COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 06 May 1891 vol 353 cc211-42

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Sir JOHN GORST in the Chair.]

Clause 5.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, after the word "all," to insert the word "such."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'such' be there inserted."

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

This clause has now got into a very complicated condition; and as the Amendments are not inserted in the Bill as they are passed, it is difficult to understand how the clause reads. Perhaps the Chief Secretary will be able to inform the Committee of the position in which the sub-section stands. Is the clause in such a condition that it will be competent for me to move a limitation as to the number of years during which the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant is to run? Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be able to inform me.

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

I think that it will be quite competent for the hon. Member to move his Amendment at the end of the page.

MR. SEXTON

I can move, after the words "chargeable on any holding the agreement for the purchase of which has been signed," an Amendment, providing that there shall be a limitation of two years?

MR. MADDEN

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy), namely, to leave out the word "commencing," and insert "as are chargeable on any holding the agreement for the purchase of which has been signed."

(12.45.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Long-ford, N.)

I would suggest that the words "and made" should follow the word "signed."

MR. MADDEN

I have no objection to the insertion of the word "made."

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 16, to leave out "commencing," and insert "as are chargeable on any holding the agreement for the purchase of which has been signed and made." — (Mr. Sexton.)

SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

If the agreement has been signed it certainly has been made, and, therefore, both words are not necessary.

MR. MADDEN

I think it would be better to leave out "signed," and simply say "made."

Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

(12.47.) MR. SEXTON

I beg to move to add to the sub-section as it now stands the words "within two years." In the sub-section as it originally stood the Lord Lieutenant had unlimited power to make the declaration at any time. We have succeeded in showing the Government in a practical way that the scheme would never work on those lines, and the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to put it in a different form. As the case now stands, the Land Commission is to report to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant must be satisfied that there is a probability of agreements of a substantial character being entered into. That being the state of affairs, we are to consider under what circumstances an experimental declaration is likely to be carried out. The Lord Lieutenant, by an experiment, can test how many tenants in the county are willing to enter into agreements, and whether the rest are likely to take up the balance and pay the 80 per cent. per annum. This being an experimental case my Amendment is intended to limit the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant to a certain number of years. Why is a declaration to be issued at all?. It is because you expect the tenants of the county to take up the whole balance upon your terms. But it is possible that you may be mistaken. Although one-fourth of the occupiers may be ready to enter into agreements, it does not follow that the remaining three-fourths will be willing; and if it turns out that the tenants of the county are not prepared in such numbers as are proposed to take up the balance of the money on your terms, the result would be that, to a great extent, land purchase would be killed in that county. Therefore, I submit with great confidence that you ought to make the declaration in such a form that you may be in a condition to retrace your steps if necessary, and I suggest that the declaration should apply to all annuities commencing within two years and the date of issue. The effect would be to give to every tenant in the county who was willing to pay 80 per cent. for five years the opportunity of making a proposal; and if the other tenants wished to take up the balance, they would have two years in which they would be able to do so. The experiment would thus be fully tried, and you would be able to satisfy yourselves at the end of two years whether the tenants were willing to accept your terms or not. If the majority of the tenants were found to be unwilling to make the declaration, whatever balance of money might remain should be allowed to become available in the ordinary terms of the Bill for the rest of the tenants of the country.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 16, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "within two years."— (Mr. Sexton.)

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

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

May I ask where the hon. Member proposes that these words should come in?

MR. SEXTON

After the Amendment that has just been accepted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I must say that, as far as I have been able to understand the matter, the speech of the hon. Member does not agree with the Amendment which has been put from the Chair, or which stands on the Paper. As I understand the Amendment, it provides that after the Lord Lieutenant has made a declaration two years are to elapse.

MR SEXTON

The right hon. Gentleman is in error. It is the other way.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It was never intended that the provision should be irrevocable, because there can be no ground for believing that the Lord Lieutenant will be more free from possible error than we are; but I do not see why the declaration should be fixed for two years. The Lord Lieutenant may find out that he is wrong in less than two years, and this Amendment, as it stands, would give no power to the Lord Lieutenant to alter the terms.

MR. SEXTON

My words would be "not exceeding two years." Can the Lord Lieutenant issue more than one declaration in regard to one county? In the event of my Amendment being accepted and the Lord Lieutenant issues a declaration, it must expire within two years, and at the expiration of that period a new declaration might be issued. I allow two years in order that the Lord Lieutenant may find out whether the tenants are willing to take up the balance; and if it turns out that they are not willing, then I say that the balance should be taken up on ordinary terms.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think it is desirable to diminish the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant by putting in the term of two years, but I do not think that we differ very much in our object. Perhaps the best course would be to propose an Amendment on the Report.

MR. SEXTON

I do not think that that would quite meet the case. What I desire is that every tenant in the county should know that there is a time within which he should apply, if he wishes to come within the terms of the declaration. If the Lord Lieutenant finds out, in the course of six months, that there is no disposition to make bargains under the terms of the declaration, he should have the power of withdrawing it. I feel bound to press the Amendment.

SIR W. PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

supported the Amendment.

(1.0.) MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I point out that this Amendment does not in the slightest degree limit or interfere with the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant; it merely compels him to re-consider his determination at the end of the second year, and to make a fresh order if he wishes to. It does not affect any bargain made under the terms of the order; it only directs that when that order has been in force two years it shall expire, and the Lord Lieutenant has unfettered discretion as to making a fresh order. It relieves him, too, of the duty of publishing an order to revoke one already existing.

MR. MADDEN

The Amendment of the hon. Member would import a limit of duration into the order. I am prepared to agree to the insertion of words making the order revocable at the Lord Lieutenant's discretion, but we cannot agree to a definite limit of two years.

