.) MR. M. HEALY

I think it would be as well to drop Sub-section 2 altogether out of the clause, because I do not know any means by which the Privy Council can enforce an order made for costs. In the Court of Chancery there is a power of attachment, but the Privy Council has no such power; and as, therefore, there are no means of enforcing its order, the sub-section would be a nullity. As to "any authority or person appearing," I take it that the only competent "authority" is the Grand Jury, and supposing the Grand Jury appeared in any case, and the Privy Council mulcted them in costs, the Grand Jury has no power to pay such costs, because it has no legal jurisdiction to levy or apportion such costs on the county in which it acts. Of course, the case provided for is of such a nature that it is almost impossible it could be made the means of vexatious litigation. No one would be likely to appear before the Privy Council without real ground for action. This being so, it is only the Public Authority which could be expected to appear, and I cannot think that the Government mean this clause to apply to any action taken by the Grand Jury.

MR. KNOX

I should like to point out that, inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant in Council is assumed to be just the same as the Lord Lieutenant without his Council, the reference made by this clause to the Privy Council is practically so much waste paper. It would merely give objectors the right of arguing before a body not necessarily more learned in legal matters than the Lord Lieutenant himself, and, therefore, it would be of no practical advantage. Another point is that the clause does not make it clear that the Crown has any right to appear at all. This is an important point. The Crown can obviously not have any pecuniary interest in appearing before the Privy Council, and, as I understand it, it is necessary that some such interest should exist in order to justify such appearance; but the Lord Lieutenant, who has made an order, might desire to appear to sustain his decision, and, as I have said, the clause seems to give him no such right. Moreover, costs could never be given against the Crown. It would only be in the case of a dispute between two authorities that costs could be given, and as the clause would be practically inoperative as regards any other party, the point I have ventured to submit is, I would respectfully submit, worthy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There is another point I will venture to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. Sub-section 3 of Clause 5 provides that the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant is not to come into force in certain cases without further proceedings and without sometimes being-laid before Parliament, whereas under this section the decision of the Lord Lieutenant is final. It ought to be made clear that the sub-section is not intended to make a declaration by the Lord Lieutenant, under Section 7, binding.

(7.31.) MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

If the sub-section is to be retained it will be necessary to put in distinct words authorising the Grand Jury to make a levy. At present there is no power for them to make a levy except for a specific purpose. But I rather agree that the sub-section is unnecessary. I do not think there will be many frivolous objections to the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant: the costs which will have to be borne by the objectors will prevent that. I might, however, suggest that the number of objectors might be reduced from ten to five, as in certain districts there might not be ten persons affected by the declaration under Clause 7.

MR. SEXTON

It is not possible that such a case should arise. There never could be fewer than ten persons affected. As to the question of costs, if the objectors are successful, we ought to know from whom they will be able to recover their costs. I think the clause would be better if the provision as to costs were omitted, for you are providing against an imaginary danger. The opening words of the clause are very awkward, and open to the observations made upon them by my hon. Friend. It is provided that. "not less than one month before the decision of the Lord Lieutenant," &c., &c. But that decision may not be given for six months, and therefore to say the Lord Lieutenant is to give one month's notice is very awkward. Again, the publication of his intention to make a declaration in the Dublin Gazette is not sufficient. That Gazette only circulates among officials, mainly in the City of Dublin. I think the advertisement should also appear in at least one newspaper circulating in the county concerned. Again, I object to the word "pecuniarily" as introduced into this clause. The Privy Council are to consider the objections of persons pecuniarily interested. Is it not plain that in a matter of an appeal as to the share of a county in the Guarantee Fund an objector's pecuniary interest might only be contingent and remote? It would be very desirable that he should be heard, but the insertion of this word would exclude him in all probability.

(7.37.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the omission of this Sub-section 2, and on these grounds: The Crown on all official Motions is represented by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, who has a junior. High fees are paid to these counsel, and only those who have had personal or professional experience know how unfairly the subject is treated in these matters. His own expenses may be small; but if he prove to be in the wrong, he has to pay high fees to the Crown counsel. The liability to pay his own costs will deter a man from making-frivolous objections; but if this subsection stand, costs will follow the event in all cases.

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

I will endeavour to deal briefly with the rather numerous, but not very far-reaching, points raised in the course of the attack on this subsection. On the whole, I am disposed to adhere to the sub-section, for I think that in the clause, as originally drawn, the discretion vested in the Lord Lieutenant was sufficient in itself. In Committee, however, it was argued that an appeal ought to be given. The Government assented to that, and I think, at all events, it should be hedged round with provisions such as these. I believe the methods we have adopted are the ordinary methods. I do not think that there is any likelihood that the power given to the Privy Council will be abused in the case of the poorer or weaker suitors. We are told that this sub-section will practically be of no effect, as the only authority likely to appear before the Privy Council will be the Grand Jury, who can raise a rate to meet the costs. I think it very unlikely that Grand Juries will make frivolous applications. Such applications, if made at all—and I hope none will be made—will come from irresponsible persons in a county who may take it into their heads that they are injured by the declaration. A Grand Jury, appearing solemnly before the Privy Council, are not likely to do so on frivolous grounds.

MR. M. HEALY

But costs may be given against the county.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Practically there will be no costs. If there are, I am informed it will be a statutory debt, such as can be recovered.

MR. M. HEALY

In what way—by action?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes; by action. The hon. Member for Cavan has pointed out that there is no power given to the Crown to appear. That may be met by introducing, in line 42, the words "or counsel on behalf of the Crown." With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast, it is true that the Dublin Gazette has not much circulation outside Dublin, but that objection may be met by inserting after the word "Gazette," "and some newspaper circulating in the county." That will meet his views and the views of hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Cavan appears to think that, as the clause is at present drawn, the Privy Council referred to is the constituted body. But if that were so, it would make the clause little more than a fiction. What is intended is the Privy Council as a Judicial Body, and if the clause does not make that clear, it must be altered.

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

I think the explanations of the Chief Secretary are tolerably satisfactory, but his action is not. Will he embody his words in an Amendment to be introduced either now or in another place? He said that costs would practically only be given when the objection is frivolous, but that is not provided for in the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We will put it in.

COLONEL NOLAN

Then I shall be satisfied. I may say I should prefer these matters to be dealt with by the Lord Lieutenant instead of the Privy Council, for the expense would be considerably less.

COLONEL WARING (Down, N)

However soberly and solemnly a Grand Jury may proceed in the matter, I fear it will have to pay its own costs. There is nothing in the section to relieve them of that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "Gazette," to insert "and at least one newspaper circulating in the county concerned."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. SEXTON

Those words meet my point.

Question put, and agreed to.

(7.47.) MR. SEXTON

At the end of line 6 I wish to leave out the word "pecuniarily." Having regard to the second sub-section it is unlikely that any person will venture before the Privy Council unless he has a real and substantial interest in the matter. But if the word "pecuniarily" is retained he would be precluded from appearing if his money interest were only of a remote or contingent character. He might, for instance, intend to be a purchaser of the Stock to be allotted to his county, but a tribunal of lawyers would hold perhaps that that did not constitute a pecuniary interest. Considering the strong protection against frivolous applications I think the clause might leave this as a personal interest instead of insisting on its being a pecuniary interest.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out the word "pecuniarily."—(Mr. Sexton.)

COLONEL WARING

I would suggest that the word be omitted. I can see no objection.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I agree.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. M. HEALY

I would suggest that words should be inserted providing that the objections should be made in the prescribed form.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word "objection," to insert the words "in the prescribed form."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University

That would necessitate the drawing up of Treasury rules. I do not think that would be desirable; it would only lead to considerable trouble. We had better leave the clause as it stands, as under it a person objecting has merely to send his objections in in writing.

