Commons Sitting of 22 July 1896

POOR LAW SCHOOLS COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Lord Warkworth]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 308.]
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (MARINERS' VOTES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (Progress, 21st July.)
  Clause 24,—

  ADVANCE BY MEANS Of MONEY IN PLACE OF STOCK.
  As respects every advance under the Land Purchase Acts for a purchase in pursuance of an agreement made after the commencement of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect; (that is to say,)

  (a.) The advance shall he made by means of money and not of guaranteed land stock, and guaranteed land stock shall cease to be issued, and everything which under the said Acts may be done by means of a transfer or issue of guaranteed land stock may be done by the payment of a sum of money equal to the nominal amount of that stock.

  (b) The sums required by the Land Commission for advances shall be advances to them by the National Debt Commissioners in pursuance of Section one of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888.

  366

  (c.) The Land Commission shall pay out of the Land Purchase account to the National Debt Commissioners an amount equal to the aggregate of the current half-yearly instalments of the purchase annuities on all the advances and the National Debt Commissioners shall, in manner prescribed by the Treasury, ascertain the portion of such payments which represents repayment of capital, and shall accumulate the same for the purpose of discharging the said advances,

  (d.) Sub-section four of Section four, and Section six, of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, shall have effect as if the payments directed by this section to be made to the National Debt Commissioners were substituted for the dividends and sinking fund payments, and Sub-section four of Section four and Sub-section two of Section nine, and Sub-section ten of Section fifteen of the said Act shall have effect as if the accumulation of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents capital were substituted for the sinking fund, and as if that portion of the payments made to the National Debt Commissioners which represents the repayment of capital were substituted for the sinking fund payments paid out of the purchase annuities.

  (e.) The power of making rules under Section twenty-seven of the said Act shall extend to the making of rules for carrying into effect this section.

  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.) moved in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "money and not of," so as to provide that money should not be paid in lieu of guaranteed land stock in advances under the Land Purchase Acts. He said the Amendment affected the success or non-success of the purchase portion of the Bill. He therefore asked the Government to give it their favourable consideration. It would inflict a hardship on nobody; it was purely a matter of routine, and perhaps the Government would see their way to accept it.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsupported the Amendment. He had always thought that the original creation of Guaranteed Land Stock was a financial mistake, and that it would have been infinitely better to have given the landlords Consols, for neither the State nor the tenant got any advantage from the additional quarter per cent. interest on the Guaranteed Land Stock, owing to the small amount of that stock in the

  367
  market. Indeed, he had never been able to understand the reason for creating a separate stock for the purposes of land purchase. What he would suggest was that the Government should come to a compromise in the matter, and that instead of stopping the issue of the stock they should alter the character of the stock issued, and make it Consols. The landlords would be as much benefited by getting Consols as by getting Guaranteed Land Stcok; the additional quarter per cent. would be saved to the State, and the tenant would get all the advantages be now got. The amount of money involved was 33 millions sterling. The section proposed that the rate of interest on that large sum should be left entirely to the Treasury, or to the National Debt Commissioners, which was part and parcel of the Treasury, to prescribe; and it was to be prescribed by the Treasury every half-year in respect of the half-year that was passed. It would, therefore, be impossible for the tenant to know what rate of interest he would have to pay six months ahead. The only thing he would know would be that the interest could not exceed 4 per cent. It was possible, for instance, that the Treasury might prescribe 3 per cent. to be the rate of interest which was, of course, a great deal more than was at present charged, and a half per cent. more than the rate of interest at which the Government could borrow in the open market. The tenant, in these circumstances, would feel that he was charged more than he ought to be charged. It was, therefore, absolutely clear that, if the Government left to the Treasury this unprecedented and unreasonable power of prescribing every half-year what they considered to be the proper rate of interest that should be charged the tenant-purchasers for the past half-year in respect to this large sum of money, it would inevitably lead to conflicts between the tenant-purchasers and the State, and to angry Debates in the House. The National Debt Commissioners had a difficulty in making out the money to pay the 2½ per cent. interest on the Savings Banks Account, and there was nothing to prevent them from charging 3 per cent. interest on the tenant-purchasers in order to enable them to square the Savings Banks
  368
  Account. It would merely be a swindle of the kind that the Treasury had often perpetrated before. He could hardly conceive that the Government realised that they were leaving this enormous power in the hands of the Treasury. The difficulty would be met by the issue of some form of stock, such as Consols, at a fixed rate of interest.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the object of the clause was to substitute cash for Guaranteed Land Stock in the case of advances to the landlord under the Land Purchase Acts. The Guaranteed Land Stock stood in the market at £110, which was a considerable premium; and it seemed unreasonable to continue a system under which the vendor received £130 really for every £110 nominally, which was practically an advance from the State of 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Londonderry complained that the scheme as it stood would leave to the Treasury the fixing of the rate of interest at which the sinking fund might be accumulated.
  MR. KNOXsaid his complaint was more than that. The Treasury, besides fixing the rate on the sinking fund, which, perhaps, was unavoidable, also fixed the rate of interest on the loan.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought it would not be possible for the Treasury to do that. He thought the rate of interest on the loan was fixed by law—[cries of "No!"]—or, at any rate, by a rule laid down by the Treasury beforehand, and that it would not be possible for the Treasury to alter it by an ex post facto arrangement. The Treasury at the present time loaned a considerable amount of money under the Local Loans Fund. The rate of interest under that system was constantly complained of by Irish Members and others. But why was it difficult and impossible to alter that rate of interest for the borrowers? Simply because the stock had been issued, and it was necessary to pay the interest on that stock; and the system proposed by the Amendment was really a repetition of the Local Loans Fund system. He also thought the hon. Member underrated the power of the Irish Members when he said that they could not effectively criticise the action

  369
  of the Treasury were the Treasury to raise the rate of interest on the tenant-purchasers. He believed the Irish Members could not only effectively criticise it, but effectively prevent it. It would not be possible for the Treasury, in face of such opposition—to say nothing of the sense of justice of the House—to increase the burden of the Irish tenant in order to relieve somebody else. He could hardly believe the hon. Member seriously maintained that such a thing was possible.
  MR. KNOXasked the right hon. Gentleman to say what was to be the rate of interest as he read the clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it would be 2¾ per cent. If stock were issued to supply the money to be advanced to borrowers, the difficulty of altering the interest was very great indeed—practically prohibitive.
  MR. JOHN DILLONpointed out that if the purchase-money were paid in stock which was at a premium of 10 per cent., it was obvious that the tenant would be able to buy his holding more cheaply; and now the Government were going to withdraw that bonus. When land stock was at 93 the Government absolutely refused to interfere, though urgent appeals were addressed to them. By this clause the Treasury was left to fix what interest they liked. It was idle to talk of the Treasury not daring to make changes which would be opposed by the Irish Members. The other day, when Irishmen of all parties joined in asking the Government to undo what was admitted to be a dirty trick on the part of the Treasury, they were met by a non possumus. How could private Members follow the operations of the Treasury, which were always as secret as possible If this change were made the tenant ought to be recouped by some change in the regulations.
  SIR THOMAS LEAsaid that this was not merely a question of the tenant's interest, but of the promotion of land purchase in Ireland. The lower the rate at which money could be borrowed, the better the terms on which the tenant could buy and the landlord could sell. The Treasury ought to charge a lower rate of interest on all this land-purchase system.
  DR. CLARKsaid that he was not in favour of land purchase, but he should support the Amendment. The action of the Treasury was mean and contemptible. Five years ago, when land stock and Consols were below par, the Treasury would not hear of paying cash.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it was unreasonable to expect the Treasury to pay more than they had undertaken to pay. Every speaker had proceeded on the assumption that it was the interest of the Treasury which was at stake. That was an entire delusion. The interests at stake were those of the guarantee fund, and ultimately of the Irish ratepayer. What happened when this stock was appreciated? As the payments were made they had to be invested, and the best investment was to buy up the stock. If for every £100 of stock £110 had to be paid, a deficiency must occur some time, and that would have to be met out of the guarantee fund, because the Treasury was not in the first place liable.
  COLONEL WARINGendorsed what had fallen from Nationalist Members. He spoke as one of those who differed from the general impression as to the desirability of land purchase, being entirely sceptical as to its alleged ultimate benefits. In fact he believed that half a century hence its results would be disastrous to Ireland. Therefore he spoke in an entirely disinterested manner when he said that if the Government really wished to kill their own pet project nothing would be inure calculated to bring that about than the proposed change from land stock to coin. When in 1891 the hon. Member for South Hunts proposed that coin should be paid instead of land stock they said, "Oh, no; it is quite impossible that the Treasury could undertake to find coin." The attitude of the Treasury was, "Heads I win; tails you lose."
  MR. T. M. HEALYcontended that in this matter the Government were acting with great unfairness both to landlords and tenants. God knows, the Government need not cheat their own friends. [Laughter and cheers.] He did not blame the Chief Secretary; he did not believe he had a bit to do with it; it was another