MR. SEXTON

I am sorry the Chief Secretary will not listen to the arguments we are advancing in support of the Amendment. It has no relation whatever to the number of years during which the Lord Lieutenant shall declare the higher annuity to be payable. We are not at all concerned with that at present. We want, in the first place, that when a proclamation is issued in a given county, and one-fourth of the authorised advances has been paid out, the tenants shall be allowed a short time to consider whether they will abide by the terms of the declaration. You ought to fix a definite period within which tenants may elect to pay the higher rate of annuity; and when that period has elapsed, and you find the loans are not taken up on those terms, then the tenants shall have the option of securing advances on the normal terms. Therefore, I ask that the declaration shall be terminable at a certain date, and that no farther declaration shall be issued if it be found that the tenants are not willing to pay the 80 per cent. for more than five years.

(1.7.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think we have now arrived at a point at which we can detect where we agree and in what we disagree. The hon. Member prefers that the Lord Lieutenant should have only one chance of trying this experiment, and that the period allowed for the trial should only be two years. If it did not succeed then the ordinary terms of the Bill would be reverted to, and the Lord Lieutenant would have no further power to interfere. I do not think that that would be in accord with the intentions of the framers of the clause, and I cannot advise the Committee to accept it. I say that the Lord Lieutenant in dealing with this matter should be able to introduce into the working of this abnormal annuity machinery a certain amount of elasticity, and that he should have a general control over it. The presumption is, that when he makes a new arrangement, he makes it on the advice of the Land Commission after mature consideration. The probability is that he will be right in his judgment, and, therefore, the Order should exist for an indefinite period. If he find he is wrong he will have the power to revoke the order, and retrace his steps. Therefore, we ought not to fetter his discretion by introducing an arbitrary regulation limiting the experiment to two years.

MR. SEXTON

Whenever I have found it possible to come to any tolerable arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman, I have never hesitated to do so. Now, I think this matter would be substantially closed in two years; for if the tenants are willing to pay the abnormal annuity for more than five years, they will signify their readiness by at once applying for the advances. If the right hon. Gentleman, with, an apparently untameable desire to give arbitrary power to the Irish Government, persists in refusing the limit, let him do so, but I must say I think he is unreasonably obstinate. But let him make this concession, that when the experiment has been tried for two years, and it has been found that the tenants are not willing to take up all the advances on the higher terms, let there be a period within which the general body of the tenants of the county may have an opportunity of getting loans on the easier terms set forth in the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman accuses me of being unreasonably obstinate. He has on more than one occasion described the great alterations made in this clause through his own efforts and those of his friends; surely, then, he is not entitled to indulge in two criticisms at once, and accuse me of being obstinate, when I have so often given way. It really seems to me that this is one of the most absurd proposals possible. It gives the Lord Lieutenant power to order the 80 per cent. to be paid for 10 years, and then revokes the order at the end of two years.

MR. SEXTON

I never said a word to that effect at all. My Amendment was never intended to interfere with the number of years the Lord Lieutenant might order the abnormal annuity to be paid in.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But that will be the effect. At any rate, this is a proposal that the Lord Lieutenant shall only be allowed two years in which to try the experiment, and at the end of that time he will be pledged to revert to the former terms.

MR. CHANCE

Or to issue a fresh proclamation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Surely that would be most unreasonable. It is quite obvious that if the tenants knew the declaration must come to an end at the expiration of two years, they would refrain from applying for loans during that period. They would say "The Lord Lieutenant is bound to go back to the original terms after two years, and we will compel him to do it by not accepting advances on the higher rates." That is not giving the experiment a fair chance, and we should be most foolish if we accepted a plan which transparently does not give the experiment the slightest chance of being successful. Therefore, I hope I am not actuated by unreasonable obstinacy in resisting the Amendment.

(1.15.) MR. SEXTON

The right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is absurd, yet a more hollow and more foolish argument than his was never put before the Committee. Take the case of a county to which the proclamation will apply. One-fourth of the capital authorised to be advanced has been taken up. The theory upon which the declaration is issued is that the Land Commission and Lord Lieutenant both consider that the tenants of the county are so eager to purchase that there will not be sufficient money to satisfy the applications. Therefore, loans shall only be made to those willing to pay the higher terms. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says that if the declaration were limited to two years' duration, no tenants would apply for a loan until it had expired. Surely that could not be the case. There would be such a competition for the loans that each tenant instead of remaining out would rush in, in fear that his neighbours would be before him, and take his chance of purchasing under the Bill. The fact is, the tenants would be too doubtful and distrustful of one another to let there be any risk of a combination such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. They would be afraid that if they waited the two years some of their fellows might creep in before them and accept the higher terms.

(1.17.) MR. CHANCE

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is still under a delusion as to what would be the effect of this Amendment limiting the order to two years. I submit it would not at all interfere with the working of the order itself. It would be perfectly valid for that time, and it would be open, to the Lord Lieutenant, at the end of the term, to issue a fresh order if he thought fit. The Amendment simply calls on the Lord Lieutenant to consider if it is wise to renew the order after it has been in force for two years. If the Lord Lieutenant thought there was a combination among the tenants to refrain from applying for advances until the two years had expired—in order to get the loans on the lower terms —he might easily issue a fresh order a week before the expiry of the first one, and thus he would defeat the object of the tenants. I say the Amendment does not in the slightest degree fetter his discretion. I believe the real object of the right hon. Gentleman is to make the procedure under this Bill correspond with the procedure as to Proclamations under his Coercion Act. He wants to be able to proclaim a district if he thinks the tenants are combining to prevent the working of the Act, and he would like to see published, side by side, the Proclamation against dangerous tenants' association and the Proclamation increasing the term of years in which the higher annuity shall be payable, the latter being a penalty imposed on the tenants for combining to defeat his Bill. Will he agree to incorporate Section 13 of the Crimes Act in this clause, so that he may be obliged to revoke the two Proclamations simultaneously? That would at least give him an intelligible reason for refusing to accept this Amendment.