(7.50.) MR. KNOX

Difficulty may arise from insisting on the objections being sent in when notice of intention to object is given. In complicated cases important reasons for objecting might only occur to counsel after the litigation has actually been commenced, and if the Privy Council are only to entertain such reasons as may be inserted in the first application, you may unwittingly do an injustice. I venture to think some Amendment is necessary in that respect.

MR. MADDEN

I do not think any such danger is likely to arise; an objector having once stated sufficient reasons for being heard before the Privy Council, will be able to lay his whole case before that tribunal.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out the words "and reasons."— (Mr. Knox.)

Agreed to.

(7.54.) MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

Now I come to the question of the constitution of the Privy Council. That Body consists partly of Judges of the Superior Court and partly of country gentlemen, and when sitting there are usually present three or four country gentleman and five or six Judges. The laymen are usually landlords without legal knowledge, and they are indirectly concerned in questions of this sort. I would suggest that matters distinctly technical should only come before members of the Council who are Judges of the Supreme Court. There is no such thing as a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland: that is a blessing reserved for England. We know, however, that the judicial functions of the Council have largely increased of late years, and I think there are good reasons for referring these matters to a Committee of Judges.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the word "to," to insert the words "a Committee of the Judges of the Supreme Court who are members of."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)

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

(7.58.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Without arguing against the Amendment in the abstract, I may say I do not think that this is a proper subject on which to start a precedent of a novel character. The questions to be referred are not of a legal character, and some slight admixture of the lay mind might improve the tribunal. Neither can the questions be of a kind to raise a conflict between landlords and tenants, for their interests in the matter would be identical.

MR. KNOX

But the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Privy Council in its judicial capacity a little while ago.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should have said its legal capacity.

MR. KNOX

The distinction is a somewhat narrow one. I think it may fairly be argued that the words as they stand in the clause refer to the Privy Council, not in its legal capacity but its consultative aspect. I think, at any rate, an Amendment should be inserted, making it clear in what capacity the Privy Council is to act.

(8.0.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

It seems to me we ought to have this matter made clear. The words "Privy Council" are very often used as a mere form, but I understand from the Chief Secretary that that is not what is meant here. In that case there ought to be some words showing that the "Privy Council" here means something different from the ordinary use of the words "Privy Council" in Acts referring to Ireland. It is evident there ought to be a decision here, and therefore there ought to be some words showing that the Privy Council are rather to act in a special capacity in this respect. Also, I think, it is rather necessary you should say that the acts of the Privy Council should be confined to judicial acts, because it is quite plain some members of the Privy Council may have very strong influence in particular counties. Of course they would not give way to any particular bias if they were made to understand they were acting in a judicial capacity. I cannot help thinking the demand that there should be some limitation put upon the words "Privy Council" is a reasonable and necessary one.

MR. MADDEN

The words in the clause as it stands would import that the assent of the Privy Council was not merely formal, but that they were to decide the matter judicially.

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

It seems to me that the questions to be decided will mainly be questions of fact, and I do not see why country gentlemen like the O'Conor Don are not as competent to settle questions of fact as any legal gentlemen in Ireland. The Privy Council hold inquiries under the Light Railways and Tramways Act in respect to which there are questions of fact and sometimes questions of law to be decided. No Motion has been made to reserve such questions for lawyers.

MR. SEXTON

I do not think the hon. Member appreciates the scope of the functions the Privy Councillors will have to discharge. They will have to deal with questions of fact and of law. A question of law will take the form of an interpretation of the Land Purchase Act. I would like to see the O'Conor Don tackling this Act, and giving an interpretation of it.

MR. MACARTNEY

As I understand, the practice is that Privy Councillors only attend a meeting when they are specially summoned. If a lay Member is summoned when a law question is to be decided he will be some gentleman who is peculiarly fitted to aid the legal members in the discussion.

(8.8.) MR. M. HEALY

It is the case that a large section of the Privy Councillors do not attend the meetings of the Council unless summoned; but, on the other hand, a number of lay members—the O'Conor Don and noble Lords and Commoners—not remotely connected with politics, turn up when judicial questions are to be decided. The complaint of myself and friends is that the clause does not follow any of the statutory precedents on the subject. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for South Tyrone has said, it appears to me that trained lawyers would be better men to whom to entrust questions raised under this section than even such intelligent and intellectual laymen as The O'Conor Don. We all agree that this Bill is of a largely technical and complicated character, and that even many lawyers will have difficulty in construing it.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I think it is quite evident that the main questions raised will be questions of fact, which men like Privy Councillors will be well able to determine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

(8.12.) MR. SEXTON

Sub-section (2) reads— The Privy Council may order costs to be paid by or to the objector or by or to any authority or person appearing. I think it is advisable that people should know in advance what they may be required to pay by way of costs, and therefore, I propose to insert after costs "on the prescribed scale."

Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "costs," to insert the words, "on the prescribed scale."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. MADDEN

The objection to that would be that the costs would have to be prescribed by the Treasury.

MR. SEXTON

The proceedings under the clause would generally be by analogy. What would be fair costs in one case would probably be fair costs in another. There would be no objection to fixing a scale which would apply to all cases.

MR. MADDEN

I shall be very glad to consider the point before the Bill reaches another place.

MR. M. HEALY

Surely it would be improper to give the Privy Council unlimited power in respect to the amount to be paid by way of costs.

MR. MADDEN

I would have no objection to insert the words "on a scale to be settled by the Lord Chancellor," if that would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in line 15, after "costs" to insert "on a scale to be settled by the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

(8.19.) MR. M. HEALY

The Chief Secretary has told us that the order for costs made under this section has to be enforced by suit—that the party requiring costs has to sue. If costs are awarded to a Grand Jury how can they, being a Corporate Body, sue? On the other hand, suppose costs are given against a Grand Jury how can they be sued?

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "authority or."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

COLONEL WARING

Could my right hon. and learned Friend devise any means by which the Grand Jury could protect themselves?

MR. MADDEN

This really raises a question of Grand Jury law outside the present Bill. It so happens that a Grand Juror may be one of the persons interested in this clause, but generally speaking wherever Grand Juries are involved in litigation of any kind this difficulty comes in, unless provided for by special Statutes.

(8.23.) MR. MACARTNEY

I want to point out that if some such words are not inserted in this clause, it is perfectly obvious that a Grand Jury will never take any steps whatever under this clause. The Grand Jury Act distinctly empowers Grand Juries to make levies for the purposes of the Act. There are also in the Act special clauses empowering them to levy.

MR. MADDEN

As I understand the point of this discussion, it is that Grand Juries are more likely to be involved in this species of litigation than others. I am bound to say that is reasonable, and I will undertake to have a clause moved on the subject.

MR. KNOX

Have the Poor Law Boards power to incur expenses under this clause? I do not know that they have, and I think they should have that power. The clause to be inserted should apply, not merely to Grand Juries, but to any other authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in line 16, at end of Sub-section 2, to add "or cited to appear."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)

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

(8.27.) MR. MADDEN

I do not think the Amendment is necessary.

MR. M. HEALY

What we want to know is, who is it intended should pay the costs? If it is contemplated that the costs should be paid by the Crown, it appears to me that some such words as my hon. Friend suggests would be necessary, because, although the Crown are responsible for the order, they may not appear in support of it.

MR. MADDEN

I will not object to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "or by the Treasury."—(Mr. Knox.)

MR. MADDEN

I never saw words of that kind inserted in an Act of Parliament.