  371
  example of the characteristic meanness of the Treasury. These men sitting in Whitehall were constantly on the watch to see how they could rob the unfortunate country. He hoped the landlords would join with the Nationalist Members in this matter, and he thought that united they should be strong enough to beat the Government.
  MR. SMITH-BARRYsupported the Amendment, although in doing so he admitted he might appear very inconsistent. In 1891 he moved an Amendment that the landlords should be paid in cash instead of in land stock, and at that time he was opposed by every section in the House. At that time it was probable that land stock would stand at considerably below par. He was gently sat upon and crushed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was told by Mr. Sexton that his proposal was one of "extreme audacity." The hon. Member for Derry City said that if the hon. Member brought forward many Amendments like this the sooner the Government got rid of him and provided him with a place elsewhere the better. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northampton said this was an instance of "the reckless greed of Irish landlords"—[laughter]—and the Leader of the Opposition said this was "the coolest of all proposals" and that "here was a typical Irish landlord who comes here asking for more." Of course the typical Irish landlord was the most horrible thing that could occur to anybody's mind. [Laughter.] But now that this stock, instead of standing below Dar, was very much above par, the Treasury stepped in and said—Well, you shall not have the benefit of it. That was so like them. [Laughter.] He hoped the Government, in the interests of purchase, which they had at heart, would withdraw the proposal they had made.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDurged the Government not to take the responsibility of refusing a request which came to them from all sections of Irish Members. Under the existing law the machinery of land purchase had come almost to a standstill in Ireland, and one object of this Measure was to remove the clogs and defects in the machinery. But if the Government insisted on keep-
  372
  ing this clause in the Bill they would be creating a new obstacle in the way of the working of land purchase. No matter how much trouble the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House, whom he was glad to see in his place during this discussion, had taken in considering this question of land purchase, they could not with any confidence set up their opinion as better than the opinion of all sections of Irishmen who had studied the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURdid not think hon. Members quite realised the difficulties that would ensue if the Amendment were adopted. They had to consider the whole financial arrangements in connection with land purchase, and he must repeat, that if the Amendment were accepted the result would be, not to give an advantage to the Treasury, but simply to place a burden upon the Guarantee Fund—[cries of "No!"]—yes, that was so, and he had not heard a single argument to the contrary—which ultimately the ratepayers of Ireland would have to bear. [Mr. KNOX dissented.] The hon. Member shook his head, but not one speaker had got up to say that was not the fact. Hon. Members must show that this loss would not fall on the Guarantee Fund, and up to the present they had failed to do this. When this stock was originally created the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton objected to its creation on the ground that it would be more valuable than Consols, pointing out that they were bound to give the landlord entitled to receive £100 or £1,000 the equivalent of that amount and nothing more. It had been shown how extremely difficult it was to forecast what the fluctuations of the stock might be, but, with the price of Guaranteed Stock at £112, it was obvious that if this enormous advance in the price could have been foreseen Parliament would not have agreed to the proposal then made and accepted. This Amendment had been supported on the ground that it would give a stimulus to purchase. It might do so, but he did not know how the £10 or £12 would be divided. Possibly, the landlord would get the whole of it, or possibly it would be partly divided between the landlord and the tenant. It would be impossible at the present time to raise the general question of

  373
  interest. That was part of a large question, and it would have to be raised as part of a large question; but if they were now going to continue to issue stock instead of cash they made it far more difficult to adjust the interest to be paid by tenant-purchasers when the rate of interest fell than would be the case in the proposal of the Bill. He appealed, therefore, to the House to leave the Government proposal as it stood.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,),who rose amid cries of "Oh!" said that the Government had been told by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that it would be the duty of hon. Members to intervene in the discussion on this part of the Bill so far as the clause dealt with the safeguarding of general financial interests. They had now the opportunity of doing so, and to his great surprise the only speech which had been made was one in which the hon. Gentleman indicated that he was willing to support the Amendment, which would not, if carried out, have the effect of putting the purchase of Irish land on an equitable basis. Irish Members on both sides had apparently arrived at the opinion that this was a good opportunity to get out of a hardhearted Treasury—[cheers]—what the Treasury were unwilling to give. He should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had been present to deal with the arguments, because they were necessarily more familiar than he was with the financial aspects of the question; but he could not refrain from pointing out to the landowners on his own side of the House that if any of this money was to go to the tenant at all it must be, and could only be, if the land in Ireland was to be sold below its nominal value. On the face of it it was manifest that the landlord would get the whole of the bonus; if the tenant was to get any of it at all it was because the landlord sold nominally at 13 or 14 years' purchase land for which he would get 15 or 16 years' purchase in consequence of the premium. He did not know whether his hon. Friends contemplated this result with equanimity. He believed that they had a strong
  374
  objection to Clause 34 on the ground—he thought the illusory ground—that it would have the effect of permitting the Landed Estates Court to deal largely with cases of sale, and that this would have the effect of lowering the nominal value of land in Ireland. If the tenant was to get any profit out of this Amendment it could only be because the landlords were going to permit the land of Ireland to be sold at a price below that at which it could be sold. In all probability the money would not go in large quantities to the tenants, but it would, for the most part, go straight to the landlords if the Commissioners of Sales did their duty. He admitted that it was hard to say so; but it must be understood that, so far as it was a bonus, it was a bonus which, if it went to the tenants, went to thorn at the expense of the landlords. He asked all hon. Members interested in sound finance, whether it was a tolerable transaction that the House should deliberately decide that the State or the Guarantee Fund was to lend landlords and tenants, for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland, money which could only be repaid by investing the Sinking Fund at a much lower rate of interest than that which was got for the principal. This had not been supported as a financial transaction by any hon. Member; it was supported simply on the ground that it was a bonus from the Treasury to carry out a great national undertaking. He admitted the value of that national undertaking. He had been the most ardent advocate of purchase; he had perhaps done as much as any man to promote purchase—at all events he had striven to do so. But if purchase could only go on by means of some bonus of this kind, let the House have the courage of its opinions and frankly put down in the Bill that the value of land should be paid in cash to the tenant or landlord, and that in addition there was to be thrown in 10, 15, or 20 per cent. in order to promote and smooth the working of the purchase wheels. He asked the House to remember that while the premium was only 10 or 12 per cent. it might rise to 20, or it might fall to nothing. If their object was to put a bonus on land sales let it be a bonus which did not vary in its amount with

  375
  the accidents of the English money market; let it be a fixed amount in order to induce persons to carry out the transaction for the benefit of the community at large. It was not reasonable finance, it was not the way to deal with any great national transaction of this kind, and he hoped that the

  DIVISION LIST—No. 343.

  AYES.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Mnchr)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Gerald Wm. (Leeds)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Rutherford, John

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)

  Howard, Joseph

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Howell, William Tudor

  Sidebotham J. W. (Cheshire)

  Bethell, Commander

  Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kenny, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Camphell, James A.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Stone, Sir John Benjamin

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a

  Strutt, Hen. Charles Hedley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cox, Robert

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Lvrpol)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Warkworth, Lord

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Fardell, Thomas George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

  Finch, George H.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milbank, Bowlett Charles John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fry, Lewis

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS for the AYES, Sir

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Goldsworthy, Major - General

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Gordon, John Edward

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hodderwick, Thomas Charles H.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Austin, M, (Limerick, W.)

  Engledow, Charles John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Blake, Edward

  Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brigg, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Caldwell, James

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Carew, James Laurence

  FitzGrerald, E. Uniacke Penrose

  Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

  Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbysh.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lecky, William Edward H.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Commins, Andrew

  Gibney, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Gold, Charles

  Mc Calmont, Maj.-Gn. (Ant'm. N)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  McCartan, Michael

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  M' Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Daly, James

  Harrington, Timothy

  McKenna, Reginald

  Dane, Richard M.

  Hayden, Luke Patrick

  McLeod, John

  Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Morris, Samuel

  Dillon, John

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Morrison, Walter

  Donclan, Captain A.

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Murnaghan, George

  Government would be supported by all lovers of sound finance in the House.
  Question put, "That the words 'money and not of' stand part of the clause."

  Ayes

  …

  …

  …

  86

  Noes

  …

  …

  …

  99

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Brien, patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Shaw, William Rawson (Halifax)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Souttar, Robinson

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Pinkerton, John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Rodmond, William (Clare)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  TELLERS for the NOES, Sir

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Smith-Barry.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tuite, James

  Amendment agreed to.
  The announcement of the numbers was received with load Nationalist cheers, and cries of "Resign."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SURY: This Amendment having been carried, it is not worth while to discuss the clause any further. Therefore I move—and I think it will be in the interest of business—that the clause be now negatived. Perhaps I should say that we reserve to ourselves the power of reconsidering this matter. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: So do we. [Laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I will put the Motion now because I think that it is the general sense of the Committee that it should be put.
  Clause 24 negatived.
  Clause 25,—

  EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS ON SALES.
  (1.) Where an agreement has been made for the purchase of a holding, and the Land Commission consider that the purchase money is adequate in amount, and are satisfied that the person purporting to be the landlord or his mortgagee or has, by himself or by his agent, or a receiver, been, for not less than six years, in receipt of the rents of the holding, and have ascertained in the prescribed manner that the estate in respect of which such person claims as landlord is sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, he shall be deemed to be primâ facie entitled to carry such agreement into effect; but if it appears to the Land Commission that the said estate is a leasehold for years not renewable for ever, they shall cause the proscribed notice to be given to the person who is entitled in reversion on the expiration of the lease.
  (2.) Where the Land Commission are satisfied that the persons purporting to be the landlord
  378
  and the tenant are primâ facie entitled to carry into effect an agreement for the purchase of a holding, they shall, as soon as may be, make a vesting order to the effect that the amount of the advance be paid into the High Court to the prescribed credit to abide the order of that Court, and that on such payment the holding shall vest in the purchaser.
  (3.) The vesting order shall be effectual to vest in the purchaser, and charge the purchase annuity on the fee simple and inheritance of the holding purchased, subject—