MR. M. HEALY (Cork)

The peculiarity of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman is that they are mutually self destructive. He objects to the Amendment that it would be fatal to the whole clause, yet the theory on which the clause is defended is that the tenants will be so eager to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill that some drag will have to be put on to prevent the money being too rapidly exhausted. He suggests that these eager tenants will combine not to apply for advances. Why, it is idle to suggest that they would be in such a frame of mind as to be willing to let the Bill be inoperative under the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman says it is desired to make the powers of the Lord Lieutenant as elastic as possible. But there is absolutely no elasticity in this sub-clause, or, indeed, in any portion of the clause. The whole efforts of the right hon. Gentleman have been to make it as inelastic as possible. First, the order was to be irrevocable, and it was on our suggestion that that blunder was rectified.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Not at all.

MR. M. HEALY

I say that the clause as it stands is absolutely inelastic; the Lord Lieutenant has only power to issue an order at present, and he can neither revoke nor modify it. Of course, we know that the Attorney General for Ireland has agreed to alter that, but I say we are entitled to the credit for pointing out the error.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No.

MR. M. HEALY

I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should thus contradict me. Now, in regard to this Amendment, I say the only effect will be to enable the Lord Lieutenant to consider whether the order is working satisfactorily at the end of two years, and it will throw a little trouble on the officials at Dublin Castle.

(1.29.) Mr. T. M. HEALY

The Government have got into their heads a suspicion that all our Amendments are objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman says if this Amendment were carried the tenants would lie low for two years. But is it not the fact that if the Amendment were accepted the effect would be that the Government would get a more desirable class of tenants applying under the Bill—tenants willing to pay the higher annuity? The Government desire a particular and a more respectable class of tenants to buy. Would not they be the persons to give the highest amount of money? By issuing your order, terminable in two years, would not the more respectable body of tenants be the earliest to rise to the fly; are they not the very fish you want to capture? If the Amendment is not accepted, the Lord Lieutenant will make an order, which will be non-expirable for anything we know. My hon. Friend's Amendment is really one in ease of the Government's position: it enables them to capture a desirable class of tenants; it gives time for this class of tenants to come in, and it prevents the great body of tenants from being shut out. May I suggest a case by way of precedent? When Mr. Forster's Coercion Act was passed, it was enacted that it should last for two years. We moved an Amendment—and we received very great assistance in those days from the present Chief Secretary— providing that Mr. Forster and the then Lord Lieutenant, Lord Cowper, should revise every three months the warrants committing the suspects. In the same way the fact that these Proclamations expire mechanically every two years will bring to the mind of the Lord Lieutenant the knowledge that certain counties are in a particular position. As far as I can see, all the argument is on the side of my hon. Friend.

(1.35.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 58; Noes 119. (Div. List, No. 189.)

(1.46.) Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 19, after "tables" to insert "and the Lord Lieutenant on the Report of the Land Commission, may from time to time, if he thinks it expedient for the reasons afore-said, by a subsequent declaration revoke or vary any such declaration, and make a new declaration under the provisions of this section, but no such subsequent declaration shall affect any annuity chargeable upon a holding under an agreement made after the date mentioned in such declaration."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. SEXTON

Perhaps it would be convenient if we now adjourned for a short time. This is a long and complicated Amendment, and during the adjournment we might get a copy of it, and discuss it amongst ourselves.

THE CHAIRMAN

I will leave the Chair for a quarter of an hour. (1.48.)

(2.15.) MR. SEXTON

The Committee, Mr. Courtney, are indebted to you for allowing an interval at an unusual time, and that short interval has given us the opportunity of examining the Amendment suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland. To the sub-section as it stands it is proposed to make this addition:— The Lord Lieutenant, on the Report of the Land Commission, may, from time to time, if he thinks it expedient for the reasons aforesaid, by a subsequent declaration, revoke or vary such declaration, and make a new declaration under the provision of this section; but no such subsequent declaration shall affect any annuity chargeable on a holding under agreement made before such declaration. Of course, it is necessary that the revocation or variation shall be as formal as the declaration itself, and I would suggest the addition of the words "published in the prescribed manner."

MR. MADDEN

That will not be necessary—it naturally follows.

Amendment agreed to.

(2.20.) Amendment proposed, In line 19, after the last Amendment, to insert "provided that any such declaration shall not come into operation till it has been before both Houses of Parliament for not less than thirty days, nor if either House passes a Resolution objecting to it."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. M. HEALY

I wish to move another Amendment at the end, in these terms:— Provided that the number of years mentioned in any such declaration made under this section shall be such that the purchase annuity shall not cease at an earlier period than thirty-five years from the commencement of such annuity. It appears to me that it is quite possible that some very strange results might flow from the order of the Lord Lieutenant. It is conceivable that he might make such an order that an annuity would be paid off in a very small number of years—from 10 to 30 years. But this is a state of things not contemplated. The Act of 1881 fixed 35 years as the period of a normal annuity, and I think it is desirable to fix that as the minimum period in this case.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 19, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words, "Provided that the number of years mentioned in any declaration made under this sub-section shall be such that a purchase annuity shall not cease at any period earlier than thirty-five years from the date of the commencement of such annuity."—(Mr. Maurice Healy).

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

(2.24.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Committee would be well advised not to accept this Amendment. If you allow a great variety of years there must be inequality between the purchasers, and I am persuaded it would be better not to introduce the inequality in this form. The hon. Member seems to think there is something magical in the term of 35 years.

MR. M. HEALY

It was adopted as a minimum in the Land Act.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It was arranged in the Act of 1881, but it will be observed there is a great difference in the cases and, as we think, the principle in the Bill is a better one. We proceed on the principle that the majority of tenants will buy under 20 years' purchase, and there is nothing unfair in a man having the advantage of a State loan and paying it off so as to become sooner the full proprietor of his holding. It is better, I think, to stick to the scheme of the Bill and not introduce this.

(2.27.) MR. SEXTON

The right hon. Gentleman does not dwell on the number of those who are likely to have their old rents increased. He denounced a proposal of mine to provide an Insurance Fund by adding 10 per cent. all round, and was then under an impression that a considerable number of tenants would buy at 25 years' purchase.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never thought that any considerable body of tenants would buy at 25 years.