MR. M. HEALY

But the Act would not bind the Crown unless the Crown was expressly mentioned.

MR. MADDEN

I could not accept the Amendment in that form. It might, however, be made to run "including the Crown."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to: To insert after the words last inserted "including the Crown."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment proposed, At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "if they consider the objection or appearance, as the case may be, to be frivolous or unwarrantable."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

(8.31.) MR. KNOX

May I suggest to the right, hon. Gentleman that he should leave out the words "or appearance." I do not quite understand what a frivolous appearance may be. So far as I can see on an objection costs would rarely be given against the Crown, and we can hardly imagine the Privy Council holding the appearance of the Crown to be frivolous. As the Crown would give the cause for the appearance I consider the Crown should be liable for costs if the order should be changed by the Lord Lieutenant on further consideration.

MR. SEXTON

If the objection is made good the appearance is not frivolous, and if the objection is found frivolous that ought to be sufficient.

MR. MADDEN

Perhaps the best course will be to give this a little further consideration. The intention is quite understood, I think, that a person is to pay costs if his objection is frivolous or his appearance in the case unreasonable, and I will undertake to have the words considered.

MR. M. J. KENNY

The right hon. Gentleman might use the word "unreasonable."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(8.33.) Amendment proposed, in line 22, to leave out the word "pecuniarily."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'pecuniarily' stand part of the Clause."

(8.34.) MR. COURTNEY

It appears to me that the effect of leaving out this word would leave the clause very much as it was at starting. You say that a person pecuniarily interested shall have a right to appear; and in the absence of that interest there is no right to appear—there is no indirect right of appearance; but this Amendment would change the effect of the former part of the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added.(8.36.)

(9.12.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

New Clause—

(Returns.)

Periodical Returns shall be made by the Land Commission at the prescribed times, and forthwith laid before Parliament, and shall contain, with respect to every county, the precribed particulars, including the particulars hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:—

1. (a.) Returns of advances under this Act, specifying—
1. (i.) the situation, size, rateable value, and rent (judicial or non-judicial) of each holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made;
2. (ii.) the vendor and purchaser thereof; and
3. (iii.) the amount of the purchase money, advance, and guarantee deposit;
2. (b.) Returns specifying the like particulars as above mentioned with respect to cases (if any) in which default has been made in the payment of purchase annuities, and specifying, further, the amount of instalments paid and in default respectively, and the proceedings taken for the recovery of the instalments in default;
3. (c.) Returns specifying—
1. (i) the amount (if any) which has been paid out of the Guarantee Fund to the Land Purchase Account or to the Consolidated Fund;
2. (ii.) the amount which has been applied under this Act towards the cost of providing labourers' cottages;
3. (iii.) the presentments (if any) which have been made under this Act; and
4. (iv.) the regulations and decisions which have been made by the Lord Lieutenant with respect to the share of any county, local authority, or person in any fund or sum dealt with under this Act,—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis), which is to the effect that the Returns should be made up to the end of the months of March, June, September, and December in each year, and not "periodically," as proposed in the clause? It would be better that the clause should not be allowed to remain in its present vague form.

(9.14.) MR. SEXTON

The terms in the Bill should not be allowed to remain so elastic as to render the Returns of no practical value. It seems to me that the word "periodical," as contained in the clause, is inadmissible. When we were discussing Clause 1 the Government had not discovered the difficulty of the clause that deals with the constitution and tenure of the Land Commissioners. In the conflict which took place in Committee on the question, the Government adhered to the determination expressed by the clause that the Land Commissioners shall in future not be public servants in the ordinary sense, but shall be removable only on an Address from both Houses of Parliament, and shall, as it were, draw their salaries over the heads of the House of Commons from the Consolidated Fund. It is, therefore, more necessary than ever that details of the proceedings of the Commissioners shall be given by them at a time dictated by Parliament in the Bill. For anything they may do or may leave undone hereafter, according to their tenure, this House, as apart from the other House, will have no jurisdiction over them. Consequently, I think it necessary that we should here specify beyond any doubt or question, at what periods these important Returns should be submitted. I suppose we shall be able to consider presently what form the Amendment should take. I presume that in the case of first-class Returns they should be made by the Land Commission quarterly, and that in the case of other Returns under sub-heads, they should be half-yearly. In regard to the Returns under sub-head "b."— Returns specifying the like particulars, as above mentioned, with respect to cases (if any) in which default has been made in the payment of purchase annuities, and specifying further, the amount of instalments paid and in default respectively, and the proceedings taken for the recovery of the instalments in default"— when a farm is sold subject to an annuity I suppose the whole balance becomes a sum recoverable on default of payment of instalments. If you cannot recover from the tenant you sell his farm. If you do it subject to a reduced annuity, then the difference between the old instalment and the new is a loss to the State. If you sell subject to no annuity, on default the differ ence between the sum unredeemed and the amount received for the farm will be a loss to the State. It would be desirable that such cases should appear on the Returns. The clause contemplates only the failure to pay instalments. It is most important that these facts should be known, because the loss which will fall on a locality by the failure to pay an instalment will be light and can be easily made good, but the loss through ten or a dozen emergency men, say, throwing up their farms in order to go to America, would be heavy. It is extremely important that we should have an intelligent knowledge of these matters, even though we cannot control the Commissioners.

(9.19.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I agree that every particular necessary to judge of the working of the Act should be provided in the Returns. I agree, also, it will not do to leave the determination of the precise form or period of these Returns to the Land Commission, who are not subject to the control of Parliament. But I also think it would be inconvenient too rigidly to specify the exact dates at which these Returns should be given. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite have precisely realised the effect of the word "prescribed." The clause says— Periodical Returns shall be made by the Land Commission at the prescribed times, and forthwith laid before Parliament. Now, hon. Members have spoken as if "prescribed" in the clause meant "prescribed by the Land Commission," which so far as discussions in Supply in this House are concerned, is described as irresponsible. That is not so. "Prescribed" means prescribed by the Treasury, and the House will readily see that, whatever may be the case with the Land Commission, the Treasury are always subject to the control of this House, and will certainly prescribe precisely the kind of information which the House desires to be possessed of. I think the word "prescribed" does really give Parliament all the control it desires.

MR. KEAY (Elgin and Nairn)

I wish to direct the attention of the Government to what is probably an unintentional omission on their part under Sub-head C, which states that Returns will be furnished, specifying the amounts, if any, repaid by the Guarantee Fund to the Land Purchase Account or to the Consolidated Fund. That sub-head omits what is, in my judgment, a major particular which ought to be furnished in any such Return, namely, the amount that has been advanced out of the Consolidated Fund. The Bill provides by three different clauses a certain method by which these matters shall be arranged. The first in point of time is in Clause 2, whereby, the Land Commission having established a Land Purchase Account, there shall be paid into that Account the dividends and Sinking Fund payments for the whole of the advances. The second step is that if the tenant purchaser should not pay the annuities, the Consolidated Fund has to pay them instead. Then it is provided by Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 that the Guarantee Fund shall re-imburse the Consolidated Fund the amounts advanced. I want to point out that clearly the most important of the things to be recorded in any Return, such as is provided for in Sub-head C, is the advances out of the Consolidated Fund, and not merely the amounts repaid to it. If the clause remains as it stands, and, say, £1,000,000 has been advanced out of the Consolidated Fund to make good defaults, no notification of that fact will take place; whilst if the Guarantee Fund repays to the Consolidated Fund, say, £10,000 or £100,000, the Return will show the re-payment without indicating that nearly £1,000,000 is still owing to the Consolidated Fund. I would suggest the insertion, after "been," in line 18, of the words "Paid out of the Consolidated Fund or." The Amendment is so obviously necessary that I have no doubt the Government will signify their assent, and render my formally moving it unnecessary.