  (a) to such exceptions and reservations (if any) as may be specified in the agreement for purchase and approved by the Land Commission respecting and right reserved to the vendor or superior landlord as to mines, timber, and fishery, or other rights; and

  (b) to any public rights affecting the holding: and

  (c.) to the provisions of this Act respecting the tenant's interest, and respecting easements, rights, and privileges;

  but, save as aforesaid, discharged from all claims, whether estates, charges, reservations, covenants, conditions, interests or incumbrances whatsoever, as well of Her Majesty the Queen, and any superior landlord, as of all other persons whomsoever (except the tenant and person claiming under him) who are interested in the holding, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, and all such claims shall cease as against the holding, and shall attach to the purchase money paid into the High Court in respect of the holding, in like manner as immediately before the sale they attached to the holding.
  (4.) The money so paid into the High Court shall he distributed and dealt with by that Court in like manner as if it were the proceeds of the sale of an estate sold under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, and for the purpose of such distribution of or dealing with the said money, the High Court may, if it appears to such Court necessary, ascertain the amount or value of such claims as above mentioned, and cause that amount or value to be discharged, redeemed, or satisfied out of the said money.
  (5.) The vesting order shall be an order securing an advance within the meaning of section eighteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that section shall apply accordingly.
  (6.) The interest vested by The vesting order in the purchaser shall be deemed to be a graft upon the previous interest of the tenant in the

  379
  holding, and shall he subject to any rights or equities arising from its being such graft: Provided that any then subsisting charge on such previous interest which was created under any Act in respect of some improvement on the holding, shall be a charge on the estate vested in the purchaser by the vesting order next after the purchase-annuity.
  (7.) If any guarantee deposit is paid or retained, the amount thereof shall be excepted from the payment into the High Court, and held by the Land Commission, but the vesting order shall take effect and the right to the deposit be determined, as if the amount had been paid into that Court with the rest of the purchase money.
  (8.) Where the Judicial Commission certifies that the estate is free from incumbrances (as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887), and that the purchase money can be paid or distributed immediately, the advance need not be paid into the High Court, and this section shall apply in like manner as if it were so paid.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork) moved to omit the provision that before using the powers conferred by the clause the Land Commission must consider that purchase money agreed to be given for a holding was adequate in amount. He explained that hitherto the function of the Land Commission had merely been to guard the State against loss. It was not their business to ascertain whether the bargain embodied in the purchase agreement was a bad bargain for either the landlord or the tenant, and in fact there was a widespread opinion that the Commission had sanctioned a number of bargains which were unfavourable to tenants. The words which he proposed to omit from the clause directed the Commission to ascertain that the landlord was receiving an adequate price for the property sold. To agree to a provision of that kind would be bad policy in the interests of land purchase. Why, when a landlord was ready to sell his property at 15 years' purchase, should the Commission intervene and insist that he ought to get a higher price?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON)said that it was impossible to leave the practice relating to this subject as it stood at present, because the clause would introduce a change which would affect that practice radically. At present the Land Commission did not advance money until they had ascertained that the landlord had a good title, but this clause would sanction an advance before it was ascertained that the landlord had
  380
  an absolutely good title. It might be that in some cases the title would be defective, and this provision as to the adequacy of the amount of the purchase money was necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the parties really entitled to the property.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that of course he quite agreed that this clause enabled a landlord in possession of land to sell it if he could make out a good title, but his Amendment was intended to limit its operation to the case only of a man who was not entitled to land getting it into his possession somehow, and then attempting to sell it to the tenant. The words of the clause went a great deal farther than was necessary, because the intention of the Government must be that the clause was to apply to all transactions. As the clause stood it would only lead to doubt, difficulty, and embarrassment in cases where the landlord had a good title, because in such cases the Land Commissioner would have to take up the position of an inquisitor into the landlord's title before the completion of the purchase, and the delay would be a very serious matter indeed. In his view the proposal in the clause was not a reasonable one. He suggested that there was a possibility of devising some form of words that would limit the operation of the clause to the cases in which there was some doubt about the title of the landlord. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that he quite concurred that the operation of the clause should be limited to cases in which the landlord had a doubtful title, and might be seeking to convert into money the property of other people, but he thought that the clause was perfectly clear upon the point, and that the Amendment was therefore unnecessary. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL WARINGsaid that another reason why the words which it was proposed by the Amendment to omit should be retained was that they formed a protection to the landlords.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that the clause as it stood would place the Land Judge in a very invidious position as between the incumbrancer on the one hand and the tenant on the other. The Laud Judge would have to take alternately the characters of Dr. Jekyll and

  381
  Mr. Hyde, having a double and conflicting duty to discharge. ["Hear!"]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that it appeared to him that the words in question were of great importance and ought to be kept in the clause, otherwise a man with a shaky title would be able to sell the land to the tenants. It was necessary that the rights of the real owner should be protected.
  MR. DILLONremarked that the Judge of the Land Court had come to be looked upon as the agent for bankrupt estates in Ireland. If the hon. Member did not obtain a more satisfactory answer than he had received from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he shoud advise him to press his Amendment to a Division. The Land Commission ought to have a discretionary power to see that the landlord did not get more for his land than it was worth. If the Government would undertake to withdraw these words, and on Report substitute words which would provide against fraud or collusion, hon. Members on that side of the House would be satisfied, but they objected to words such as those they now sought to have deleted, and which were calculated to introduce a vicious practice into the whole system of the administration so far as it related to land purchase.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDthought the case would be met if he accepted the following Amendment, to be inserted at the end of sub-section (1):—
  "Provided always that, where the Land Commission are satisfied that the landlord has a good and marketable title to the holding, they shall not be required to consider whether the purchase money is adequate in amount."
  MR. MAURICE HEALYagreed.
  Amendment suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland made.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to omit Paragraph (a), Sub-section (3). The hon. and learned Member contended that the sub-section introduced a new principle into land purchase transactions, so far as they were carried out by vesting order. Some years ago they were not carried out by vesting order but by conveyance from the vendor, and while that system was in vogue considerable discussion arose in that House about
  382
  some transactions which had taken place on the Marquess of Waterford's estate, in which the landlord had agreed to sell to the tenants, but had made all kinds of reservations to himself, the matter afterwards leading to great difficulties. Up to the present it had been impossible to carry out any sale of that character, as, since 1887, the Land Commission had proceeded entirely by vesting order. But the Government now proposed to revive the vicious practice which prevailed prior to the system of the vesting order which was adopted by the Land Commission in 1887. The landlord would be thus enabled to sell his estate to his tenants, and at the same time reserve to himself the timber, turbary, mining, and fishery rights appertaining to any of the holding. When the landlord parted with the whole of his estate, he ought to be done with it. When fixing the purchase price he based it on the whole value of the estate, so that if the proposal of the Government were adopted he would be reserving to himself these rights for nothing. He thought it was only reasonable that when the landlord had parted with the whole estate and received its full value, he should not be hereafter entitled to step in and assert some rights because, say, some minerals had been found to exist on some holding, of which he had never known before or taken any steps to discover. In his judgment this clause had been put in the Bill to enable the landlord to sell his estate and reserve to himself the sporting rights, but the sure way to secure that sport should continue in the country would be to provide that the tenant should not be deprived of the rights of sporting. What interest had the tenant in preserving game if it was only for the landlord? He pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDhoped the hon. Member would not persevere with the Amendment. It was desirable to proceed by vesting order, which was a process both cheap and expeditious. The hon. Member objected to a vesting order being made which simply carried out the agreement between the parties. It would be an extraordinary thing if they were to prohibit the landlord and tenant from agreeing to the purchase for a certain

