HC Deb 18 April 1902 vol 106 cc759-72
(12.25) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E,)

said the object of the Motion he rose to move was to annul Order 1 in the new rules of the Purchase Department of the Irish Land Commission which were published on the 17th of March last. Order I was an addition to Order 14 of the main body of the rules, and provided that if the Commission were otherwise satisfied as to security for the advance and that the purchaser was in exclusive occupation of the holding it might either dispense with inspection or limit it as it thought fit. Rule 14 which was published in March, 1897, after the passing of the Land Act of 1896, provided that in every case of an agreement to purchase the application should be referred to an inspector or one of the assistant commissioners to report as to the security for the advance, and on such other matters as to the Land Commission might direct, and in such form as it might nom time to time direct. That was the present procedure. When a landlord and his tenants had by negotiation agreed upon sale and purchase the application for the advance came before the Land Commission, and was referred to a skilled inspector, who, acting under a memorandum of directions, visited each holding, and reported to the Land Commission whether the holding was or was not full security for the advance, and whether the intending purchaser was bona fide and in full occupation of his holding. Great abuses had frequently been detected, as, for instance, a thoroughly insolvent tenant borrowing stock for the inspection, or in other ways attempting to deceive the inspector. The object of that machinery was to secure the State against fraud and consequent loss, and the reason why the addition to the rule was of such importance was because one of the arguments used the other day with great force by the Chief Secretary himself in favour of the continuation of the policy of land purchase was the security of the transaction and the safety of the State from loss. How was that security achieved? It was achieved to a great extent by the process of inspection to which he had referred, and to the care of the Land Commission in making advances. As a result of their inspectors' reports, the Land Commission in an enormous number of cases refused altogether to make advances or cut down the amount of the advances, when they found that a tenant under pressure by his landlord by threat of eviction or other means had been induced to sign of agreement for purchase for a sum greater than the, value of his holding. The security of the State was safeguarded by the tenants interest in the holding. If he applied for an advance sufficient to buy out at a fair value the landlords interest, then his interest was an ample margin for the State. In many cases, owing to illegitimate pressure, a tenant signed an application for an advance, covering not only the whole of the landlord's interest, but the whole of the tenant's interest also. The result was that he was asking for the full value of the holding, with the effect that the whole system of land purchase was seriously endangered.

He (Mr. Dillon) confessed that he was more interested in the maintenance of this practice from the point of view of the protection of the tenant against illegitimate pressure. What happened was that hundreds of times every year the tenant was squeezed by illegitimate pressure in regard to arrears to sign an agreement for purchase at a value greatly in excess of the true value. He was a believer in laud purchase as the only solution of the problem. He read with immense interest a passage upon I this point from the very eloquent speech of the Chief Secretary, who stated that in regard to land purchase the State had incurred no losses and was exposed to no risk, and that out of 30,000 purchasers who were paying to the State he had no bad debts to show. The Chief Secretary stated that there was only £463 in arrear out of the total of 170,214 a year. That was a great testimony to the honesty of the Irish tenantry. He believed that not a single penny would be lost to the State so long as those purchases were honestly carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the Stats had not lost one shilling in Ireland by land purchase, and that he had no bad debts to show. There was, however, a very convenient way of clearing bad debts off, and that was by writing them off. [An HON. MEMBER: But they must show them.] But they had a peculiar way of writing off bad debts in the House of Commons. He would not pursue the point further beyond stating that in his opinion the State never would lose by honest and fairly conducted dealings in regard to land purchase. He wished to direct the attention of the House to one particular case. Under the Public Loans Works Act of 1900 there occurred the following item— J. Fitzgerald: amount of advance, £3,000; amount repaid. £200 9s. 10d.; amount written off, £2,799 10s. 2d. In the face of this he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could state that not a single shilling had been lost by land purchase.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,) Dover

Under what Act did that take place, and why does it come under public loans?

AN HON. MEMBER

And what became of the land?

MR. DILLON

said he mentioned this case because he was afraid these bad debts were being written off in the dark. This case was one in which an advance was made to Mr. Fitzgerald under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1895, which was Lord Ashbourne's Act.

MR. WYNDHAM

I alluded in my speech to the Acts of 1891 and 1896, and the figures I gave were applicable to those Acts.

MR. DILLON

said he did not think that really touched the force of his argument.

MR. WYNDHAM

But it affects the accuracy of my statement.