(9.31.) Mr. M. HEALY

I want to ask why the learned Attorney General for Ireland has not included in the third portion of this Return the orders made by the Lord Lieutenant respecting the division in each county between large and small tenants. That appears to me to be quite as important as the other sub-heads. I hope the Government will also add to Sub-section (b) the date of the advance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

(9.33.) MR. SEXTON

I move to insert after "prescribed time," the words "in each year." I, of course, admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the Treasury is the servant of the House, but the best servant is none the worse for a clear indication of the master's will, and I think we should provide that Returns should be made within periods of not less than a year.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, after "time," to insert "in each year."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

(9.35.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Some of the particulars cannot be given each year, but I have no objection to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Another Amendment made, in line 11, after "deposit" to insert— For particulars of any order made under Section 12 of this Act in relation to such holding, and of the enforcement thereof."—(Mr. Knox.)

Another Amendment made, in line 14, after "further," to add "the date of the advance."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Another Amendment made, in line 15, to omit "and," and insert "the amount of loss on the occasion of the sale of any holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

(9.40.) MR. KEAY

Not having been fortunate enough to get any indication of opinion from the Government with regard to the suggestion which I made a short time ago about adding to the Return the advances made out of the Consolidated Fund, I beg to move, in line 18, after the word "been," to insert "paid out of the Consolidated Fund or." I need not repeat the arguments I have already adduced. Suffice it to say that a considerable point has been put forward which has not been replied to from the Treasury Bench. As it stands, subhead "c" provides that while certain Returns which, no doubt, are very useful so far as they go, are to be provided, yet this important Return which I have now moved for is not to be made. The condition of things which would arise would be this: that there might have been £1,000,000 advanced from the Consolidated Fund, and none of it repaid at all, in which case the Returns would show nothing. If a small sum of, say, £10,000 had been repaid, the Consolidated Fund would stand £990,000 out of pocket, but the House and the public would know nothing about it. I hold that the Return for which I ask would be much more important than the other Returns provided for, and, on all grounds of common sense and fairness, I appeal to the Government to accept my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "been," to insert the words "paid out of the Consolidated Fund or."—(Mr. Keay.)

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

(9.45.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am sorry the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to repeat the oration he made some time ago, especially as his Amendment is one we have no difficulty in accepting.

MR. MADDEN

The words should appear in Sub-head (I.) "the amount of money (if any) temporarily advanced out of the Consolidated Fund." If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I will move the addition of those words.

MR. KEAY

That will exactly meet my view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, in line 18, insert "the amount of money (if any) which has been temporarily advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, and."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Another Amendment made, at end of of Sub-head 4, to add— And with respect to the proportion in which advances are to be made in the county as between holdings, the rent of which, exceeds £50, and other holdings."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Another Amendment made, To insert, after Sub-head v., "the amounts paid out of the purchaser's insurance money, under Section 5, Sub-section 4, of this Act, and the amounts paid out of the reserve fund, and repaid to such fund under Section 5,Subsection 5 and 6 of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Clause, as amended, added.

(9.50.) COLONEL WARING

I beg to move the clause which I have placed upon the Paper. This is a proposal which has had support from more than one quarter of the House. Unfortunately, there is no Patent Office in which to register ideas of this kind. It has been assumed that I have adopted the idea of the senior Member for Cork, but I can assure the House that this has been an opinion I have expressed long before this proposition was made by him. The proposal is that a tenant who wishes to fine down his rent should be able to take a perpetual lease at a sum not exceeding what the Land Commission would consider a fair rent. In this I simply propose to renew a section in the Act of 1881. I think great advantages would accrue from the adoption of the proposal. So far as the State is concerned, it is likely that a loan amounting to the capitalised value of half the fair rent would be a secure one, and that none of the complicated guarantees which have been invented for larger advances would have to be called on. In the second place, it would take a smaller amount of money out of the sum provided for the purposes of the Act, and would lead to the adoption of the provisions of the Act in numerous cases where landlords at present would be naturally unwilling to take advantage of them, owing to the difficulty and delay caused by the necessity for proving the title of the vendor and of going into detail with regard to family settlements and the like. These perpetuity rents would be much easier and much more rapidly collected than under the sale of holdings. The tenants would go on paying a reduced rent, but would not he precluded from repeating the operation and purchasing the second half of his rent. I move the clause as it stands on the Paper.

New Clause—

(Sale where tenant pays fine and fee farm rent.)

(1.) Where a sale of a holding is about to be made by a landlord to a tenant in consideration of the tenant paying a fine and engaging to pay to the landlord a fee farm rent, the Land Commission may make an advance to the tenant to the amount of such fine, provided that the fee farm rent shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the rent which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, would be a fair rent for the holding. (2.) The provisions under this section for securing advances for the purchase of holdings and for the repayment of same, and for distribution of purchase-money, shall be, mutatis mutandis, the same as those in reference to cases of purchase and sale by tenants of their holdings under this Act,"—(Colonel Waring,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(9.55.) MR. SEXTON

This is a Bill to provide funds for the purchase of land in Ireland, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman by this Amendment proposes to devote these funds, or part of them, not to the purchase of land, but to fining down the rents of tenants. The tenants, when this transaction has taken place, will still be tenants, and their landlords will remain landlords. I submit that a transaction leaving such a sequel behind it could not be described as a transaction of sale and purchase, and would not come within the scope of this Act.

MR. SPEAKER

There is great force in what the hon. Member says. It would not be strictly within the purport or scope of an Act for securing the purchase of holdings.

COLONEL WARING

It is a proposal in the interest of the tenant.

MR. SEXTON

The landlord could evict him.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

I beg to move a new clause dealing with arrears. My idea is to arrive at some arrangement which may facilitate landlords more or less in arrear—and I think that in Ireland it will be more—with regard to the sale of their property. I think that it will be generally agreed that unless some arrangement is come to by which the arrears at present due, or some portion, are made the absolute property of the present or sitting owner of the land, a grave obstacle will be put in the way of many landlords disposing of their property.

New Clause—

(Arrears.)

(1.) Where the amount of the advance applied for in pursuance of any agreement for sale is sanctioned by the Land Commission, and there are nevertheless arrears of rent due by the tenant to the landlord, the Land Commission may add to the amount of such advance an amount agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant in satisfaction of such arrears, not however exceeding—

1. (a.) The amount of two years' rent; or
2. (b.) Half the amount of the arrears due.

(2.) Before making such advance the Land Commission shall be satisfied that—

1. (a.) The arrears are bonâ fide due to the said landlord; and
2. (b.) That arrears to the amount advanced in respect thereof have accrued within ten years prior to the application.

(3.) When any such advance in respect of arrears has been sanctioned the amount thereof shall be paid to the landlord or other person entitled thereto,"—(Mr. Penrose Fitz-Gerald, ) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(10.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not deny that a difficulty exists, but I do not think this clause would afford a practical solution of it. Its character may be stated thus: If the land be settled land, the price of it is not at the disposal of the owner for the time being, but is to be put in trust for the benefit of the remainder man. My hon. Friend will observe that if his Amendment were carried there would be an opening for great fraud on the part of the owner, because, he being aware that the holding is security for, say £1,000, might enter into a colourable transaction with the tenant under which £500 out of the £1,000 would be regarded as arrears, and the remaining £500 as the price of the holding. The result would be that the owner would get a good deal more than his rights, and the State would be proportionately injured. The House will see that this clause does not give the landlord a right to more than the holding is security for. We could not admit that for a moment. My hon. Friend desires to draw a line between the arrears and the price of the holding. I think that that would be a difficult thing to do. It would obviously require to be guarded by every sort of limitation, in order to prevent the owner in posses- sion defrauding either intentionally or unintentionally the remainderman. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment, seeing that what he has pointed out has not militated in the past against success of land purchase, while its adoption would, I am inclined to think, constitute a rather dangerous innovation in the Bill now before the House.