  383
  sum, reserving any rights to the landlord that the tenant might be willing to have reserved. If the agreement was unjust or oppressive, or did not give adequate security to the State, they had the Land Commission to guard against that. The Land Commission must approve of the agreement, and the vesting order was only to be made to carry out an agreement of which they had approved. ["Hear, hear!"] He was of opinion that the adoption of such an Amendment as this would have the effect of impeding land purchase more, probably, than any other provision which could be introduced. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOHN COLOMBobserved that the hon. and learned Member had dealt with the clause as if it referred to the case of a landlord selling the whole of his estate, whereas it did nothing of the kind. It had reference to the sale of a holding upon any estate. As showing the necessity for the sub-section, he pointed out that there might be, forming portion of a large estate, a particular holding the parting with the sporting, timber, and mining rights which might vitiate the whole property. If the words of the sub-section were not retained, a purchase might be prevented where both parties were willing to buy and sell on an agreement based upon the principle of excluding certain rights. ["Hear, hear!"] He would go so far as to say that great injury had been done to the interests of Ireland by the fact that these Purchase Acts had not in any sense properly dealt with these fishing and sporting rights. He would give the Attorney General a concrete case. A tenant agreed with his landlord to buy a farm. The frontage of the farm was a salmon river. The tenant and landlord agreed on the purchase money, but the Land Commission refused to sanction the purchase unless the landlord gave up his salmon-fishing rights also. In view of a case of that kind, he would like to know from the Attorney General whether he thought this sub-section would really be operative.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwished to make an appeal to the Committee on this subject. The object of the clause was merely to enable a contract between the parties to be made effective. The hon. Member for Cork was attempting to introduce a very
  384
  fundamental change in the system of land purchase, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth appeared to desire to see another change introduced, but in an opposite direction. He would earnestly beg the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press his Amendment at this stage. He was very anxious to make rapid progress with this part of the Bill this afternoon, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not delay the Committee by a discussion which was really not quite germane to the subject of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYconsidered that, where sporting rights were reserved to the landlord, there should be a provision in all such cases that the tenant should be represented by a solicitor. It was very desirable in many cases that Ireland should have preserves. It was a good marketable thing if they had a grouse moor, for instance. It brought an enormous number of people into the country, and they spent their money very freely. But the moment the tenant, who in many cases could not read or write, thought he was "diddled," he turned poacher. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: He does that naturally. [Laughter.]
  AN HON. MEMBER: Quite right too. [Laughter.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not want to go into the game question, but he did want to suggest that where these rights were reserved it should only be done where the tenant was advised by a solicitor.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not accept that suggestion. He did not see how it was possible to include in the Bill such a provision as that. Their object was to promote purchase as far as possible. He was afraid that, if landlords were to be prevented from reserving such rights as were contemplated by the clause, in many cases they would refuse to sell. He therefore appealed to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, which could only have the effect of preventing a sale in many cases. As regarded any protection required by the tenant, he would remind the hon. Member for North Louth that every agreement entered into between a landlord and a tenant had to receive the approval of the Commission before it became effective.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid a great I deal depended upon the contracting parties. The Land Commission would not see the man who was making the contract. They would only deal with the names, and he did think that, in those cases where the sporting rights were reserved to the landlord, the tenant should be separately represented.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think that by his Amendment he was seeking to introduce some new form of enactment, and a principle wholly new to the Purchase Acts. The fact was quite the contrary. It was the clause that was novel. He had no desire to lengthen the Debate or to press the Government unduly, but he would appeal to them to consider the matter in some way between this and Report. The matter plainly was one that required some consideration. In the majority of cases the agreement was entered into by the tenants without legal advice, and though he thought it would be an unfortunate thing for land purchase if a tenant were obliged to have a solicitor in every case, still they must face the fact that the tenants did enter into these, agreements without legal advice, and that in some cases, at any rate, injustice night be done by this Clause 7.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the Government should insert in the subsection the words—
  "and the Land Commission are satisfied that the purchaser understands the nature and character of the reservations."
  That would entirely obviate any suggestion that the man was being cheated, or of distress or fraud.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONdid not think that that would do, because it would involve an intellectual examination of the tenant on the part of the Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there would be no such difficulty. There might be an affidavit by the solicitor to the landlord, stating that the nature and character of the reservations were explained to the tenant.
  THE FTRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid there could be no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the desirability of a tenant and his landlord, too, understanding
  386
  what was really the transaction in which they were engaging. It was not so obvious whether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member was a workable suggestion. It required consideration and inquiry, and that consideration and inquiry would be given to it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought this was an important matter in which the tenants throughout the country were just as much interested as the landlord. The tenants had not themselves the opportunity of preserving game, but they desired that it should be preserved. What they objected to was to be taken advantage of. All that was required was a fair and clear understanding between the landlord and the tenant. Let the tenant know where he stood in the matter, and as long as the thing was straightforward and plain he believed that all over the country the tenants would endeavour to carry the clause out.
  Mr. SMITH-BARRYsaid he quite agreed that it was desirable that the tenant should know how he stood, but he could not help thinking that already machinery existed under which the Land Commissioners could find out what the circumstances were and whether the tenant understood the reservations or not.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITTremarked that, a good deal having been said about the landlords' rights in the matter of sporting, he hoped the Committee would allow him to say a word about another individual—the poacher. He maintained that the poacher represented the natural right of the whole community to fish in all rivers—[laughter]—and be denied the right of either tenants or landlords to impose a rent upon any man, woman, or child in Ireland who wished to fish or pursue game. [Laughter and cries of "Oh!"] He could scarcely imagine any thing more cowardly than the hunting of a timid hare or rabbit by either landlord or tenant. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no sympathy whatever with those so-called rights of sporting.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid that, if the views of the hon. Member were admitted and acted upon, game would soon entirely disappear from Ireland, ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that in his opinion poaching in Ireland had cost the country tens of thousands of pounds a year.
  MR. DAVITT: And lessened the number of flunkeys.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that, as to the remark just made by the hon. Member, his experience of sporting and shooting districts in Ireland was that large numbers of those whom the hon. Member called flunkeys obtained employment and considerable sums of money to which they looked forward every year, through the sporting, and which actually enabled them, in many cases, to pay their rent. [Cheers.] No sportsman would object to a man taking a hare or rabbit now and again for his own use upon asking for it. [Laughter.] The distinction he desired to draw would be rightly understood by every person. Where there was plenty of game it was a common practice during the season for people in Ireland to ask leave to obtain a hare or a little game now and then. He did not call that poaching. What he called poaching was a man snaring hares and grouse, killing them in large numbers, and sending them to market. He was in favour of sporting in Ireland, and he only wished there was more of it. [Cheers.]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. J. SHEEproposed to add to the sub-section, as a protection to the tenant, the words—
  "Provided that the separate consideration be specified in the agreement for purchase in respect of the said rights."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Amendment would give the tenant no further protection, and it was therefore unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB*SIR JOHN COLOMB moved, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert—
  "Provided always, that, until such distribution as aforesaid (but without prejudice to the rights of incumbrancers), interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum shall be paid by the Land Commission to the person who for the time being would, but for the sale thereof, have been entitled to the rent and profits of the lands in respect of which the said money has been paid into court."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsubmitted that this Amendment was out of order, in accordance with a ruling which the Chairman had already given.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled the Amendment out of order.
  MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved to add the following new sub-section to the clause:—
  "(9) The Land Commission or the High Court shall not in any case be empowered to mate any further requisition as to title than a purchaser would be entitled to make under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874."
  He remarked that few people had any idea of the absurd abuses and the wanton expense that had been inflicted on Ireland under the rules laid down relating to requisitions as to title. He had, in regard to cases in his own experience, been horrified by the extraordinary, absurd, and stupid requisitions which had been made by the Land Commission, involving great expense. The Court had proceeded on the bad principles that had grown up in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. The Commissioners thought they were at liberty to make inquiries about anything relating to an estate—inquiries extending as far back as the Cromwellian settlements, and even further. In a case in which he was himself concerned, they made inquiries about a supposed eviction for non-payment of lay tithes that took place in the early part of the last century. He had actually to go to the expense of obtaining affidavits from all those connected with the estate then living, to say that as far as they knew those tithes had never been demanded. That was all that could be done, because there was no record, and yet the matter in hand was delayed for three months by that absurd requisition. In England such a thing could and would be avoided by the vendor. This system had been kept up in the corrupt interest of those family solicitors who had been the bane of every attempt to improve the transfer of land. He strongly urged the Attorney General to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped the Government would not resist the Amendment, and pointed out that the Vendor and Purchaser Act was passed by a Conservative Government 22 years ago. The only persons concerned in the matter

  389
  were the landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other, and both parties agreed that this would be a very useful reform. At present an unfortunate landlord was, in order to make good his title, put to the expense of hundreds of pounds, all of which went into the pockets of the solicitor, and the interest of the tenant was hung up, sometimes for a couple of years, while the landlord was engaged in that process.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDpointed out that the Vendor and Purchaser Act only dealt with private vendors and purchasers, and provided that the purchaser should be able to require the vendor to furnish only certain specified searches. The Government were anxious to cheapen and expedite purchase in every way possible, and, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, they would see whether anything could be done to meet his views.
  COLONEL WARINGhoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, because without it the whole of the Purchase Clauses might just as well be put in the waste-paper basket.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Amendment only appeared on the Paper that morning, and therefore they had not had time to consider it fully. If they found it was possible to accept it they would do so.
  MR. KNOX,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said that, unless the change he suggested were made, a landlord would be wise not to avail himself of the procedure under the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  Motion made, "That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid he did not think the intending selling landlord would be in the least encouraged by this clause. When they wanted to ascertain what was to happen when the money was not being lodged in Court, they found that the clause was really one which legislated by reference. The clause pro-
  390
  vided that the money, when lodged in Court, was to be dealt with under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858; he presumed the reference was to Clause 70 of that Act, and Clause 70 referred to two different Acts passed 10 and 11 years before the Act of 1858. He thought the Government ought to make it perfectly clear what they meant by this clause, and what were the prospects of the landlord who agreed to sell to the tenant under circumstances that made him doubt that he was capable of proving his title. Under the clause the purchase money for the holding was to be paid into Court, where it was to remain until title to the land had been inquired into. What he desired to know was what amount of interest, if any, was to be paid pending this inquiry into the title of the landlord. The landlord had entered into an agreement under which he was to get the purchase money in a lump sum, and, the money having been paid into Court, the Land Court absolved the tenant from his share of liability under the agreement. The question in these circumstances was what interest was the landlord to receive upon his own money which was locked up pending the inquiry into his title. It was said that the clause was not to operate in cases where the landlord's title was clear, but in that case the operation of the clause would be to deter any landlord whose title was open to the slightest doubt from entering into any agreement with his tenant for the sale to him of his holding. It was important that this point should be completely cleared up, because in the vast number of cases the title to land in Ireland was open to doubt. Unless he got a satisfactory answer from the Government upon this point he should be compelled to divide upon the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL WARINGsaid that he did not think that the title to land in Ireland was so much open to doubt as that when lawyers got hold of titles they always raised difficulties about them. Before a man could be said to have a good title he must show that every charge upon his estate since 1703 had been satisfied and cleared off. ["Hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the answer to the question whether any, and if so, what interest would be paid upon the purchase money paid into Court in respect of a holding during the period occupied in investigating the doubtful title of a landlord, would really depend upon whether the Amendment which had been adopted by the Committee early in the day was to form part of the Bill finally or not. If it did, then the interest paid on the money so lodged would be 2¾ per cent., whereas if the money were merely lodged in Court as a security in place of the land, the interest paid would be that which the money fetched.
  SIR. J. COLOMBsaid that he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation of the matter that he had given, and which he was glad to have elicited from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 26,—