MR. DILLON

said he would not pursue the point, although the Chief Secretary distinctly stated that the State had incurred no loss in consequence of land purchase in Ireland. He had no desire to press the matter any further because it did not affect in the least his argument, which vas intended to show the danger of loosening the system under which money was advanced. What was the nature of this transaction? Mr. Fitzgerald obtained an advance of £3,000 to purchase his holding of sixty-six acres in the County of Cork from his own mother. It was abundantly evident that the mother and son had conspired together to sell this holding for vastly more than its proper value. When the holding ran into arrears and the Land Commission took it up, the Commissioners were obliged to pay £149 arrears for headrent. This holding, which had originally been let for £150 per annum to Fitzgerald, was afterwards let upon a lease of twenty years, at a rent of £58. That was only one-third of the rent, and that was the basis upon which it had been sold by Mrs. Fitzgerald to her son. In this case it was not an example of pressure being placed upon the tenant, but an instance of collusion, and the result was that a great loss fell upon the State, and the whole system of land purchase was thus discredited. He would content himself by referring hon. Members who were interested in the subject to page 6 of the "Supplementary Volume of the Fry Commission." It was a kind of bible for the Irish landlords, and they were perpetually referring to it. He sat and listened to the whole thing, and it was like a nightmare when he thought of it. There was a great deal of information in it. It contained a list of about 150 cases of farms on which advances had been made, and which were in the hands, at that time, of the Land Commission solicitor, to recover the money if he could for the State. [The hon. Member then proceeded to quote some of the cases.]

MR. WYNDHAM

Are these not cases under the Church Act?

MR. DILLON

How could they be under the Church Act? How could the Marquess of Waterford sell under the Church Act? The Church Act only dealt with church lands and glebe lands. His own recollection was that they were sales under the Act of 1881 or the Act of 1885. What happened was an illustration of the great abuse that arose from undue pressure being put on that tenant to give an excessive price. The Marquess of Waterford got, of course, as the landlord always did, his price for the holdings. When the tenant proprietors fell into arrears with their payments the holdings were put up for sale, and the Marquess of Waterford himself offered for them. There were many more cases in the Return from which he gave these illustrations. The Marquess of Waterford, by putting pressure on the the tenants, obtained from them an agreement to buy at an excessive price, and, having pocketed the price, he got back his holdings.

MR. WYNDHAM

Was there any liability on the holdings?

MR. DILLON

Certainly there was the liability to pay the estate. He should like to know how many English landlords could borrow at 2½ per cent. If all English landlords were allowed to borrow from the state at that rate the national debt would be doubled. The result of this operation was that the Marquis of Waterford was able to affect a loan from the State of this money which was intended to transfer the land to the tenants, and to give them the land back. In another case, on the estate of the Marquess of Waterford, £3,744 was advanced on one farm, which was afterwards sold to the Marquess of Waterford for £233. On the Marquess of Londonderry's estate, a tenant received an advance of £900 on his farm, but when it was afterwards put up for sale for arrears there were no bidders. In other words, on the Marquess of Londonderry's estate, in the heart of Down, a sale was boycotted. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would proclaim the district immediately. Those were important facts, and facts which ought to impress the House with the necessity of not allowing the one protection which existed against proceedings of the character he had described to be relaxed. In the early days of the Land Commission, the inspection was not so strict, and Mr. Fitzgerald, and other gentlemen were able to obtain advances, but since 1896 it had been more detailed. The excellent effect which inspection produced, and its results in reducing prices in many instances, had been a favourite bogey of the Irish landlord, against which they poured a stream of abuse, and characterised as an intolerable grievance. It was no grievance, but an absolute necessity, for the purpose of protecting both the tenant and the State, as well as the future of the whole system of land purchase, and instead of the system of inspection being loosened, it should be made more and more stringent. There was another abuse which ought to be stopped, and that was the system of relatives selling holdings to each other. It was a common practice for a father to put a son in possession of a holding, no real rent passed, and the tenancy was a bogus one. Then the father and son applied to the Land Commission for an advance of £3,000 or £4,000 to buy the farm. The whole thing was bogus but it was done constantly in Ireland, and was a gross abuse of the whole system, and was dangerous to the future of land purchase in Ireland. For many years the landlords had been extremely hostile to the system of inspection, naturally perhaps, because, of course, it interfered with the operation of working up the price of farms. They did their very best to get the whole system broken up before the Fry Commission. At page 37 of the main volume of the Commission, the question of inspection before sale was dealt with. The Fry Commission absolutely refused to recommend the abolition of the system. What they said was that they approved of the suggestion which had been made by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, that a landlord ought to be enabled on a payment of a fee to have an inspection before agreeing to sell, in order that he might know what advance the Land Commission would sanction, but there was no word of doing away with or limiting inspection. The law could now be set aside by open application and on cause shown. It was set aside, in his opinion quite rightly, in the case of the Dillon estate, on the application of the Congested Districts Board. Inspection was part of the regular procedure, and if it were done away with the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to get up again and say that the State had no bad debts to show.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