Question put, and negatived.

(10.3.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, its object being to provide that where negotiations between landlord and tenant are in danger of breaking down, the question of price may be referred to the Land Commission. I have heard some objection to this clause on the ground that it is the thin end of the wedge of compulsion. But I wish to point out that it can only be put into force with the consent of both parties. I cannot possibly be charged with being in favour of compulsory sale or compulsory purchase, and I wish it to be understood that there is no compulsion in the clause which I am now proposing. I think the clause of enormous importance to farmers in the Province of Ulster. I do not know that it is of so much importance to farmers in other parts of Ireland, but I am assured that there will be an anxiety to buy in Ulster, and very little anxiety to sell. That will be the real difficulty with which tenants will be confronted in the Province of Ulster. I do not blame the landlord for his unwillingness to sell, for he gets his rent with tolerable regularity and is in a pretty comfortable position, and has not the inducement to sell which landlords in other parts of Ireland may have. With him it will be very much a question of price: the landlord will try to get as much as he can, and the tenant will endeavour to cut him down, and I fear this danger—that in the course of the negotiations there will be a tendency to break them off at a critical point, say when there is only a difference as to a year's purchase. Now, I should like to have in the Bill a provision which will enable both parties to refer the question to the Land Commission for arbitration. This is not a new proposal. It was the very first clause of the Bill of last year, and I must say I think that so far as the Bill of this year differs from that of last year, it is not so good. I hope the Chief Secretary will give us some explanation why he has omitted this particular provision from the Bill.

New Clause—

(Price to be paid for holding may be fixed by the Land Commission.)

When the landlord and the tenant of a holding in Ireland make an agreement for the sale of the holding to the tenant, they may in such agreement provide that the price of the interest which the tenant agrees to buy in the holding shall be fixed by the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may thereupon fix such price and may make such advance to the amount so fixed, or in or as a contribution to the purchase-money to be paid for such holding,"—(Mr. T. W. Russell,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(10.7.) MR. SEXTON

The circumstance that this clause was in last year's Bill, and is not in this, would rather appear to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to it, and I may point out that in every case in which we have sought to reinstate in this Bill clauses omitted from it, but contained in the measure of last year, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has altered his mind. I presume he will now give us some reason for the exclusion of this particular clause. I think the great defect of the clause is that there is no compulsion in it, for I hold that, so far as the Province of Ulster is concerned, it will be of no effect unless it is made compulsory. The hon. Gentleman advanced another argument which seemed to me strangely remote. He said that the case of Ulster was very different from that of other parts of Ireland, and that the landlords instead of being eager to sell would be unwilling to do so. How does the hon. Member make it out that in the case in which landlords are unwilling to sell the position of the tenants will be made easier by the insertion of this clause?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I also said it would be largely a question of price.

MR. SEXTON

If the landlord is in such a position of independence that he does not care to sell, the question would scarcely be one of price—it would rather be one of sentiment. I take it that an unwilling landlord would never consent to refer the matter to the Land Commission. But I think that the main question is after all, "Who will be the Commissioners to fix the price?" I believe the occasions on which they will be called upon to act will be very rare, for if landlord and tenant cannot, after negotiation and discussion, agree upon a price, they are scarcely likely to be in a frame of mind to refer the matter to arbitration. The Land Commission, too, has never had this power before, and we are, therefore, entering on an experiment. Now, I ask again who is to fix the price? I admit that my attitude towards this Amendment will be affected, and perhaps governed, by the consideration whether or not the prices are to be fixed by the Commissioners who have had the administration of the Ashbourne Acts. It cannot be denied that by their conduct they have earned the confidence of the Irish people—they have secured a position not often attained by public officials in Ireland. But if you are going to entrust the duty to the three Land Commissioners under this Bill I say you will be confiding to them an extremely important function without evidence of their fitness to discharge it. If the clause be adopted I shall at the proper time move that the duty of fixing the price be handed over to the Commissioners who have the administration of the Ashbourne Acts.

(10.15.) MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

I do not quite understand the arguments of my hon. Friend. This is a strictly voluntary clause, for neither landlord nor tenant need resort to arbitration unless he chooses to do so. I cannot see the least objection to its being included in the Bill. It is quite harmless, and if inserted in the Bill, will probably only come into force on one or two occasions.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As the original author of this clause, I must confess to a lingering affection for it. A similar clause was in the forefront of the Bill of last year. It was introduced because I thought that the landlords of the South West of Ireland might find themselves not only unduly pressed—pressed by not particularly legal methods—to sell, but to sell for a price very much less than the true value of the land. I inserted it because I wished the landlords, in a contingency of that sort, to be able to say, "I am prepared to sell, but not at the price you choose to fix; we will, instead, appeal to a tribunal whose impartiality is beyond question." The clause, however, did not find much favour in any part of the House, and so I determined not to include it in this year's Bill. I think it would not be well now to alter the framework of the Bill, and probably it will be quite sufficient to leave the landlord and the tenant the choice which they now possess of obtaining arbitration in the Land Commission. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to exclude arbitration if the tenant and the landlord wish to resort to it. The hon. Member for West Belfast has asked for a declaration as to the constitution of the Commission. I believe that the question will be raised on Clause 14, and when that is reached I shall deem it my duty to state the views of the Government on the point. I cannot do so now.

(10.20.) MR. M. J. KENNY

I do not think that this clause would have the salutary operation in the Province of Ulster, which the hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to anticipate. Last week an important Conservative Association there passed a resolution of no confidence in the Land Commission, and farmers who do that can hardly be expected to agree to submit questions of importance to that body. Again, I do not think the farmers would be willing to refer these questions to the Commission, because the function of that Body is to ascertain whether the price agreed upon between landlord and tenant is a fair price from the point of view of security to the State. But now you propose to absolutely change their function and let them fix the price themselves. That will be throwing an enormous burden upon them, and a burden sufficient to prevent them discharging their duties efficiently. While I desire to promote agreements between landlord and tenant I do not think this proposal would have that effect.

MR. KNOX

I am aware there is considerable feeling in favour of this proposal in certain parts of Ireland, and I should feel disposed to support it were it not for the fact that we can get no explanation as to what Body will be entrusted with the duty of fixing the price. Who are to form the Land Commission? Are Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Wrench to be allowed to meddle in these land purchase transactions? I should not have any objection to Mr. Wrench dealing with matters of account, but on points requiring discretion as between landlord and tenant I do not think anyone representing the tenants could assent to his having a finger in the pie. The merits of this Amendment depend entirely on the point, Who will form the Land Commission? I shall oppose the clause, because I believe it will be absolutely nugatory if the Land Commission is composed of the two gentlemen I have named. If, however, the duty is to be entrusted to Messrs. Macarthy and Lynch I shall be happy to vote for the Amendment.