  FRAMING OF AND DISPENSING WITH VEST ING ORDER AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE ON PURCHASE.
  (1.) The Land Commission shall prepare the vesting order, or, if they see fit to dispense therewith, shall fiat the agreement for the purchase of the holding, subject to such conditions, exceptions, and modifications as they they think necessary; and, on the advance being paid into the High Court, such fiat shall have effect as if it were a, vesting order made by the Commission in relation to the holding purchased, and the provisions of this Act referring to vesting orders shall apply and be construed accordingly.
  (2.) The Land Commission shall, immediately after the vesting order or fiat, prepare and transmit to the registering authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, the prescribed particulars as to the holding, in order that the title of the purchaser to the ownership of the fee simple of the holding may he registered pursuant to that Act, and on such registration the registering authority shall transmit the land certificate to the Land Commission, to he held by them until the advance has been repaid.
  (3.) Section thirty-four of the said Act (which relates to the correction and rectification of the register) shall extend to a vesting order or fiat as if it were the register.
  (4.) An agreement for purchase, a vesting order, or fiat, shall not operate to convert the interest of the purchaser into real estate.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out all the words after the words "registered pursuant to that Act" in sub-section (2). It was sought to introduce the words of the Amendment into the Bill to make it read in connection with the Registration of Title (Ireland) Act. This was an excellent Act, but it had been destroyed by the way it had been administered in Ireland. It was said that "God sends meat and the Devil sends cooks." The House might pass good legislation, but it was spoiled by the way it was administered. The object of the Registration of Title Act was to save law costs, but the moment the Act was passed the registration authorities in Ireland instead of trying to make it workable conceived it to be their duty to place every conceivable obstacle in its war. The first act of the Irish Land Commission was to make a rule absolutely nullifying the whole Act. Under the Registration of Title Act a man's title was proved by the production of his land certificate instead of a sheaf of title deeds, but the Land Commission impounded this certificate, so that if a tenant purchaser wanted an advance from a bank he had to give the bank a legal mortgage. He could not conceive what could be the object of the Land Commission. It could not be prejudiced by the tenant having possession of the land certificate. The Government proposed to give legal sanction to this extraordinary proceeding, and provide by express legal enactment that the certificate should be held until the advance was paid off. If the Committee accepted the proposal of the Bill they might as well repeal the Registration of Title Act at once, because the effect of this Bill was that until the Land Commission advance was paid off the Registration of Title Act would not affect any tenant purchaser.
  MR. KNOXtrusted the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment. The Registration of Title Act was an excellent Act, carefully drawn by Mr. Justice Madden when Attorney General. But it had been killed by the absurd rule made by the Land Commission; secondly, by the gross inattention to their duty of the Land Commission in performing the statutory duty of seeing that the tenants who had already bought

  393
  their land should have their titles registered free of charge; thirdly, by the way the Land Commission were treated by the Treasury; and fourthly, the inattention of the clerks of the Crown. If the Registration of Title Act was not to be properly carried out, let it be repealed at once. If the Laud Commission imagined that if they allowed the land certificate to remain in the Hands of the tenant, there might he some danger to the advance that was absurd. The bonâ fide purchaser would know that the advance was on the face of the certificate, and that that would be full notice to everybody. Everybody knew what these things were, and that the first charge on the, holding was the charge to the Land Commission.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid these Amendments dealt almost entirely with administrative details. They were put down at short notice, and without having an opportunity of considering them he had difficulty in accepting or refusing to accept them. The present Amendment was only placed on the Paper that morning, and it had been impossible to communicate with the Department which it concerned. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw the Amendment for the present, that he might communicate with The Land Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALYtrusted that when the Attorney General had communicated with the Land Commission he would express his opinion irrespective of the Land Commission, and not take a merely Departmental view of his position as Attorney General. The Commission had acted absolutely in repeal of an Act of Parliament. It was "a congested district of folly" in a great many respects.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that any decision the Government might come to would be on their own responsibility. But it was only fair the Government should have proper materials for a decision. While he was grateful to the Committee for the business-like way in which the discussion had been conducted, he was a little alarmed at its slowness. He was anxious that full time should be given
  394
  to the discussion of Clause 4, and he hoped he should not be going beyond his province in asking for expedition.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked whether Clause 4 would be taken and the Committee stage of the Bill finished to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that that was the hope of the Government.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYintimated that he would withdraw his Amendment. He hoped the Attorney General would give personal attention to the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27,—

  AS TO REDEMPTION OR APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUITIES, RENT-CHARGES, ETC., UNDER 50 & 51 VICT., c. 33, S.S. 15, 16.
  (1.) For the purpose of the distribution of, or other dealing with, an advance paid into the High Court under this Act, sections fifteen and sixteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and any other unrepealed enactment in the Land Purchase Acts, or this Act, relating to the redemption or apportionment of charges on holdings or otherwise to the distribution of the purchase money of a holding, shall apply as if the High Court were the Land Commission and the money paid into that Court were the holding.
  (2.) Where any annuity, rentcharge, or rent, ordered under the said sections to be redeemed is subject to any incumbrance as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the High Court shall have the same power in relation to that incumbrance under the said section fifteen as that Court would have if the incumbrance were charged upon the land sold.
  (3.) For the purpose of an agreement respecting the redemption juice of any annuity, rent-charge, or rent apportioned under the said section sixteen, the High Court may determine the parties by whom such agreement may be made or by whom the consent may be given for the determination of the price by the High Court.
  (4.) The said sections as amended by this section shall apply to any contingent liability for any annuity, rentcharge, or rent, in like manner as they apply to the annuity, rent-charge, or rent itself, and where any contingent liability has no appreciable value, the money may be distributed without regard to such liability.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDE MR. DENIS KILBRIDE (Galway, N.) moved to insert at the end of the clause:—
  "(5) That the twentieth section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, he retrospective, and apply to the reversion expectant on the termination of any lease."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Amendment, which only appeared on the Paper that morning, raised the most peculiar, the most complicated, and the most uninviting question that could be raised in connection with the subject of Irish land. He would, however, consider the matter before Report, and see whether the intention of the hon. Member could be carried out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28,—

  AS TO THE EASEMENTS, ETC., WHEN VESTING ORDER IS MADE.
  (1.) A holding vested in a purchaser by a vesting order under this Act shall continue to have appurtenant thereto and to he subject to, as the case may he, any previously existing easements, rights, and appurtenances; and any privilege previously in fact enjoyed, whether by permission of the landlord or otherwise, in such manner and for such time that, if the holding had belonged to a different owner from the rest of the estate, it would have been an easement or right, shall be an easement or right within the meaning of this section, and shall he appurtenant to or exercisable over the holding, as the case may he.
  (2.) The vesting order may, if the Land Commission think fit, declare that the sale is made subject to or free from any particular easement, right, or appurtenance, and such declaration shall have full effect.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 29,—

  LIABILITY OF ARREARS OF RENT, AND INTEREST ON PURCHASE MONEY AFTER AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE.
  (1.) Where an agreement for the purchase of a holding is made after the commencement of this Act, and the Land Commission make an advance for such purchase, the purchaser shall be discharged from all liability to the vendor in respect of any liabilities affecting the holding at the date of the agreement, including all rent
  396
  and arrears existing between the landlord and the tenant; but if the advance is refused the agreement shall be void, and the tenant shall be liable to pay rent as if the agreement had not been made.
  (2.) Interest at the rate agreed on, or if no rate is agreed on, at the rate of four per cent. per annum, on the purchase money from the date of the said agreement until the day from which the purchase-annuity begins, shall be payable half-yearly on the first day of May and first day of November by the purchaser, and shall be paid to, and be collected and recoverable by, the Land Commission, in like manner as if it were an instalment of the purchase annuity charged upon the holding, and when received by them shall be paid to the person in receipt of the rent at the date of the agreement or such other person as may prove himself to be entitled thereto, and if the advance is refused, shall be allowed by the landlord to the tenant as a payment on account of rent.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to move the omission of Sub-section (1).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I doubt if this Amendment is in order. If the first sub-section were omitted, the second sub-section could not stand alone, as it depends upon the first. The proper course for the hon. Member would be to move to omit the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will move to omit "Where," the first word of the sub-section.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That will not do, because the remainder of the sub-section will not make sense.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will move to omit "Where" in order to insert "In the case of." I do it pro forma, in order to call attention to a personal grievance, because of the way the Government have acted in regard to this clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman moves that Amendment he will have to confine himself to the distinction between "Where" and "In the case of." [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman cannot move to omit a word at the beginning of the clause in order to discuss the clause as a whole. The proper time for discussing the clause as a whole is when the clause as a whole is put.
  MR. T. M. HEALYintimated that he would move the first of a series of Amendments which his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had upon the Paper. It was to leave out the word "make" ("the Land Commission make"), and