MR. SEXTON

I do not think he would have denounced my proposal to such an extent if he had thought that only a few tenants would be concerned. However, the reason why the Amendment of my hon. Friend refers to the period of 35 years is that in all the acts preceding the Ashbourne Act, annuities were fixed as payable in 35 years. Now it is decided that the basis of that annuity is too short. We all understood that the object of this new legislation, was to give the Irish tenant a better position than he would have had under the previous Acts. My hon. Friend says the present legislation will be less favourable to purchasers in Ireland, than even the effete purchase legislation of 1870 and 1881. That legislation gave the tenants 35 years in which to redeem, whilst under this Act the Lord Lieutenant may reduce the term for re-payment even more than that. My hon. Friend desires to secure that the term of re-payment shall not in any case be less than 35 years. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of inequalities. Any inequalities will be due to the Government themselves, who have in this section introduced the germs of inequality—germs which may develop into frightful injustice to the tenant. My hon. Friend proposes to redress the inequality. Unless the Government look carefully into this matter before we go further, I think they will be in great danger of landing themselves in a very uncertain position. Take the case of a £5 tenant, who buys at 15 years' purchase, which is now about the average rate. You will advance him £75. His annuity will be £3, and out of that 15s. a year will go to redeem the principal sum. Fifteen shillings a year will, accumulating for 49 years, redeem the whole of the purchase money. Under this sub-section you will levy, under the name of insurance, £1 a year, the whole of which will go to redemption. You will therefore increase the amount applicable to redemption from 15s. to £1 15s. If the process be continued for a considerable period after the first five years, the tenant will redeem, not in 49 years, but in less than half that period. Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that? If he does, I have nothing more to say. If he does not, are we not right in trying to make provision against it? Then, take the case of a tenant who pays 10s. a year to the Sinking Fund, and who will be obliged to pay £2 a year as insurance. In that case, the sum applicable to redemption will be not 10s., but £1 10s. a year, and the principal sum will be redeemed in 9 4–5th years, instead of 49 years. So that actually, if the Lord Lieutenant were in such a case to declare that the insurance payment must continue for 10 years, the purchaser would actually redeem the whole of his principal sum before the 10 years were over. I submit that the clause as it stands is absurd.

(2.37.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke in accents of ill-concealed horror about the possibility of a man being asked to pay a debt in 10 years. It seemed to him a terrible catastrophe that a man should be asked to occupy a holding at 20 per cent. less than he ever paid in rent, and should have the further privilege of becoming absolute freeholder at the end of 10 years. Well, Sir, it seems to me that the sooner we can make these people freeholders the better. What did hon. Gentlemen opposite say over and over some time ago? They said: "You talk of making these men peasant proprietors, but never in their life time will they be peasant proprietors. For 49 years they will be tenants under another name and under a different landlord." I should have thought that their own views of what is expedient would be amply carried out by a provision which cannot inflict a hardship on any tenant beyond that of paying 20 per cent. less than his rent.

An hon. MEMBER: A new scheme.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not a new scheme. It has been on the face of the Bill since it was introduced. I am afraid I do not contemplate the probability that the Lord Lieutenant will find that the anxiety to purchase is so great that such a scheme can be carried out, but if it is possible, I should regard it as an unmixed advantage, not merely in the interest of the man who would become a full proprietor in 10 years, but in the interest of the other tenants in the same locality who would be able to buy much sooner than would otherwise be possible owing to the repayment of the money. I should therefore rejoice to see the Lord Lieutenant in a position, subject to the conditions provided for in the clause, to take advantage of the section.

(2.39.) MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have stopped at all. He has told us what magnificent advantages the tenants are to get under this snake-in-the-grass clause, which we have not hitherto understood. They may become proprietors in 10 years. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go one step further and make the tenants pay their money down on the nail so that they might become the absolute owners of their holdings in five minutes? Lend them the money for five minutes and then your British bounty will remain exactly where it was, and they will receive the magnificent advantage—after having paid a visit to the gombeen man and gone into the Bankruptcy Court—of becoming proprietors at once. Maskelyne and Cooke could not beat it. We have been told all along that the great advantage the Irish get from this Bill and from the British connection was that you, the generous and beneficent English people, were willing to lend us your money for 49 years so that we might be able to buy our farms on cheaper terms and for a less annuity. That is our point. It was on that point that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) went about bragging that this Bill gave 150,000 tenants of Ireland a reduction of 40 per cent. on their rents. But what does the Chief Secretary now do? He brings in this clause which probably the hon. Member for Cork never heard of, and probably would not understand if he did hear of, to provide that the tenants shall get a reduction of 10 per cent. or 9½, or 8, or even less. The Lord Lieutenant may say "I will make you pay the whole thing. You shall only get a reduction of 5 per cent.—and you must pay the whole thing back in. five or seven years." It seem to be impossible, with this wire-drawn intellect of the Chief Secretary, for him to understand us, or us him. You may pay back the principle and interest in 10 years, but you may make yourself bankrupt by so doing. You bragged that yon were going to give us this money for 49 years, and it is mere juggling for the Chief Secretary to get up and say "Under the Bill we are willing to grant you the money, but you can only have a reduction of 10 per cent. as you must repay it in 10 years."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Twenty per cent.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Well, 20 per cent. The tenant might not borrow the money from the State. He would be the best judge of what would be most to his own advantage. If a tenant is in the happy position of wishing to become a tenant proprietor in 10 years, and was able to stand the racket, he would find a portion of this capital himself, and thereby shorten the term of repayment. "No," says the Chief Secretary; "I will by my rule of thumb make the whole of them repay in ten years." That is what the Lord. Lieutenant will have to do. I could have understood it if the Chief Secretary had accepted our Amendment, fixing a small area for this transaction. I am amazed that the Amendment has not been accepted, because, really, I thought it was simply a drafting Amendment. As in the Acts of 1870 and 1881, 35 years was the period fixed, and as the great and benevolent Tories are in power, I thought they would not be meaner than the Liberals. I thought the Saxon smile on the face of the Tory would be at least as broad as the Saxon smile on the face of the Liberal. I should have thought we were entitled to expect that the present sort of smile that we were supposed to be so enamoured of was to last 35 years at least. It seems it is not to last so long, but only for 10 years. It will be a pretty prospect for the tenants, who are under the impression that they will have 49 years for the repayment, to find the Earl of Zetland come in some day from golfing or a hunting expedition, and, acting under the advice of his friends of Kildare Street Club, declare that they shall pay back the money in 10 years.

(3.47.) MR. CHANCE

The success of this Act depends entirely on tenants getting cheap money. They could not borrow in the open market at 2¾ percent. interest. They would have to pay 5 or perhaps 10 per cent.; and therefore the longer you leave the money with them at that low rate of interest the greater benefit you will confer upon them. The more rapidly you take away the cheap money from them the less advantage it will be. Under the Ashbourne Act you lend the money cheaper than they could get it in the open market, and the difference to the tenant is the price he would have had to pay to the gombeen man and the price he will have to pay the Government. It is admitted that the tenants who pay 20 years' purchase will, as a rule, be tenants who are well off, on good holdings of a substantial character. This clause will not affect such a tenant, who will get the benefit of your cheap money for 49 years. The small tenants on mountain holdings who pay 10 years' purchase will be the people most affected—and they will pay 10 years' purchase because the annuity of 4 percent. on the 10 years' purchase will represent what the Land Commissioners believe to be the annual value of the holding, the nominal rental being largely a paper rental. How will this provision operate on these tenants? They are the men who want cheap money; but the poorer the men the more speedily you take it away from them. You leave them with nothing with which to stock their holdings. The longer you leave the money in the pockets of these poor tenants the longer you keep them out of the hands of the gombeen man. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has been contending for equal treatment, and we have heard a great deal in other quarters about equal treatment to all the tenants, but the proposal in question will have a contrary effect, for it will deprive the poor and small tenant of the advantage of cheap money and give it, without reason, to the richer tenants. The longer, I say, the money is left with the poor tenant the greater the advantage to him.

Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(2.55.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 130; Noes 77.—(Div. List, No. 190.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

(3.5.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 88; Noes 134.—(Div. List, No. 191.)

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

I beg to move, in line 19, the words— Provided that a declaration under this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the number of years mentioned therein would cause the annuity to cease at a period earlier than 20 years from the date of the commencement of such annuity. I want to provide that in the more extreme cases of injustice which may occur, the Lord Lieutenant, in making a declaration, shall have some discretion. Under the last Amendment the Lord Lieutenant was given no discretion. The Chief Secretary has referred to the experience of the Acts of 1881 and 1890, and as he truly observed the term of repayment was so short that the tenant got practically no reduction. Under the Act of 1881 the tenant had to pay 5 per cent. on the amount advanced to him for 35 years. He had besides to pay one quarter of the purchase money out of his own pocket. It is not accurate to say that under the Act of 1881 the tenant's rent was necessarily increased, or his annual payment was necessarily increased after he purchased. In many cases he got a slight reduction, but so slight that it did not encourage the tenants to buy, and only about half a million of money was advanced under the purchase clauses of those previous Acts. If this provision is insisted upon it will prevent land purchase in very many cases. Take the case of the tenant in the West of Ireland, to whom the Land Commission have, as it is, refused to make an advance of more than seven years' purchase. I have been informed of such cases. Under the Bill as it stands, if in a county where such a tenant existed the Lord Lieutenant was to make an order that for the first ten years the annual payment should be less by 20 per cent. only than the full annual value, in that case the tenant who bought at seven years' purchase might actually have repaid the whole of his purchase money within seven years. The Chief Secretary says that would be no injustice, because he would be paying all the time 20 per cent. less than the rent. But I contend that that is not so. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the case of tenants who buy so cheaply, the reason they buy is that they have not been able to pay their rents regularly before, so that the landlord has had a large number of bad debts and is ready to take seven or 10 years' purchase. That may be so, though I do not think that is the real reason of a low rate of purchase. But if it is so, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the rents these men pay are a great deal less than the nominal rent. Take the case of a man who buys at 10 years' purchase. We will assume that the landlord sells at that number of years' purchase, because for the previous three years he has not received from the tenant more than on an average half his rent. In that case the tenant, instead of getting a reduction under the Bill as now framed, would pay for the first five years or 10 years, and we do not know how many years, more than he was paying for the 10 years previous to the purchase. In that condition of affairs land purchase would be impossible. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 19, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words,"Provided that a declaration under this sub-section may provide that it shall not apply in any case in which the number of years mentioned therein would cause the annuity to cease at a period earlier than 20 years from the date of the commencement of such annuity." — (Mr. Knox.)

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

(3.21.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it would be insulting to the Committee to go over the ground which has been so often traversed in these Debates. I beg to ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether it would be in order to move that the remainder of the subsection stand part of the clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

That Motion can only be made after the Closure of the Amendment now under discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then, Sir, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

MR. M. HEALY

Is it in order, Sir, to move the Closure, not for the purposes of Closure, but in order that a subsequent Motion may be made?

THE CHAIRMAN

That depends on the discretion of the Mover and the discretion of the Chair.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(3.25.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 139; Noes 91.—(Div. List, No. 192.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

(3.35.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 103; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the word 'Where' in page 6, line 20, stand part of the Clause."

Question put, "That the Question that the word 'Where' stand part of the Clause, be now put."

(3.45.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 165; Noes 105—(Div. List, No. 194.)

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Clause."

(3.55.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 170; Noes 112.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

(4.5.) MR. SEXTON

After the word "Where," first passed, I beg to move the insertion of the words "the whole or a part of." This sub-section deals with the circumstances under which a purchaser who has fallen into default with his annuity may obtain relief out of his insurance money. It provides that the whole or part of the arrear may be provided out of the insurance money, or any part there of; but the words of the opening line of the clause are dangerously general in their character.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, after "Where" to insert "the whole or a part of."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. MADDEN

I do not think the Amendment is necessary; but the words are unobjectionable, and I will accept them.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

The next Amendment, standing in my name, deals with the circumstances under which the Land Commission agree to make good the arrear out of the insurance money. I think the cumulative provisions, as to the things about which the Land Commission must be satisfied, are excessive. If it is made necessary for the Commission to find exceptional circumstances, as well as the absence of fault, the Commission may be debarred from granting relief. I would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt my Amendment, which would introduce the language used in the Bill of last year.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 22, to leave out from the words "such arrear," to the word "set," in line 24, and insert the words "arose from some cause other than the proprietor's own conduct, act, or wilful default, and that there is reasonable ground for so doing may."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

(4.9.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The language of last year's Bill was departed from deliberately in this matter. It would not, I think, be wise to enable the purchaser to ask for relief on the ground of permanent circumstances. Of course everyone is aware of the extreme difficulty of discovering what are the true facts when the tenant applies to the Land Commission for relief. It is very easy for him, even in good faith, to allege grounds why he should receive special treatment, when in truth such grounds do not exist. It is impossible for anyone who has had to deal with Irish distress not to realise this. I think, therefore, we ought to specify the character of the inability to pay with which we wish to deal. That inability is not chronic, but occasional and sporadic. It is not to be due to any permanent defect in the holding, for instance, but to loss of capital, to seasons either extraordinarily wet or extraordinarily dry, or otherwise of a kind to produce exceptional distress on the part of the purchaser. I think, therefore, it is desirable to retain the word "exceptional" as very clearly marking the provision we desire to retain.

(4.12.) MR. SEXTON

I think the language of the Bill of last year was better suited to the case. As far as I can gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech it will be essential for the tenant who has fallen into difficulty, before he can get relief out of the money provided by himself, to show that there is something in the shape of a general calamity.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No; not general. I gave instances.

MR. SEXTON

I want to know why, in addition to the very clear and sufficient provision that the cause must be other than his own fault, you introduce general words which may have an effect the reverse of beneficial. I am very much afraid that if these words remain in the clause, no matter what the individual need of the tenant may be, unless there is something very exceptional in his circumstances, he may find it very hard to make good his claim to relief out of his own money. The right hon. Gentleman has, during the last hour, taken many Divisions, whereby the time of the Committee has been lost and the progress of the Bill impeded. I am afraid that I must put the Committee again to the trouble of dividing, if my Admendment is not accepted.

(4.15.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I should like to know whether a general fall in prices would be covered by the sub-section.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know that I can give any information on that point. My complaint about the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman is that they are too wide.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I think I am entitled to ask whether such a circumstance, as a general fall in prices, would entitle the Land Commission to allow the relaxation afforded by this particular sub-section?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If it was not exceptional the sub-section would not operate.

MR. SEXTON

Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest a case where the default is not due to the fault of the tenant, and yet where the Land Commission ought not to grant relief?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Supposing a tenant came to the Land Commission, and said:—"I find I cannot pay the annuity. The holding is not as good as I thought it was, and there are permanent losses which make it impossible to pay the annuity." That would be a case that could be dealt with under this sub-section, and I do not think it is one which ought to be dealt with under it.

MR. SEXTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman insert after "exceptional circumstances," "in the case?" That will bring in calamity affecting the individual. A man may suffer a wrong which may be personal to himself.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have not had time to look into the meaning of the words, but if I caught their purport accurately we could not use the Insurance Fund unless the misfortune was restricted to the holding. Our intention is that if the calamity is both general and particular it shall be dealt with by the general and particular Insurance Fund. But there are other misfortunes which are confined to one or two holdings, and in that case the relief is drawn, and must be drawn solely from the tenant's Insurance Fund, and not from the £200,000 with which we shall have to deal in the next subsection.

(4.20.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 183; Noes 108.—(Div. List, No. 196.)

(4.35.) MR. M. HEALY

In line 27, after the word "shall," I propose to insert the words "at the discretion of the Land Commission." I wish to leave it a matter of discretion with the Commissioners whether they should or should not, after the default, increase the amount of the purchaser's annuity. I do that in view of the decision we have come to in regard to Sub-section 3 of the clause. Some years experience of the abnormal annuity may demonstrate to the Land Commissioners that the Lord Lieutenant by his order has fixed the rate at such an amount that the tenant purchaser really cannot pay it, and if the Land Commissioners come to that conclusion, I submit it should be within their discretion to fix the amount of such a figure as experience has shown the purchaser can pay. It does not bind the Land Commission to adopt the normal amount.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 27, after "shall," to insert "at the discretion of the Land Commission."— (Mr. M. Healy.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

This is not a matter to be left to the discretion of the Land Commission. It has been decided there shall be an Insurance Fund to meet the case of any calamity, and we have sanctioned that view, and after the necessity for this has been demonstrated it is not a matter for the discretion of the Commission.

(4.38.) MR. T. M. HEALY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the rules applicable under this subsection, enabling application to be made, require the application to be made in any particular way? Is there to be a hearing or anything of that kind? By what means will the tenant bring under the notice of the Land Commission his inability to pay? In the 30th Section of the Act of 1887, the tenant applied to the Court by a cumbrous and costly procedure, which should be avoided; yet, at the same time, I do not see how the tenant can satisfy the Commissioners without some investigation. The clause seems to leave the thing at large, so to speak, in a very unsatisfactory position.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I shall be glad to consider with my right hon. Friend what rules should be laid down to govern this matter, but I think the less formal the manner the better, an elaborate system must be an expensive system. My idea is, the Land Commission should be left to determine in each case what degree of investigation is required. They will require evidence to satisfy them that the distress has occurred, but I do not think it would be well to hamper their discretion with elaborate rules and long drawn legal observances. But I will take the opportunity of consulting with those more competent to give an opinion than I am what rules should be laid down.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I quite agree that it would be well to leave the Commissioners freedom to act as a reasonable landlord would under like circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

(4.41.) MR. KNOX

In line 28, I suggest the addition of the words "after such date." The passage will then run in this form: "but the annuity (not-withstanding any reduction under the foregoing provisions of this section) shall be increased by such amount, after such date, and for such time as the Land Commission direct, in order to replace the sum so set off, &c. As I read the clause now, in case of any exceptional calamity when the Purchaser's Insurance Fund is taken, in the year after that exceptional calamity, the abnormal annuity would have to be paid, and in many cases that might compel the tenant to go bankrupt. Therefore, I think the Land Commission should have a discretion as to the time, so that the tenant may recover from the consequences of the exceptional calamity.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 28, after "amount," to insert "after such date."—(Mr. Knox.)

(4.42.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is something in the observation that the year after the calamity requiring to be met in an exceptional manner the tenant would not be in a favourable position to have his annuity increased. But I do not think it should be left entirely to the discretion of the Commission. I would limit the discretion of the Commission within a period of two years.

MR. KNOX

I will move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 28, after "amount," to insert "after such a period not exceeding two years."— (Mr. Knox.)

MR. M. HEALY

I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the later words in the section. It is quite conceivable that the special power of the Land Commission might come into operation in the second year, and if that should be so, the Commissioners could not add any amount to the annuity for the first five years by virtue of the later words which provide that the annuity shall not exceed the annuity payable during the first five years of the term. It appears to me that in the second provision the term should be six years, otherwise the two provisions will not be consistent.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I conceive would happen would be this: Suppose a default in the first five years; for the sake of argument we will say in the second year. That is defrayed out of the Insurance Fund, and in the third year there would be an increase in the annuity; and in the next year a return to the 80 per cent.; and in the fifth year, 80 per cent. In the sixth year the tenant would pay something more than the normal annuity, but not necessarily the whole 80 per cent.

MR. M. HEALY

. But the Amendment which has been accepted as to the date from which the addition is to be made is inconsistent with the five years period.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member's observations, I understand, refer to a question of drafting only. I will consider that.

MR. MADDEN

I think the point can be met by the insertion of words after this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 28, after the words last inserted insert: "from the date of the set off, or termination of the first five years."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

(4.48.) MR. SEXTON

I now beg to move the omission of the words "with interest at the prescribed rate." What is the position? A default arises, and is met out of the Insurance Fund. The tenant has to pay back the insurance money, but not only so, he is to pay interest upon this. Is not this usury? The Insurance Fund is for two purposes, primarily to relieve the tenant when he finds himself unable to meet the annuity; and, secondly, to accelerate the period of redemption. But you are making this last the primary purpose, and providing that it shall be carried out according to the original intention, no matter what may be the needs of the tenant. I think all you can claim from the tenant is that he should pay back the money into this fund he has created, not that you should ask him for interest.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 29, to omit the words "with interest at the prescribed rate."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

I do not know whether the hon. Member appreciates the point. I think we shall be able to meet him. If the tenant has not paid interest on his annuity he will have so much less to his credit when the new annuity is struck. So far as the State is concerned it is merely a question of time. If interest is paid on the sum withdrawn it goes to the credit of the Insurance Fund, and by so much is the capital of the fund increased. But if the hon. Member prefers that the interest on the insurance should cease during the time the fund is drawn upon, it is merely a question of time, the delay of the period of redemption.

MR. SEXTON

This word "usury" was not properly applied. I should, however, prefer that the period of redemption should be delayed in lieu of the payment of interest.

Amendment agreed to.

(4.54.) MR. SEXTON

This new sub-section deals with cases in which, owing to an exceptional state of affairs, the Lord Lieutenant will have a discretionary power to order advances to be made out of the Reserve Fund. The words of the sub-section provide that the Lord Lieutenant may order that the deficiencies arising from non-payment of annuities may be made good from the Reserve Fund, when those deficiencies arise from exceptional agricultural distress. But distress is the normal state of affairs in Ireland, and it will be difficult for the Lord Lieutenant to determine the point when things have come to such a pass that this power should be resorted to. I propose to substitute the word "calamity" for "distress."

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "distress," and insert "calamity."—(Mr. Sexton.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman objects to this; there is a precedent in the Act of 1887.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not quite appreciate the distinction the hon. Member draws. I think the word "distress" accurately covers the circumstances that it is intended to meet, but I have no objection to the substitution of "calamity."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I should like to know whether I correctly appreciate the position. As I understand, this is simply a question of administration of funds by the Treasury, and I want to ask, is the individual annuity, the individual tenant purchaser, relieved from the payment of instalments of the purchase money because Sub-section 5 is put into operation? The right hon. Gentleman seems to assent, and I am glad if that is so. But I shall be glad to know if afterwards the liability of the tenant purchaser is left intact.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It seems to me that the words contained in the Bill sufficiently carry out our intention in this matter, and that therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member is unnecessary.

MR. SEXTON

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 34, after the word "distress," to insert the words "or calamity."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Amendment agreed to.

(5.5.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I now beg to move the omission from this part of the clause of the words "Reserved Fund" with the object of inserting the words "Guarantee Deposit." My intention in moving this Amendment is that the Guarantee Deposit should be the first resorted to in case of deficiency in time of distress. I do not see what the general taxpayers of the country have to do with the matter as compared with those associated with the land; and as the guarantee deposit is a fund for the protection of the British taxpayer, that is the fund which ought to be interfered with in the first instance, should the necessity arise.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 37, to leave out the words "Reserve Fund," and insert the words "Guarantee Deposit."—(Mr. Morton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Reserve Fund' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

In supporting this Amendment, I would point out to the Government that there are no words in this sub-section enabling the Commissioners to relieve a tenant purchaser from any future liability in respect to the particular amount drawn from the Reserve Fund. I think it would be desirable if the Chief Secretary would offer some explanation on this point.

MR. M. HEALY

I think it must be plain that as the clause stands it does not carry out the intention of the Government, namely, that of relieving the individual tenant purchaser who is unable to pay the annuity owing to exceptional agricultural distress. I would ask whether the Government are prepared to bring up words affording the tenant this relief?