formally seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented His Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to annul Order I. (Inspection of holdings.)"—(Mr. Dillon.)

(12.50.) MR. WYNDHAM

Since I studied the Irish Land question I have come to the view and I have expressed the view that compulsory purchase, apart altogether from its justice or its financial feasibility, would be a mechanical impossibility, and I think the speech to which we have just listened must have convinced even the hon. Member for South Tyrone that that is the case, because if the question of purchase is to be approached in the spirit exhibited in that speech it must be clear to any man that administrative and judicial difficulties would be piled one on another to a point which must make the whole edifice collapse. At this late hour I will put forward only one or two general propositions in a very few sentences, but I must be allowed to reply—and I would beg the Press, if I may make that appeal, to report what I am going to say—to the attack made by the hon. Member on the testimony which I paid, in a speech the other day, to the punctuality with which tenants in Ireland have repaid their debts, and to the solvency of the whole scheme of land purchase in Ireland. I stand by every word I then said, and I ask the House to take those words as I gave them. I said that there had been no loss to the State over land purchase. That is true. But I did not mean in that general statement to say that no man during the course of thirty-two years had ever become a bankrupt. What I said was that the State had not lost a penny, and had made money, and in a great financial operation of that kind it was wise that there should be such a margin as to safeguard the Treasury from the risk of loss. I said then, and I repeat to-night that there has been no loss, even if we include the earlier Acts before we understood the business as well as we now understand it. Even under the operation of these Acts, from which the hon. Member culled the cases he alluded to this evening, during the thirty-two years of land purchase there has been no loss. I went on to say the other night that there was no risk of loss, and in support of that separate statement I introduced the operation of the Acts of 1891 and 1896, and I said that under these two Acts, out of a body of, I think, 30,000 tenants paying to the State in round figures £170,000, only one man was eighteen months in arrears. That was a true statement which I adhere to. It was an illustration of my general argument proving my second proposition, namely, that there was no risk. It is not a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of actual knowledge. Therefore, the statement I made stands until some better argument can be adduced against it than has been advanced this evening. I have thought it necessary to say that because I think the parade of figures adduced by the hon. Member might lead those not familiar with the subject to suppose that I overstated my case when I introduced the Land Bill. I did not overstate my case, which stands exactly as it did then.

Now let me come to the general view put forward by the hon. Member, if we are to inquire seriously into every bargain made between landlord and tenant; if in inquiring into every such bargain we are to consider not the interests of the State but the judicial rights which may appertain to one or the other, then of course you can never have compulsory purchase, and you cannot have even voluntary purchase at any greater pace than that which is going on at the present time, and which has been complained of time after time. There has hardly been a day since I was Chief Secretary for Ireland upon which I have not been asked one question and sometimes two or three questions as to why certain sales have not proceeded more rapidly, and my answers have generally been that the delay was owing to these constant inspections. I know that has been the character of the bulk of my answers and the delay has not been due to any remissness on the part of the Government.

There are various questions which of necessity must arise, and if you trust these tribunals at all you must trust them when they say that a particular bargain is a safe one for the State. The existing rule is not an Act of this House. It is simply one of the rules which fill 1,200 page; complied by the Land Commission. Day after day Nationalist Members have called attention to the difficulty of carrying out these rules owing to their complicated nature, and when at last, in response to appeals put forward week after week and month after month in this House, the Land Commission attempt to simplify that procedure, then they are called to book and told that they must not alter even a word or a comma in this wonderful rule or any of the rules which fill up those 1,200 pages, or by so, doing they contend that we shall imperil the whole fabric of land purchase in Ireland. If we are to proceed in this spirit, we shall certainly get to the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. If you give the Commissioners no room for elasticity, you cannot promote land purchase except at a snail's pace. Look at this freedom of action which the Land Commission asks for. I will not say what a fair rent is, because; I do not believe than anybody knows, but certainly fair rents are fixed with the view that the tenant may be expected; to pay it for fifteen years, and if purchase takes place, except in examples so rare that we may dismiss them altogether, the purchase instalment is not to be higher, but in almost every case lower than the rent. Are you going to tell the Land Commission that when rents have been fixed for the second time at a huge cost to the State, and after a vast amount of time has been spent upon the process by a machinery that is cumbrous, that there is to be a further inspection. If that is the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo, then I say that land purchase in Ireland is an impossibility.