  397
  to insert instead thereof the words "have sanctioned." When the Land Purchase Act of 1888 was before the House, the Government accepted from him an Amendment of the most valuable kind for the tenant, requiring that an order should be made by the Land Commission whenever an agreement to purchase was made. At the time when the Amendment was under consideration a member of the Land Commission—he would not mention the name—was sitting under the clock, and there was great tooing and froing between the Treasury Bench and under the clock, for it seemed this gentleman wanted to resist the Amendment on the ground that it would impose a little extra trouble on the Land Commission. The Amendment, however, was accepted, but the influence of the gentleman of the Land Commission was again apparent in the clause. Those gentlemen would like to have slipped through Parliament a provision which, while highly detrimental to the tenant, would excuse them from making an order in every case of an agreement to purchase being arranged between a landlord and a tenant. He, as one of the laziest men in the world, sympathised with anyone who wished to get out of doing anything, but he could not let this pass.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the clause as a whole which, as I have said, cannot be done. He will have an opportunity of discussing the clause as a whole when the clause as a whole is put.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he, of course, submitted to the ruling, but he thought it was no use in making a general protest when the clause was put. What he wanted was to get the clause amended. He asked the Government, therefore, why they proposed to change one of the provisions of the Act of 1888 which was favourable to the tenants?
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the series of Amendments he had put down—of which this was the first—was intended to restore the law to its existing state.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the words "the landlord and the tenant," and to insert instead thereof the words "at such date."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the subsequent words from "if" to the end of the clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "from the following day prior to such refusal."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) moved to leave out the word "four" and to insert the word "three." The object of the Amendment was to reduce from four per cent. to three per cent. the rate of interest payable by the tenant in the interval between the agreement to purchase and the completion of the sale. It seemed unreasonable that the tenants should be obliged to pay a higher rate of interest than the current rate of the market. Of course the Amendment would only operate in the absence of an express agreement in the contract as to the rate of interest.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not agree to the Amendment. In the first place, during the interval the tenant would be paving less than afterwards he would have to pay by way of annuity; and over and above that objection it was clear that to insert 3 per cent. in an Act of Parliament as the normal rate of interest would practically stereotype the rate afterwards. When the landlord had to pay interest on a mortgage of his estate of 4 or 5 per cent., it seemed unreasonable that the tenant should only be paying 3 per cent. The effect would be to discourage sale by the landlord.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested to his right hon. and learned Friend that he would be on firmer ground if he proposed 3⅛ per cent., that having been laid down by the Lord Chief Baron as the legal rate of interest. Moreover, that was the rate which the Conservative Government of 1888 agreed to in connection with the Act of that year. If they examined the Commons' reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments at that time, it would be found that one reason given was that 3⅛ per cent. had

  399
  been made the subject of legal decision. Was this House now to go back on what it did eight or nine years ago? To do so would be to give the House of Lords a dangerous pull.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLaccepted the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, and, the Amendment having been withdrawn, he moved to insert 3⅛ per cent.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDdenied that the Lord Chief Baron had decided that 3⅛ per cent. was the legal interest in such cases. The decision in question was based on the circumstances of the particular case, and it was expressly recorded that in other similar cases the ordinary Court rate of interest of 4 per cent. had been allowed.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLpointed out that the Court rate of interest was fixed more than half a century ago, when the state of the money market was very different to what it was now. The Court of Chancery was very Conservative, and, unless the Legislature interfered, it would stand by its old rate. Now, Parliament was creating a new code.
  MR. GERALD BALEOURsaid it really appeared to him to be unreasonable, when they were endeavouring to facilitate sale as far as possible, to ask the landlord to be content with 3⅛ per cent. instead of 5 per cent. upon his capital. If they did that, he would of course, pro tanto, be disinclined to sell. Every difficulty they threw in the landlord's way was a difficulty in the way of sale and purchase as between landlord and tenant. Considering what they had done in the Bill to shorten the period between the date of the agreement and the advance of the purchase money, it was unreasonable of the right hon. and learned Member to insist on this Amendment. The actual gain to the tenant would be small, and the effect upon the landlord as regards inclination to sell, might be considerable.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that in a recent case in England Lord Justice Kay stated that 4 per cent. was an antiquated doctrine, and that in considering the Court rate of interest, the Court of Chancery would have regard to what money was worth in the market. Besides, if the landlord was in such a posi-
  400
  tion that he could get 4 per cent. from the tenant as long as the purchase was hanging on, it would obviously be to his interest to let the purchase negotiations drag on interminably. The rate of interest was always dependent upon whether the security was a risky one or not, and in this particular case the security was perfect. The landlord was in the same position as if his money was guaranteed by the State; he ran no risk whatever.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that the case quoted by the hon. Member was that of a particular individual who was ordered to bring money into Court. Most of the landlords in Ireland were incumbered, and the interest on incumbrances ran at 4, 4½ and possibly 5 per cent. In the interval between the time when the agreement was made and the money advanced, those landlords would be obliged to pay interest to their incumbrancers, and if the Committee obliged them to pay interest at the rate provided by the incumbrances, and at the same time prevent them from recovering from the tenant more than 4 per cent., they would be losers.
  MR. T. M. HEALYcalled the attention of the Government to an Amendment of Lord Fitzgerald, when the Bill of 1888 came from the Lords, where it was provided that the rate of interest should be calculated at 4 per cent. He quoted from "Hansard" to show that the present First Lord of the Treasury, then Chief Secretary, moved that this provision should be omitted when the Lords' Amendments came to be considered. But now, eight years afterwards, after a bargain had been made fixing the interest at 3⅛ per cent., and after the value of money had fallen practically 1 per cent., the Government proposed to raise the rate of legal interest to a higher rate than they insisted on in 1888.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was not aware of the passage to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. He thought, however, that a compromise might be come to. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, he would move to omit the words "or if no rate is agreed on, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum," the

  401
  effect of which would be to leave the rate of interest to be determined by agreement.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to omit the words, "or if no rate is agreed on, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR. J. COLOMB*SIR. J. COLOMB moved, in Sub-section (2), after the words "purchase money from," to insert the words "the gale day preceding." The object was to make the payment of interest on the purchase money run from the gale day and avoid brokers' periods.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that this was a proposal which changed the law of the tenant's letting. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, the tenant might have to pay interest on the purchase money five or six months before any purchase money was agreed upon.
  SIR. J. COLOMBdenied that this was so, because the landlord at that date would be entitled to his rent, and the rate of interest chargeable was less than that rent, and therefore to the benefit of the tenant.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the landlord and the tenant made a bargain and agreed what the amount of the purchase money was to be. An agreement was then made as to arrears, and the effect of the two agreements was to clear the tenant up to the date of the purchase agreement. The hon. Member now proposed that the tenant should not be cleared up to the date of the purchase money, but that the interest of the purchase money might go back five or six months.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2), after the words "advance is refused shall," to insert the words "unless the agreement otherwise provides." This and the next Amendment could be illustrated by a reference to a question which the Chief Secretary was asked the previous day. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about a Kerry estate, on which, two or three years ago, the tenants had entered into land purchase agreement to buy their
  402
  holdings at a certain price. All arrears had been wiped out, and further, they agreed as from the date of the agreement to pay interest on the purchase money in lieu of rent. But the agreement now broke down, not from a default of the tenants, but through some defect of the landlord's title. The whole agreement was wiped out, and the tenants were liable now for the arrears of rent as if there had been no purchase agreement made. If the purchase agreement broke down, the tenants must go back to their rents. When a landlord and tenant had come to a purchase agreement, wiping out arrears, the breakdown of the agreement ought not to throw the tenant back to his original position. He did not propose that this Amendment of the law should operate in cases where the parties expressly agreed that it should not. The provision was not to be compulsory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved in Sub-section (2) to omit the words "on account of rent," and to insert instead thereof the words "in discharge of the rent up to the date covered by the same."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDcontended that the clause as it stood would not operate unjustly. If a landlord and tenant chose to make arrangemenents in their agreement as to what was to happen if the purchase went off, their respective rights and liabilities would, of course, be regulated by those arrangements; but, in the absence of such special arrangements, if a landlord and a tenant agreed—the one to sell and the other to buy—and the agreement went off, the effect must be to remit the parties to the position which they occupied before the agreement was entered into. The proposal of the hon. Member, if carried, would be likely to deter landlords from making agreements for sale.
  MR. T. M. HEALYprotested against the change in the law which the Government sought to introduce by this clause. The clause of the Act of 1888 ought to be left as it stood. This proposed change showed the vicious enmity felt by certain land officials in Ireland against the tenantry. Those officials were

  403
  opposed to provisions that were fair to the tenant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 30,—

  ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF HOLDING SUBJECT TO A RENTCHARGE.
  Where a sale of a holding is made by a landlord to a tenant in consideration of the tenant paying a fine and engaging to pay to the vendor a rentcharge, the Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, make an advance under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act to the tenant for the purposes of such purchase of any sum not exceeding the amount of the fine payable to the landlord, subject as follows:—

  (a.) The advance shall not exceed the saleable value of the landlord's interest in the holding after deducting such sum as appears to the Land Commission to be the capital value of the rentcharge.

  (b.) The advance shall not be made where the rentcharge exceeds half the rent which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, would be a fair rent for the holding.

  (c.) An ejectment for nonpayment of rent shall not be brought in respect of the rentcharge.

  (d.) The rentcharge shall be reserved in the vesting order, but the purchase annuity shall have priority over such rentcharge.

  (e) The Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, make a further advance for the redemption of the rentcharge in like manner as for the purchase of the holding.