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

I think it is sufficiently evident that if the Government insist on carrying this clause as it stands, it must work unfairly either to the landlord or to the taxpayer, and if the hon. Member for Peterborough presses his Motion, I should feel inclined to give it my support. I think the Government would do well if they could see their way to dropping this sub-section altogether, and bringing it up again on the Report.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! order! I must, point out to the noble Lord that it is irregular to discuss this sub-section as a whole on the Amendment just moved.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

Is it not possible for us to obtain a decision on this sub-section?

THE CHAIRMAN

It cannot be done.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I think it would be very desirable if the Government would explain exactly what it is they propose to do in connection with this subject. Do they mean their proposal to apply in the case of each individual tenant who cannot pay, owing to exceptional distress, or is it to apply only in the case of exceptional distress in a particular county as a whole. The Government might also explain whether the relief is to be in the nature of a gift, or of a loan. It appears to me that the money is to be obtained for the Reserve Fund, which, in its turn, will be recouped from the Exchequer. I cannot gather that the tenant will in any way be made liable.

(5.15.) MR. CHANCE

I consider the sub-section is rather obscure, and I do not believe that it will carry out the intentions of the Government. The cash portion of the Guarantee Fund will not be paid out of taxation direct; it will be paid by stopping the Exchequer contribution. The effect will be that the county cess will not get the benefit of the Exchequer contribution until this sum, which is to be applied to cases of exceptional distress, has been deducted. That is a very different thing indeed from paying it out of the direct taxes of the county. To my mind, no direct tax should be imposed until the whole cash portion of the Guarantee Fund has been exhausted. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman's intention has miscarried; of course it is never intended that anyone should be evicted for non-payment. This sum is directed to be advanced out of the Reserve Fund, but there are no words implying an unconstitutional and absolute gift without any liability to repayment. Surely it must be an error on the part of the draughtsman that no words have been inserted entitling the Land Commission to relieve the tenant from ordinary liability. I hope the mistake will be rectified on the Report stage, so that in cases of exceptional calamity and distress the tenant may be relieved of the consequences of default for which he cannot be held to blame.

(5.18.) MR A. J. BALFOUR

The first object of the sub-section now under discussion is to relieve ratepayers from burdens which may be thrown on them in consequence of the payment of annuities. That object is adequately carried out. The second object is to relieve individual sufferers, and it is a question whether the sub-section does secure that end. It must be admitted that it would not be right to come permanently down on the ratepayers of the county until every possible effort had been made to collect the annuity from those who ought to pay it. If there be a really serious calamity in a particular district, so that the people cannot possibly pay the annuities, then it is desirable to avoid the necessity of whole-sale evictions. Therefore we must ease the rigid system by means of this subsection. I admit, however, that the subsection does not adequately secure the end we have in view, and I will endeavour to consider the matter between now and to-morrow, and to frame words which, if introduced, will carry out our object. If I do not succeed in that, I will ask the Committee to let the matter stand over until the Report stage.

(5.22.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I think the statement of the Chief Secretary is a satisfactory one. It practically admits that the clause is defective, and does not meet the particular cases to which attention has been drawn. It will not prevent the eviction of tenants for non-payment of sums which they cannot pay; and as the right hon. Gentleman has promised to consider the question, I think we may fairly leave it as it stands, and not carry the discussion any further to-night.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Is it the intention of the Government that the arrears shall be cleared off, and not provided for by way of loan?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is no provision in the clause for advancing the money by way of loan. It must be done by gift.

MR. M. HEALY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, if possible, put the words he proposes to add upon the Paper to-night, so that we may have time to consider them before the Committee resume to-morrow.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

There is one point in regard to this matter which deserves the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand, the proposition is that in the case of exceptional agricultural distress the Reserve Fund shall be drawn upon. Might I suggest to him that before he draws upon that fund he ought equitably to draw upon the deposit amount which the landlords have left in the hands of the Government. If he contrasts Subsection 4 with Sub-section 5, I think he will see there is a good deal of force in the suggestion I am making. Under Sub-section 4, in the case of agricultural distress, the tenant is to be relieved, but not to any further extent than this— that any debt contracted by him in consequence of agricultural distress is to be added to his debt, and he will be compelled to repay both principal and interest in the shape of an enhanced Sinking Fund. But if there are any arrears due, and it is not the fault of the person liable that he cannot pay the annuity, then the Lord Lieutenant is to have the option of setting off the whole or part of the arrears against the purchaser's Insurance Fund, or any part thereof, and the annuity is to be increased to such amount and for such time as the Land Commissioners may direct in order to replace the sum so set off. So in the case of exceptional calamity the tenant is put in this position: if he receives temporary relief he will have to repay it by way of increased Sinking Fund, and he will have to repay not only the relief he obtains but interest on the same. Now, in regard to exceptional agricultural distress which is dealt with in this Subsection 5, I submit that the burden should first of all fall upon those who are the beneficiaries under the Act. It is not the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the whole of the benefits under this Bill are to accrue to the tenant alone. Certainly the tenants are to have some benefits, but he contends that the landlords also are to be benefited, and I wish to ask why the two sets of beneficiaries should not be treated alike? If the tenant is unable to pay his annuity except with the assistance of the temporary advance which he has eventually to repay, together with interest upon it, I submit that before any burden is thrown upon the State the other set of beneficiaries (the landlords) should be come upon, and that the fund which they have had to deposit with the Government as guarantee for repayment of the advances, should be drawn upon. I would venture to contend that if this exceptional distress arises owing to circumstances over which neither the landlord nor the tenant could have control, then in that case if the tenant is to be called upon to pay back the advances made to him, plus interest, on the ground of fairness between landlord and tenant, the money so advanced before it is taken out of public funds should be drawn from the landlord's fifth—at any rate to the extent of the interest. I think that is an argument which may be advanced upon the ground of equity, and I ask the Chief Secretary to accept it on that basis.

It being half-past Five of the clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.