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

said that if he thought it necessary to intervene in the debate for a couple of minutes, he had a perfect right to do so. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members ought to remember that this was the only opportunity under the Rules of the House which they would have of raising this question. He would say at once that in his opinion he thought the hon. Member for East Mayo had raised a serious question, but the speech which the hon. Member had made upon was of a still more serious character. He did not think it would be safe to part altogether with the inspection of holdings, He thought the British tax-payer had a right to look at this matter straight in the face, and he was afraid that land purchase might be utterly discredited if the thing was allowed to proceed without let or hindrance, simply upon an agreement between landlord and tenant. He submitted that there was a real danger in this matter. He was in a difficult position, because he saw the force of the Chief Secretary's remarks, that after rents had been fixed a second time, there was less if anything to be said for inspection. This was a great difficulty, and it was one upon which he was very reluctant to give an opinion. He thought the hon. Member for East Mayo had made a statement which went a long way to prejudice the cause which they all had so much at heart.

He would pass by the Fitzgerald case, and take the case of purchase by the Marquess of Waterford, which had been raised by the hon. Member. He did not care whether the land was sold under the Act of 1881 or 1885. In certain cases the tenants became bankrupt and at the sale of the tenant's interest in the holding the Marquess of Waterford purchased the farm and became the owner subject to the liability to the State, and that was material because it was a question of the risk to the State. He understood the hon. Member was arguing the question of the danger of loss to the State, but really and truly the Marquess of Waterford was as good a security to the State as any other purchaser. He was very much afraid that the House and the public would be misled by what the hon. Member had said. He spoke as a sincere friend of land purchase, for in land purchase he saw the only way out of the Irish difficulty; therefore he was very jealous of anything being said that would tend to discredit the system which he believed was the only way out of this Irish mess. He agreed with the statement that the State even in these cases where the holdings had reverted to the landowner had lost nothing. He believed the right hon. Gentleman covered the whole period when he said there had been no loss. But he had been tinder the necessity of consulting the right hon. Gentleman's speech again and he found that he was simply referring in that statement to 30,000 purchasers, whilst there had been 60,000 purchasers. The Fitzgerald case had been cited to prove that there was risk of loss, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman was quite right in bringing it forward He had not got an answer to the question which he asked in regard to that case. What had become of the Fitzgerald land?

MR. WYNDHAM

replied, but his answer was inaudible in the gallery.

* MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that one thing that he wanted to be clear about was that this case had not resulted in a loss where a mistake had been made. The land was a valuable asset. He did not believe that even in the Fitzgerald case there would be real loss in the end. His hon. friend the Member for East Mayo had raised a serious question, and the Chief Secretary ought to face it and take it into consideration. It was all very well to say that the Land Commission must have a free hand, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that there was not public confidence in the Land Commission. Successive Governments had been entirely to blame for that. The Land Commission was at first appointed to represent all the parties to this question. It had no pretension to do that now. He must say that to allow the Land Commission to stop inspection in cases where it saw fit was going a long way indeed, and involved serious risk to the British taxpayers. He hoped the hon. Member would not proceed to a division. The discussion would do great good. He was concerned only for the cause of land purchase. He did not see why the Chief Secretary should have brought the question of compulsory sale into the argument. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman did not believe in it. But he had been long enough in the House to know that what the nation demanded, when not prejudicial to Great Britain, the nation would carrry.

Question put.