  (f.) Where a holding is sold under this section the powers conferred by the Land Purchase Acts and this Act for the apportionment of charges shall extend to an apportionment of charges between the purchase money and the rentcharge, and the provisions of Section 15 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, with respect to the acceptance by an incumbrancer of the purchase money in part discharge of his incumbrance shall apply as if the rent-charge were other lands within the meaning of those provisions.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 31,—

  TERMS OF REDEMPTION OF TITHE RENT- CHARGE IN CASE OF SALE.
  (1.) Where the Land Commission, in pursuance of Section 15 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, order the redemption of tithe rentcharge
  404
  at a price not less than twenty times the net amount of such tithe rentcharge, after making such deduction in respect of rates as is provided by Section 7 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 1872, the consent of the Treasury shall not be required to such redemption.
  (2.) The foregoing enactment shall not apply to any annual sum payable to the Land Commission under Section 32 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, as amended by any other Act, but the Land Commission may order the redemption of such tithe rent-charge at a sum calculated on the basis of the annual sum being for a term of forty-five years instead of fifty-two years.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 32,—

  SALE OF HOLDING BY LAND COMMISSION.
  (1.) The Land Commission, upon the sale of a holding under Section 30 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or under any power of sale, may sell the holding in lots.
  (2.) Section 15 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, as amended by this Act, shall extend to a sale of a holding by the Land Commission, as successors to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland.
  (3.) Where a holding is subject to the future payment of an annuity, and the Land Commission sell it in lots, or a portion of any such holding is required for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, for which a holding may be resumed, the Land Commission may apportion the annuity in such manner as they deem expedient.
  (4.) Where the Land Commission sell a holding, the purchase money shall be paid and distributed as if it were the purchase money of a holding sold by a landlord to a tenant.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (3), after the word "expedient," to insert—
  "or may, if they think fit, make an order discharging any such portion of the holding as aforesaid from any further liability for such annuity, or any part thereof, or any arrears thereof."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 33,—

  AMENDMENT OF 54 & 55 VICT. C. 33 S. 5 (2) (b) AS TO MONEY FOR LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  The power conferred on the Lord Lieutenant by Sub-section two of Section live of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to make regulations

  405
  for the application of the moneys therein mentioned towards the cost of providing labourers' cottages, is hereby extended to include a power to make regulations for the application of those moneys towards defraying any costs incurred at any time after the passing of the said Act of 1891 in providing such cottages.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 34,—

  SALES UNDER THE LANDED ESTATES COURT ACT.
  (1.) Where an absolute order for the sale of an estate, comprising biddings to which this section applies, has been made under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 18,8. und either a receiver has been appointed over the estate or the estate is so circumstanced that it would independently of this Act be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a.) The Land Commission shall, at the request of the Land Judge, cause the estate to he inspected, and a report 1 be made by two Commissioners respecting the estate, and the circumstances thereof, and the price at and the conditions under which the sale of the holdings to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts can properly he made.

  (b.) The Land Judge, after giving all parties, including the tenants, an opportunity of being heard, and considering the report and any offers that may he made for the purchase of the estate or any part thereof, and any other matters that may be brought before him, and the general circumstances of the estate, shall make to the person appearing to he in occupation as tenant of each holding on the estate, an offer to sell to him the fee-simple of the holding, at such price, and subject to such conditions, whether as to the payment of part of the price in cash, or as to the offer to one tenant being conditional on the acceptance by other tenants of the offers made to them within a limited time, or otherwise, as the Land Judge may consider reasonable and just, having regard to the interest of all persons interested in the estate.

  (c.) The offer shall be communicated in such manner as the Land Commission think fit to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant, and if it is accepted then, on fulfilment of the conditions, the said person shall be deemed to have agreed to purchase the holding within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and the sale shall be completed accordingly.

  (d.) If it appears to the Land Judge that the tenants of holdings on the estate to the extent of not less than three-
  406
  fourths in number and value according to the rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts, have accepted the offers under this section, he may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the ease he thinks it expedient, order that the remaining tenants or any of them shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and this section and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly: provided that such order shall not apply to any tenant if the purchase money of his holding would exceed the limitation on the amount of the advance imposed by Section 2 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, and the holding of such tenant shall not be taken into consideration in estimating the three-fourths above mentioned.

  (e.) "Whore a receiver has been appointed over part of an estate, this section shall apply to that part in like manner as if it were an estate.

  (f.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply only to holdings which are agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.

  (2.) Any person in occupation of and paying rent for a parcel of land (including the owner of an estate in occupation of a mansion-house or demesne forming part of the estate) held under a letting by the Land Judge or Receiver Judge may agree to purchase such parcel of land, and the same shall be deemed a holding and such person a tenant, and the Land Judge or Receiver Judge, as the case may he, a landlord within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts.
  (3.) At any time after an absolute order for the sale of an estate or part of an estate has been made in pursuance of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, the foregoing provisions of this section so far as they are applicable may upon the application of the owner be applied to such estate, although a receiver has not been appointed over the estate, and the estate is not so circumstanced that it would, independently of this Act, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price; provided that no advance shall he made to the owner to purchase any mansion-house or demesne forming part of the estate.
  (4.) Rules under Tart Two of this Act may be made for carrying into effect this section.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in paragraph (b) sub-section (1), after the words "fee-simple of the holding," to insert the words "and the arrears of rent then due from him in respect thereof."
  Amendment agreed to.
  COLONEL, SAUNDERSONsaid that he had always been in favour of a limited system of land purchase, but he did not think that, if the system were applied universally all ever Ireland, causing the

  407
  total disappearnce of the present class of landlords, it would lead to general prosperity and peace. He knew that some hon. Members opposite thought that an Irish landlord was incapable of any tender emotions, and even of common honesty. That view, however, was not held by everybody, and it was now admitted in many quarters that to the action of the landlords the present condition of Ireland was largely due. ["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist Members.] What was its position? The country had never before been so peaceable, nor, he believed, so prosperous. [Nationalist laughter.] Hon. Members opposite, who made broad assertions as to the unhappy condition of the Irish tenantry, never supported their statements by figures or proof of any kind. The majority of Irish landlords had maintained peaceful relations with their tenants. There were, of course, exceptions; but in those cases the strained relations were nearly always the result of the work of political agitators. On the whole, the landlords had treated their tenants reasonably; and, even in cases where fair rents had been fixed, they had generally granted reductions in bad years. If the present class of landlords were swept away and replaced by small men occupying a more or less precarious position, the peace of Ireland would be far more difficult to maintain than at present, and the rent agitation would at once begin again. These were the broad reasons why he thought that universal land purchase would not be a satisfactory thing. But the Government proposed a modified system of land purchase, because, of course, the money provided by the State was not anything like sufficient to buy out all the landlords. He could not conceive why a clause of this kind was introduced into the Bill, because it was really antagonistic to land purchase. He believed the clause would rig the market. It would bring about forced sales. Estates would be brought into the market against the will of the owner, against the will of a portion of the tenants, and against the will of the incumbrancers—the insurance companies and others who had advanced millions of money on Irish land. The sale of estates would be forced at a price to be decided by the Land Commission, without any
  408
  warning to the interested parties, and without giving an opportunity for fair competition. That was a fatal objection to the clause. If it contained an element which would enable fair competition to take place, there might not be so much objection to fit, but fair competition in the open market was removed. One portion of the tenants on an estate might disapprove of purchase. They might not want to buy. He knew of a great number of cases in which the tenants generally would rather remain as they were, and where that was the case it would throw great difficulty in the way of peaceful settlements. Another objection to the clause was that it brought in an element of compulsion. He did not know that there was any other civilised country in the world where the system of compulsion had been adopted. Why should a tenant be forced, against his will, to become the tenant of the British Government? The British Government was now not very popular with the majority of the people of Ireland in its capacity of a Government; but if the Government was made the landlords of the people, its popularity, instead of growing, would vanish altogether. He objected altogether to the principle of compulsion. As applied to the landlords he should oppose it to the bitter end, and he should oppose it equally as applied to the tenants. He had not made these observations with any desire to defeat the progress of the Bill. He was sure the House and his right hon. Friend would agree that he and his friends had not prolonged the Debate as they might have done; but, as he looked on this clause as one which would have the effect of defeating the aim and object of the Government of promoting a free sale of land in Ireland, he was bound to oppose it.
  MR. DILLON,who was frequently interrupted with cries of "Speak up!" was understood to say that, though he was a supporter of the clause, he had some misgiving as to its effect. He was very much afraid it would have the opposite effect to that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and that it would rig the land market in favour of the landlords. The hon. and gallant Member supposed that the clause would bear down the land market by withdrawing land from open competition, but he would