(10.28.) MR. M. HEALY

It is impossible for anybody to come to a decision on the questions involved in this clause without knowing who is to have the administration of this Act. Is it to be loft in the hands of the gentlemen of whose work we have had experience and in whom the country has confidence? If so I should be disposed to vote for this clause. But I would not vote for it on any of the grounds suggested by the Chief Secretary, because I believe it will afford a means of escape to landlords who are being driven to sell by their tenants. The right hon. Gentleman does not think we should take into consideration the question who will administer this clause. He thinks it is not right we should let our minds be influenced by questions of personal conduct such as are involved by references to Messrs. Macarthy and Lynch. We have confidence in those gentlemen, but we have none in Messrs. Fitzgerald and Wrench, and our confidence in the former has been justified by long experience of them. We are asked for no cause assigned to abandon the administration of Mr. Macarthy and Mr. Lynch. We are asked to revolutionise the Land Commission and change its powers and its purposes. I am in favour of the clause if it is administered by gentlemen in whom I have confidence, but I would rather see the Bill defeated and the whole scheme of land purchase thrown out than have the administration of the measure placed in the hands of gentlemen I know nothing of. Therefore, while I think there is a good deal of merit in the proposal which this clause makes, I shall in the present stage of things be compelled to vote against the clause.

MR. PIERCE MAHONY (Meath, N.)

I find myself in complete accord with my hon. Friends the Members for West Belfast and Cavan (Mr. Sexton and Mr. Knox). The whole value of the clause who are to administer the clause. At the present moment we have in Ireland a Land Purchase Department which has administered Land Purchase Acts for six years, and has gained a much larger amount of public confidence than I venture to say has been gained for many a long day by any Public Department in the country. If it is left to them to fix the purchase price of holdings I think this clause would be valuable. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast that where landlord and tenant can come to an agreement between themselves they will not be likely to leave the matter to a third party. I think that is exactly a case where a third party is wanted. The Chief Secretary said there was nothing to prevent landlord and tenant submitting a case of that kind to arbitration; but there is a great deal of difficulty in arranging arbitration between landlord and tenant, and what we want is to have a Court, constituted by Act of Parliament, to whom the landlord and tenant may refer the matter of price. I cannot go the length of voting against this clause, even if the names of the gentlemen who are to administer it are not made known, but the clause will become practically valueless unless it is administered by men such as the Land Commissioners in whom the tenant farmers have confidence.

(10.36.) MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

I am strongly in favour of the principle of the clause on the ground that it will lead to many arrangements in the North of Ireland that might not otherwise be made. Landlords and tenants who have proceeded a certain distance in the matter of negotiation may wish the intervention of a third party as arbitrators. I think the Land Commis- sion would be a very suitable third party to arbitrate between landlord and tenant. From what I know of Mr. Wrench in the matter of the management of estates before he went to the Land Commission, I think it would be a calamity if that gentleman were called upon to arbitrate where tenants are interested. At present tenants in the North of Ireland and in other districts are afraid to refer matters to Mr. Wrench, lest the judicial rents would be increased, and much more where price of purchase would be fixed would they fear him.

(10.38.) MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

Occasionally we have had to find fault with the administration of the Ashbourne Act, but, I think it can be said that, on the whole, the two gentlemen who now administer that Act have done their work well and efficiently. If there is to be arbitration we should certainly prefer to see those gentlemen conducting it.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Perhaps I may be allowed to withdraw the clause. I was quite prepared for opposition from the Representatives of the Irish landlords, but I was not prepared for opposition on this side.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

(10.41.) MR. LEA

I beg to move the new clause "Insurance Fund," which stands in my name. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and I and my Colleague have raised objection to the Insurance and Guarantee Deposit Funds simply on the ground that it will restrict purchase under the Bill. I have always gone on the principle that we should make the Bill work as smoothly as possible and remove all restrictions we can in order to make the Bill valuable to everybody. There can be no doubt that the Insurance Fund will tend to restrict sales; that is an indisputable proposition. Again, there is no doubt that the guarantee deposit will also act as a restriction in many cases. I have been informed that there are three estates on which it will render the Act useless. Of course the Treasury will argue that the Insurance Fund and the guarantee deposit cannot be removed with safety. That may be so in some cases, but in a very considerable portion of Ireland there are many large estates not only in Ulster, but elsewhere in Ireland on which the tenant right is ample security for any advance under a Land Purchase Bill. I maintain that when tenant right represents a large and saleable sum it is far better security than the paltry 5 per cent. of insurance money, or even the larger amount of guarantee deposit. Such restrictions are certainly useless, and I, therefore, propose that when tenant right does exist in a saleable manner the Land Commission may, if they think fit, set aside the Insurance Fund and also the guarantee deposit and allow the estates to be sold under the Act.

Another Clause—

(Insurance Fund.)

When the Land Commission are satisfied that the prevailing average price paid on an estate for the purchase of the tenant's interest is £10 per acre or upwards, and they are otherwise satisfied with the security of the advance, they may dispense with the Insurance Fund instalments named in Section 5, Sub-section (1), of this Act,"—(Mr. Lea,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(10.48.) MR. KNOX

I think the Insurance Fund is bad in every way, bad for the North of Ireland, the South of Ireland, and the West of Ireland; and that wherever we can get rid of it we ought to do so. I think there is a great deal in favour of what the hon. Member has said, namely, that where the tenant-right is so valuable that it fetches on the average more than £10 an acre, we do not want any security over and beyond the tenant's interest in the holding. That is quite sufficient to guarantee the Government. I think the proposal will have a more far-reaching effect than the hon. Member imagines. My belief is that it will affect a great part of the North and South of Ireland. I, therefore, venture to strongly support the clause, and to hope that the Government may see their way to accept it. Of course, the clause in no way removes my strong objection to Clause 5. That clause, though it is objectionable from the point of view of the tenants whose case is met by the present clause, is much more objectionable to the small tenants in the West of Ireland. Therefore, though I support the Amendment, I do so because I think the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing in every case, and not because I think it a worse thing in this case than in others.

(10.50.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course, I shall not be expected to express my concurrence with the view of the hon. Gentleman that the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing. At the same time, I have great sympathy with the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment with respect to the holdings in Ulster, where it may be said that the tenant's interest is nearly as great as that of the landlord's, and represents an amount substantially in excess of any sum likely to be advanced by the State for the purchase of the holding. But the Amendment is one which the Government can hardly accept. I might make several objections to the suggestion, but one is fatal. If it happened that on a holding there was very fine arable land and some amount of comparatively inferior and rough pasture, it might be that, although the tenant's interest was a very large proportion of the saleable value of the holding, it might not amount to £10 an acre, and the tenant would be excluded from the benefit of the clause, simply because the holding in part consisted of land which was of inferior quality, and which, therefore, brought down the general average of the tenant - right to some point below the £10 fixed by the clause. It has, however, occurred to me that my hon. Friend's intention may be carried out, not inconsistently with the general principles of the Bill, if words are introduced to this effect— When the Land Commission are satisfied that the value of a holding for the purchase of which an agreement has been entered into under the Act exceeds the amount of the advance by at least one-half, they may, on the application of the landlord and tenant, dispense with the guarantee deposit and the tenant's Insurance Fund in respect of such holdings, and in such case the provisions of the Land Purchase Act and this Act with reference to the Guarantee Fund and the tenants' Insurance Fund shall not apply. This would relieve the exceptional hold- ings in Ireland from the particular limitations of purchase that have been pointed out, and, so far, I should be prepared to dispense with the tenants' Insurance Fund.

(10.54.) MR. SEXTON

The right hon. Gentleman has adopted an unusual and inconvenient course by superimposing another and difficult question on that suggested by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to deprive Members of the opportunity of declaring their opinion on the two Amendments, because Members who take one view of the first Amendment may take an exactly contrary view of the second. As regards the insurance money, I say at once that where a tenancy is worth £10 an acre, or the value of the holding is half as much again as that of the interest of the landlord, one of the two reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of the tenants' Insurance Fund does not apply. Under such circumstances there is no occasion to make provision for a bad year, because a tenant who is so well endowed is placed in no danger by a bad year. The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of the fund was that the benefit which would be derived by purchasers should not be so great as to excite envy among the tenants who were shut out. But when the right hon. Gentleman limits his fund to £30,000,000, what can it matter to him how many tenants wish to buy? And how does he reconcile with that argument his acceptance of the Amendment to-night? I do not dwell on the point, because I think the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing altogether. I shall vote on every occasion in favour of limiting the Insurance Fund, and therefore I shall support the Amendment.

(10.58.) SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

It seems to me that hon. Members, in viewing the proposals now Submitted, may take a diametrically opposite view as to the wisdom of the one and the unwisdom of the other. For several days the Committee was employed in debating the question of the advisability of retaining an Insurance Fund by keeping up the tenant's payments for the first five years. Almost an equal amount of time was consumed at the previous stage of the discussion by Gentlemen on this side of the House endeavouring to maintain the right of the public to have the full benefit of the deposit of the landlords. There was, it seems to me, no mistake made so great in their conduct of this Bill as when the Government refused to listen to the almost unanimous prayer of this side of the House that the whole of the landlords' deposit should be exhausted before we come upon the rents. It is a very serious matter indeed. Already the moment a tenant makes default, then from the first the local rates are liable; but how much more serious will it be if, on a certain number of estates, the landlords' deposit is exempted from any liability whatever. I should be very ready to vote for the first section of the clause of my hon. Friend, for I consider the Insurance Fund will, in its operation, be exceedingly disastrous. I believe it will raise the selling price of estates in Ireland, and prevent the sale of exactly those farms we most desire to see sold under this Act. For this reason, I should vote for the first of these clauses, but when I come to the second I must say that I cannot imagine anything to which we on this side of the House are bound to give a more determined opposition. Personally, I can see no relation between the amount of tenant right paid on an estate and the question whether or not the landlord's interest ought to be liable. Most just, in my opinion, is this liability of the landlord. A landlord and tenant make an agreement to sell and to buy, and they are exactly in the position of people who draw and accept a Bill. The Bill is discounted by the British Government, in the position of the backer. In a case of this kind both drawer and acceptor are liable. The tenant is liable to the full extent of his interest; the landlord is liable to the extent of one-fifth, and by the second proposal of my hon. Friend, adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it is proposed to dispense the landlord from even this liability, and it is quite impossible that we on this side of the House can accept such a proposal as that. It was bad enough to whittle down the landlord's liability as it has been whittled down, making him liable only pari passu with the ratepayer, but further than that we will not go.

(11.3.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Two questions are involved here: first of all, whether, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted, the security left will be sufficient for the State, and nobody who knows anything about Ulster tenant right in counties such as Down and Antrim, where the tenant right sometimes sells at £20 an acre, can doubt that the security to the State will be ample though the Amendment of my hon. Friend were accepted to the full. The next question is, will the Amendment, if carried, facilitate land purchase? I say it will. I hold that we ought not to check land purchase simply because while conferring a boon upon the tenant we also confer another boon upon the landlord—simply because if you liberate the tenant from his Insurance Fund you are called upon to liberate the landlord's guarantee deposit. There is an affirmative reply to both questions, the State will be amply secured, and, I maintain, that the Amendment, if carried, will materially facilitate land purchase in a great part of Ireland.

MR. LEA

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether, I having moved a certain clause, and the right hon. Gentleman having suggested an alternative clause, the latter can be accepted in place of mine?

MR. SPEAKER

Such a complete transformation of the clause could not be moved without notice.

MR. M. HEALY

The hon. Member for South Tyrone says if the Amendment would facilitate land purchase we ought not to refuse it, because it benefits the landlord; but suppose it benefits the landlord at the expense of the rates?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On the point of order, Sir, I understand you have ruled that my Amendment cannot be moved, and I would ask you, therefore, would it not be out of order to discuss it at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment amounts to a new clause, and as such cannot be moved without notice. Of course the discussion of an Amendment not before the House would not be in-order.

MR. M. HEALY

As I understand your ruling, Sir, at present the first part of the clause is under discussion?

MR. SPEAKER

That is the only question before the House at the moment.

MR. M. HEALY

Then what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do upon the clause? Does he mean to say "Aye" or "No" to it?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

"No."

MR. M. HEALY

It comes to this then, that he objects to the clause because it does not carry benefit to the landlord—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I gave reasons why the clause should not be accepted quite apart from that.

(11.8.) MR. M. HEALY

Well, as I had not the good fortune to hear those reasons I will not attempt to discuss them. I shall certainly vote for the first clause no matter what happens to the second, and though I should have to vote against the second clause I shall vote for this clause, not that I think it is of very great advantage, but because it does something to do away with the evil effects of probably one of the worst clauses in the Bill, that in reference to the tenants' insurance. I am satisfied that clause will go far to render the Bill abortive. I am in favour of a policy of land purchase, and shall vote for any Amendment designed to remove to a slight extent the evils of that clause. This Amendment goes to a slight extent in that direction, it is peculiarly an Ulster matter, and I shall support the hon. Member. I do not think it would make much difference in the South of Ireland. The method of calculating tenant right by the acre prevails to a very small extent in Munster, and I imagine the clause would practically be inoperative there. In Ulster it will, no doubt, have some effect, and will do something to modify the evil effects of the tenants' purchase insurance required by the Bill. When a man's interest is of such a character as to bring sums as high as £10 an acre, that does supply sufficient reason for dispensing with the insurance security.

MR. PIERCE MAHONY

In so far as the clause attacks the principle of the Insurance Fund I give it my support. I fully agree that tenant right in Ulster is a property far in excess of the amount of the Insurance Fund, and the latter might well be dispensed with. As regards the guarantee deposit, that ought to be put on an equality with the ratepayers' liability. The things are so mixed that it is impossible to discuss them separately. However, I shall vote for the first clause, but against the second; but as the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of opposing the first clause, and I suppose he will do so successfully, I presume the hon. Member will not find it necessary to move the second.

(11.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 145.—(Div. List, No. 256.)

(11.25.) MR. LEA

I do not propose to move the second part of the clause, but in the modified form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I should be prepared to accept it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that it shall be moved in another place. It will secure a portion of what I seek to attain. Now, I have to propose the clause relating to advances to purchasing tenants under the Church Act of 1870 and the Bright Clauses of the Land Act.

MR. SEXTON

May I ask what has become of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge?

MR. SPEAKER

It was not moved.

MR. LEA

It will be in the recollection of the House that in 1887 certain improvements were made in the status of the tenants who purchased under the Church Act of 1869 and the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870; but one fault has always been found with the action of the Treasury, who limited the advantages thus given to a selected number of the more necessitous tenants. The great fault was that the benefit was not given to all tenants, and now I propose that it shall be made compulsory to apply the advantage of that Act in all cases where the tenants choose to avail themselves of it. The advantages are not very great, the extension of the instalments over 49 years and a reduction of the rate of in- terest. The Treasury have, I think, agreed to the latter part, but they have not extended the period to 49 years. That is the first portion of the clause I propose to introduce, the other is a rather different matter. I only propose to move at the present time a new clause providing that any tenant of a holding purchased under the Irish Church Act or the Land Act of 1870 may apply for and receive from the Land Commissioners an advance to pay off the sum still remaining due on the amount agreed to be paid for the purchase of the holding. It is not a very large amount involved, but it affects tenants who are deserving the highest possible praise for the efforts they have made to keep up their instalments. Many of the purchasers under the Church Act bought at 28 or 29 years' purchase, and under the Bright Clauses of the Land Act at 26 or 27 years, and these tenants have kept up their instalments with wonderful regularity during very trying times. I think they are entitled to every consideration and advantage it is possible to give them under this Act.

New Clause—

(Advances to tenants.)

Whereas under "The Irish Church Act, 1869," "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," and "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872," advances to tenants were authorised for such proportions of the money required for the purchase of their holdings, and upon such conditions and terms as therein specified, and whereas, notwithstanding that such terms and conditions were altered and modified by "The Irish Land Act, 1887," in certain cases, and to the extent therein mentioned, there still remains an inequality which presses severely and injuriously on the purchasers under those earlier Acts as compared with the advantages provided under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and "The Irish Land Act, 1887," be it therefore enacted as follows:— On the application of the tenant of any holding purchased under "The Irish Church Act, 1869," "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," or "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872," and whether the annuities or instalments payable out of such holding have been altered under the provisions of "The Irish Land Act, 1887," or otherwise; and if, upon due investigation, they find that any portion of the purchase money other than the advance made by the State was borrowed by the tenant and still remains due, the Irish Land Commissioners shall make such further advance as may be required to pay off such debt, and shall pay it off Provided that, upon due inquiry, the Land Commission is satisfied that such holding is sufficient security for such advance when added to the portion still unpaid of the original State loan or advance. The Land Commission shall ascertain the present capital value of the annuities or instalments still remaining unpaid of the original advance, and shall add such capital sum to the amount advanced under this section, and repayment of the total sum so found shall be provided for by an annuity for 49 years from the first day of May or the first day of November next preceding the date of the application under this section of such amount as shall be found by the Land Commissioners to be required to repay it by half-yearly instalments, calculating interest at three and one-eighth per cent,"—(Mr. Lea,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

(11.35.) MR. GOSCHEN

I think the suggestion of the hon. Member goes beyond the advantage given in the Act of 1887, because, as I understand, he suggests two points: the extension of time which comes in under the 2nd clause, and also the advance of the balance of the purchase money owing.

MR. LEA

I was about to move both clauses, but I am only at the moment moving the first.

MR. GOSCHEN

From the statement it appeared that the hon. Member simply meant to extend the discretion given in the Act of 1887, but I did not gather from the hon. Member that his proposal was to advance the balance of the purchase money owing. My objection is that to accept the proposal would make an inroad into the £30,000,000 which has been allocated for other purposes, and would, therefore, in some degree defeat the object of the Bill— the extension of the system of land purchase—to the extent of the amount required to meet these balances. It would restrict the extension, and so we cannot accept the clause.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

If my hon. Friend consents not to press this Amendment relating to advances to tenants under the Irish Church Act of 1869, and the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1870 and 1872, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to give favourable consideration to the next Amendment, which will give purchasers under the above-mentioned Act an extension of time for the repayment of the money advanced to them? I think it is proven that the Act of 1887 operated with great inequality as between the wealthier and the poorer classes of tenants. I would consequently ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not consider the question of giving to all these purchasers alike an extension of time.

MR. GOSCHEN

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the clause now under discussion cannot be accepted by the Government, because it will involve the making of too great an inroad upon the money to be devoted to the purposes of the Bill. It would be out of order if I were to say what I shall be called upon to state in regard to the next clause; but when that clause is reached, I will explain the views of the Government with regard to it.

MR. SEXTON

thought that the sum involved, if the Amendment were agreed to, would be comparatively inconsiderable. The position of the tenants who had bought under the earlier Acts relating to land purchase ought, so far as possible, to be assimilated to the position of the tenants who would purchase under the present measure. It would be a graceful and wise concession on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment.

(11.40.) MR. M. HEALY

I think this is a clause in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well re-consider the position he has taken. I think he must see that the tenants generally are entitled to some such measure of relief as is here imposed. They are all situate in the Province of Ulster, and I cannot believe that other tenants in other parts of Ireland grudge them the sum which this proposal would enable them to acquire in order to carry the Amendment into effect. Everybody knows that these glebe tenants purchased at an enormously high rate, paying a large excess on the average prices since established as the value of the land in Ireland. The Land Act of 1869 was the first step towards a peasant proprietary in Ireland, and men who purchased under it, and, were the pioneers of land purchase in that country, have ever since been paying the penalty of having taken advantage of that Statute. They have had to pay high prices and to borrow at a large amount of interest, and, therefore, have been situate in a singularly unfavourable manner as compared with the tenants who have purchased holdings under more recent enactments. It would be a mere act of Parliamentary pedantry on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stick to the miserable point which has been raised as to the £30,000,000 limit as against the interests of the large number of tenants who would be benefited by the carrying of this Amendment.

(11.44.) MR. M. J. KENNY

I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give serious attention to this point, because I think there is no class of tenants in Ireland who are more deserving than the glebe purchasers, because they had, in the first instance, to purchase at very high rates, and to borrow what money they required at a high rate of interest. The result is, that they have been ground down by the outstanding debt. No doubt, in 1887, their position was to some extent recognised, because power was then given to extend the period of repayment for nine years. But, inasmuch as they had to borrow money, apart from what they obtained from the State, and to pay this heavy interest, the outstanding balance has continued to press upon them down to the present time. Consequently, they are still far from being in the same position as the purchasers under the Ashbourne Act. This Amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of bringing the glebe purchasers into the same position as those under the Ashbourne Act by enabling them to compound the outstanding debt. I would also point out, as a matter worthy of the consideration of the Government, that these men have been paying their instalments for something like 20 years; and having to that extent redeemed the land in their occupation, their holdings offer a better security than those purchased at the present time. They have actually acquired half the fee-simple of their holdings, and having been thrifty, industrious, and punctual in their payments, especially since 1887, they deserve consideration from the Government.

Mr. DICKSON (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)

I think I know more of the circumstances under which glebe tenants purchased than most of the hon. Members behind me. I know that they purchased at something like 30 per cent. beyond the present average value, and at from 23 to 28 years' purchase, in addition to which many of them have been paying to outside money lenders 10 per cent. for money borrowed. I am sure there is not a more deserving class of tenants than these men, and I would respectfully urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to place them in a position of perfect equality with the other tenants. I am certain that probably not more than £50,000, but certainly less than £100,000, would meet the entire case.

(11.50.) MR. GOSCHEN

As this clause is drawn, the Land Commissioners are to make the advances, but I would point out that the Land Commissioners have no funds at their disposal for such a purpose. However, I will look into the matter, ascertain the amount involved, and see whether the case of those tenants can be met. I am not aware whether the case could be dealt with under the Ashbourne Acts or not, but as the clause stands I am unable to accept it.

MR. M. HEALY

I would suggest the clause should be read a second time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then bring up an Amendment to it.

MR. GOSCHEN

I could not agree to that course.

MR. LEA

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer bring up a new clause tomorrow to give effect to the object in view?

MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.)

The glebe tenants have bought on very onerous conditions; they have, however, paid up well, and no suggestion has been made that they should be relieved of any part of the principal. Their case certainly deserves consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can bring up a new clause applying a portion of the money available under the Ashbourne Acts to the present case it would meet the difficulty. If it cannot be done in this House, it might be done in another place.

MR. COURTNEY

If we had information with reference to the maximum amount which has been borrowed by those purchasers, we would be better able to deal with the matter. I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is opposed to the principle of the proposal, but there is a practical difficulty in adopting either of the two suggestions that have been made for the purpose of overcoming the difficulty. I therefore suggest the adjournment of the Debate on the clause, so as to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of bringing up to-morrow an Amendment which will carry out the principle hon. Members have in view.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.