(1.9.) The House divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 122.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Galloway, William Johnson More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby (Linc.) Morrison, James Archibald
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Mount, William Arthur
Bain, Colonel James Hubert Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Guthrie, Walter Murray Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hain, Edward Nicholson, William Graham
Banbury, Frederick George Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x Parker, Gilbert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nder'y Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Bignold, Arthur Hare, Thomas Leigh Penn, John
Bond, Edward Harris, Frederick Leverton Purvis, Robert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hay, Hon. Claude George Randles, John S.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Rankin, Sir James
Brotherton, Edward Allen Helder, Augustus Remnant, James Farquharson
Bull, William James Henderson, Alexander Renwick, George
Butcher, John George Hogg, Lindsay Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cautley, Henry Strother Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshi'e Johnston, William (Belfast) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Knowles, Lees Russell, T. W.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm. Law, Andrew Bonar Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Smith, Abel J. H. (Hertford. E.)
Chapman, Edward Lawson, John Grant Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Charrington, Spencer Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Clive, Captain Percy A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Compton, Lord Alwyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lonsdale, John Brownlee Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Cranborne, Viscount Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Valentia, Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Davies, Sir Haratio D (Chatham Lucas, Reginald J. (Postsmouth Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dickson, Charles Scott Macdona, John Cumming Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dorington, Sir John Edward MacIver, David (Liverpool) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Maconochie, A. W. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Duke, Henry Edward M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin M'Calmont, Col. H L B (Cambs. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Martin, Richard Biddulph Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mitchell William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fisher, William Hayes Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Flower, Ernest Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Helme, Norval Watson O'Malley, William
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Mara, James
Asher, Alexander Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Jordan, Jeremiah Power, Patrick Joseph
Black, Alexander William Joyce, Michael Reddy, M.
Blake, Edward Kennedy, Patrick James Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Brigg, John Levy, Maurice Rigg, Richard
Caldwell, James Lundon, W. Roche, John
Charming, Francis Allston MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Runciman, Walter
Condon, Thomas Joseph Macneill, John Gordon Swift Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crean, Eugene Macveagh Jeremiah Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cremer, William Randal M'Govern, T. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Hugh, Patrick A. Soares, Ernest J.
Delany, William M'Kean, John Sullivan, Donal
Dillon, John M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Doogan, P. C. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mooney, John J. Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n N
Elibank, Master of Murphy, John Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Fenwick, Charles Nannetti, Joseph P. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Field, William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Weir, James Galloway
Flynn, James Christopher Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fuller, J. M. F. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Grant, Corrie O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.
Hammond, John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Dowd, John
Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Original Question put accordingly, I and agreed to.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Black, Alexander William Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Caldwell, James Jordan, Jeremiah O'Dowd, John
Channing, Francis Allston Joyce, Michael O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Patrick James O'Malley, William
Crean, Engene Levy, Maurice O'Mara, James
Delany, William Lundon, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dillon, John Macneill, John Gordon Swift Power, Patrick Joseph
Doogan, P. C. Macveagh, Jeremiah Reddy, M.
Elibank, Master of M'Govern, T. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Fenwick, Charles M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rigg, Richard
Ffrench, Peter M'Kean, John Roche, John
Field, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Flynn, James Christopher Mooney, John J. Sullivan, Donal
Gilhooly, James Murphy, John Weir, James Galloway
Grant, Corrie Nannetti, Joseph P.
Hammond, John Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.)
Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Nussey, Thomas Willans
Helme, Norval Watson O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
NOES.
Acland, Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Morrison, James Archibald
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fisher, William Haves Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Galloway, William Johnson Mount, William Arthur
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Gore, Hn G. R. G Ormsby (Salop Nicholson, William Graham
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Guthrie, Walter Murray Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bain, Colonel James Robert Hain, Edward Penn, John
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x Randles, John S.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Hare, Thomas Leigh Remnant, James Farquharson
Bignold, Arthur Harris, Frederick Leverton Renwick, George
Bond, Edward Hay, Hon. Claude George Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hogg, Lindsay Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Brother ton, Edward Allen Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bull, William James Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Royds, Clement Molyneux
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Johnston, William (Belfast) Russell, T. W.
Cautley, Henry Strother Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Lawson, John Grant Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Werc'r Long, Rt. Hn. Walter) Bristol, S) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Chapman, Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Charrington, Spencer Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lucas, Col. Francis Lowestoft) Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Macdona, John Cumming Warde, Colonel C. E.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge MacIver, David (Liverpool) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Cranborne, Viscount Maconochie, A. W. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Dalkeith, Earl of M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson, J. W. (Worcester'h. N.
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dickson, Charles Scott Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Dorington, Sir John Edward; Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Duke, Henry Edward Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morrell, George Herbert

Adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.