  409
  direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the clause only applied to estates the owners of which had parted with all right to fix a price. He did not know whether the Land Judge had acted legally, but he had assumed to himself the right to withdraw these states from the market and keep up the price. An enormous number of estates had been put into his Court for the purpose of sale, and this clause, so far from having the effect of bearing down the price of land, would, he was afraid, keep it up. He confessed that he supported the clause with some misgiving for that reason. The rights of mortgagees and landlords were guarded by every conceivable safeguard. The Land Judge had unfettered discretion to decide whether the offers made by the Land Commission were fair, and there was nothing in the clause to force the hand of the Land Judge; so that, as a matter of fact, so far as the landlords' interests were concerned, or the interests of the mortgagee, or anybody having an interest in these so-called derelict estates, they would have additional chances of parting with their interests and thereby an additional stop would be put to the falling of the price of land. The fact was that the value of land had not nearly touched bottom in these matters. Although he had been from the beginning, and still was, a consistent supporter of land sale as a settlement of the Irish land question, he had always advised the tenants to be exceedingly slow in entering into bargains for purchase while the land market was a falling market. The true way of dealing with the problem would be to compel the Land Judge to put on the market all the estates lying derelict in the Land Court. That would leave the estates to fair competition in the market. Why should they in regard to land, any more than in regard to any other commodity, when the market was dropping, introduce an artificial method by the law of the land to bear up the price? These things ought to be left to the play of the market. What he complained of was that the Irish landlords were not willing to face the market and get what they could for their land, but that an artificial system was to be adopted for the purpose of keeping up the price. He did not support the clause with enthusiasm,
  410
  because he did not expect much out of it. He liked the policy of the clause, but he could not give a vote in support of it without stating frankly that he believed, as at present drawn, the effect of the clause would be to keep up the increase in the price of land and to arrest that fall which was essential and necessary if land purchase was to be carried on upon a lasting basis. Therefore, while he was inclined to support the clause, he did so with misgivings.
  SIR J. COLOMBremarked that the object of the clause was to take away the discretion which had been vested in a High Court Judge, namely, the Landed Estates Judge, for more than a generation, and place it in the hands: of the Land Commission in regard to the price that should be accepted for land. It did even more than that. It changed the principle of an open market for land in the Incumbered Estates Court into a close market, which, to his mind, was a great danger. It also did away with the security and safeguards of the entrance of puisne incumbrances, which was one of the things which the Landed Estates Court was created to take care of. He would illustrate what the clause did. Say there was a property in the Court, and in regard to which all the preliminary conditions of this clause were fulfilled. According to this clause, the Judge had no discretion at all but to order the Land Commission to make a Report as to the terms and conditions upon which the property was to be sold from the incumbrancers, who were the real men, to the tenants. The Land Commission went down and held an inspection in order to make this Report, and the very first thing they had to bear in mind was that they did not themselves want to become landlords. They were the mere conduit-pipe to convey the property from the incumbrancers to the tenants. They must take and fix the price at the figure the tenants chose to give. It was not merely that, but the price would not be fixed according to what the bulk of the tenants agreed to give, but according to that which one-third of the tenants would give. He would state, why. The most important thing the Land Commission had to do was to safeguard the interest of the State. If, therefore, they found on an estate that, although two-thirds of the

  411
  tenants were willing to give 16 years' purchase, and that one-third would only give 10 years, they would be in this position: if they reported that the price to be given by the tenants was 16 years' purchase, they would have one-third of the tenants standing out and would have to apply the compulsory clause. That was a very serious position for the Land Commission to recommend the State to put itself in. If the Land Commission acted upon the principles they were established to carry out, and wished to safeguard the interest of the State and avoid having land thrown on their own hands, they must fix the price according to that which one-third of the tenants were willing to give, namely, 10 years' purchase, although the rest of the tenants were able and willing to give 16. He must say that he thought that was a desperate position to place the Land Commission in. He contended that this was a clause to force the price of land down to the point at which one-third of the tenants were willing to purchase. Had the Land Judge, knowing the circumstances of the case, any discretion in dealing with the matter? As he read the clause, he had not. The Land Commission would make their Report, and then the Land Judge had no alternative, and could exercise no discretion whatever, but must offer the land to each of the tenants at the price named in the Report, which, as he had shown, might be the price fixed by only one-third of the tenants. That was a very serious revolution in, and tremendous departure from, the policy that prevailed now, and which had obtained for over 40 years. He agreed it would be much more satisfactory if the property now in the hands of the Landed Estates Court could be got out of that Court, and that a fair and reasonable price, regulated by the open market, could be realised for it. He thought he had said enough to show the tremendous consequences that were likely to follow from this clause. He appreciated the motive of the Government, and he was sure the Chief Secretary was only desirous of doing what was right and fair, and that he would do nothing to injure the fair value of property in Ireland. But he should vote for the rejection of the clause on the grounds that they were sweeping
  412
  away the policy and practice that had existed for nearly 50 years of a Court that no one had complained of and that had done its work well; that they were taking away, from what remained of the Estates Court, its essence—namely, the discretion of the Judge; that they were knocking down the value of land really to the price that a third of the tenants would give for it; and that what they were doing would renew agitation in Ireland. What was going to come out of this clause was this—that on every estate where the tenant wanted to buy and it was known that the owner of the estate was heavily incumbered and had not a large margin, the tenants would withhold the rent. Then the estate would go into the Estates Court, and from that time the course was clear for the tenants, for once in Court, according to this clause, the tenants get it at their own price. Under all these circumstances he would ask his right hon. Friend whether he thought the clause ought to be passed after only 40 minutes' discussion—a clause which was revolutionary in its character, and in its aim and effect fraught with great danger.
  MR. T. M. HEALYbelieved this to be the most valuable clause for the landlords, and, therefore, if they voted against it, he should support it. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken opposed the clause on the ground of its coercion of the landlords. All he could say was that if he went to a division he should, in the words of a memorable placard which he issued at the election of 1886, "Vote for Colomb and no coercion." [Loud laughter.]
  SIR. J. COLOMBsaid he had never issued any placard, "Vote for Colomb, and no coercion" at the date named, Placards were issued without his knowledge, and he had them at once torn down.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was one statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh which he thought he ought to immediately correct. That was the statement that the policy of the Government in promoting purchase by this Bill would simply drive the present landlords out of the country. That was very far from their intention, and he would point out that, in this particular

  413
  clause, was a sub-section inserted with the view of maintaining them in the enjoyment of their houses and lands.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: That is without their property. How are they to live?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth had asked him whether, in view of all the horrible consequences he had conjured up as likely to follow from this clause, it was reasonable that the clause should be passed after 40 minutes' discussion. If he thought all those consequences were likely to follow he should have some sympathy with his hon. Friend's complaint, but he thought he could show that those consequences were not likely to follow. They were told by his hon. and gallant Friend that this was a proposal simply to rig the market, that there was no fair offer to the public, and that the price would be settled by the Land Court. His hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth, on the other hand, said the price would be settled by the tenants or by one-third of the tenants. Let them look at the facts. In the first place, this clause was not to apply to an estate which had completely passed out of the control of the landlord. An absolute order for sale must be made before the clause applied at all. Then what followed? The Land Commission was directed to inspect the estate and to report to the Judge what would be a reasonable price for the tenants to give for their holdings. And then followed this procedure:—
  "The Land Judge, after giving all parties, including the tenants, an opportunity of being heard, and considering the report and any offers that may he made for the purchase of the estate or any part thereof, and any other matters that may he brought before him, and the general circumstances of the estate, shall make to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant of each holding on the estate an offer to sell to him the fee-simple of the holding."
  Therefore, he put it to the Committee that there was every possible precaution taken that the price should not be merely fixed by the tenant or by a portion of the tenants, or even by the Land Commission, but should be a price which the Judge, having before him the Report of the Land Commission and all the circumstances, should himself fix. He could not himself see that there was the slightest danger of any undue deprecia-
  414
  tion of these properties arising from a procedure of that kind.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Are we to understand that the Land Commission are to give a report of the price that they think ought to be given, and not the price the tenants are willing to give?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly. The case is as clear as possible if my hon. Friend will look at the language of the clause:—" The Land Commission shall, at the request of the Land Judge, cause the estate to be inspected and a report to be made by two Commissioners respecting the estate and the circumstances thereof, and the price at and the conditions under which the sale of the holdings to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts can properly be made."
  SIR. J. COLOMB: That means that the tenants have agreed to the price.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid certainly not. The words were, the price at which the sale "can properly be made." His hon. Friend had said the practice of the Landed Estates Court was one of which no complaint had been made up to the present time, but Judge Monroe, in a charge delivered some five or six years ago, stated that the expensive procedure of the Court was eating into the very vitals of the property. ["Hear, hear!"] Quite apart from the advantage gained to the best interests of Ireland in transferring their holdings to the tenants, some provision which would put an end to a state of things under which the Landed Estates Court had developed into a huge machine for the collection of rents was earnestly required. [Nationalist cheers.] He would like to point out the immense advantages which would be derived from this clause if it were passed into law. In the first place, they would undoubtedly give an enormous stimulus and impetus to purchase; in the second place, they would relieve the congestion in the Landed Estates Court; and, in the third place, they would be doing away with a system under which estates, instead of being under the control of those who owned them, were simply under the control of receivers, who practically had no interest, or very little interest, in the proper management of them. He earnestly commended the clause to the favourable vote of the

  415
  Committee. He thought himself that it was the most important clause of the Bill, and certainly it was one which he himself was prepared to abide by. ["Hear!"]
  Question put, "That Clause 34, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 42.—(Division List, No. 344.)
  And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS [EXCISE DUTY].
Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
Resolution reported:—
"That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to make Advances, not exceeding £500,000 at any one time, under any Act of the present Session to facilitate the construction of Railways in Ireland, and for that purpose to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners the sums that may be required, such sums to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."
Resolution agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion that Supply be put down for Friday,
MR. T. M. HEALYasked what Supply would be taken, and whether there was any truth in the rumour that Government did not intend to take the Education Vote on that day?
MR. DILLONinquired what arrangements were proposed for the consideration of the remaining Irish Votes?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid there was no truth in the rumour to which reference had been made. As to the taking of the remaining Irish Votes, he reminded hon. Members that he had given four nights to Irish Supply. He hoped, therefore, hon. Gentlemen would make some effort to get through the Votes which remained.
Committee of Supply accordingly deferred till Friday.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Friday.
MILITARY WORKS [MONEY].
Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
FINANCE BILL.
Third Reading deferred morrow.
TRUCK BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock.