IRISH LAND BILL

HC Deb 01 July 1903 vol 124 cc1035-95

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.

Clause 21:—

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 14, to leave out the words 'one of.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'one of' stand part of the clause."

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

reminded the Committee that at midnight on Tuesday, when their proceedings were interrupted, they were discussing the position and prospects of the three gentlemen who had signified their readiness to act as Estates Commissioners under the Bill, and he was pointing out the difficulties of this matter. He had since done his best to arrive at a solution. This clause could not be considered alone; it must be considered in connection with a later clause. He had had the advantage of conferring with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even with that advantage he was not confident that he had found a solution which would commend itself to the Committee generally. He would like to define the attitude of the Government step by step. During the long conferences which preceded the introduction of the Bill, and on almost every clause he had laid the greatest stress on the administrative character of the new Commission. That the new Commission should be of an administrative character was not merely his personal opinion, it was an integral part of the policy of the Government. He could not have persuaded his right hon. friend to sanction the use of large public funds for purely executive work except upon the basis that those who administered them were to be in a very real sense executive officers, subject in matters of policy, and the economic and proper use of the funds, not only to the control of the Government, but to the criticism of the House. That placed an initial bar in the way of giving to the Estates Commissioners a tenure which would be to all intents and purposes a judicial tenure. If they had such a tenure, the fact of their salaries appearing on the Votes would not place them in the position of executive officers. He need not labour the point. He would only remind the Committee of the long discussion they had the other day on the subject of the £250,000 and the purposes for which it might be used. Nobody would ask a Judge to spend £250,000 of public money in building houses and making roads. Administrative and executive work of that kind must, of course, be subject to control and to Parliamentary criticism. He could not, consequently, accept Amendments which would impair this position. In selecting the gentlemen to exercise these duties, he turned to one who he believed would be able to assist them very largely in the matter. He would rather have kept the personal question out of the argument, but he could not help saying that in selecting Mr. Wrench he was guided by his great desire that the Bill should really confer the benefits it was intended to confer. It was, therefore, an accidental consideration that this gentleman now drew £3,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. If that were to be a bar, he would not be able to employ a gentleman who, he thought, ought to be employed. He admitted that if Mr. Wrench were to draw his salary from the Consolidated Fund there would be no Vote before the House upon which the exercise which he might make of his discretion could be investigated and discussed. It was quite fair that by some means the executive action of Mr. Wrench should be made as readily open to criticism in that House as the executive action of Mr. Finucane or Mr. Bailey. To make any change in the position of a public servant drawing £3,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund was not a matter which could be rushed hastily. It involved a good deal of conference with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did not think it possible to go further that afternoon than to say that by some means Mr. Wrench's salary should appear on the Votes. The Government adhered to the administrative basis of the Bill in respect to the Estates Commission, and to the view that the action of the members of the Commission must be open to criticism in Parliament, and that, therefore, the emoluments of each of the three gentlemen must appear in some shape or form on the Votes.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

considered the right hon. Gentleman's statement, so far as it had gone, eminently satisfactory. He wished, however, to guard himself in so far as it touched the position of Mr. Wrench. He was irreconcilably opposed to the appointment of that Gentleman, but providing he was to be only on an equality with the other Members of the Commission they must accept him as a necessary evil. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had said nothing about the equally important question of bringing the other two Commissioners to an equal status, as regarded their tenure, with Mr. Wrench. The whole question, he admitted was one of extreme delicacy, and it was very hard to debate it without knowing definitely the proposals of the Government with regard to Mr. Wrench's position. With a sincere desire to expedite the progress of the Bill, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of postponing the clause. If he were to withdraw his Amendment they would be face to face with the Amendments of the hon. Members for North Louth and South Tyrone raising the question of the status of the other Commissioners, and it would be impossible to properly debate that point without knowing what the status of Mr. Wrench was to be. Postponement of the clause might enable them to arrive at a perfectly amicable understanding in the interval and save the time of the Committee being wasted on an unreal debate.

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

considered that it was only fair that the Irish landlords should have a representative upon the Commission. Granted there was to be such a representative, he was not prepared to object to Mr. Wrench, who had had a very long experience as a Land Commissioner and was thoroughly in favour of land purchase. Mr. Wrench might have his own views as to price, but he would not block the object of the Bill. He could not join in any attack on him.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

You have attacked him yourself.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

denied that he had done so. Knowing what he did, he declared that Mr. Wrench would do his best to forward the object of the Bill. It was said that the landlords did not like him, but that was not their concern. He had heard him called "the English adventurer," but they, as the representatives of the tenants, could not object to him as the landlords' representative. He had the greatest objection to the additional members of the Commission having a status different from that of Mr. Wrench. They should have equality as administrative officials and be subject to the criticism of both Houses of Parliament. They did not want the experience of Mr. Murrough O'Brien re-enacted in the persons of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane. He might say frankly that the control which the other House could exercise would be the more effective, because there a debate could be raised on any subject free from the limitations and restrictions which the rules of the House of Commons imposed. With another Lord Lieutenant than Lord Dudley other influences might operate, and the Commission should be a free tribunal with equality of status for its members. With personal questions difficulties arose, and he was inclined to think the hon. Member for Mayo was right in suggesting the postponement of the clause.

MR. WYNDHAM

said postponement was not a practical course; the clause had been already amended, and there were great objections to negativing the clause and beginning again. Two questions had been raised—status and emolument. To insist upon equality would be to prevent the employment of a public servant who in another sphere of duty had a right to a pension. There should be liberty to obtain the services of such a man, but putting him to new work should not prejudice his remuneration. He must beg to be excused for holding that in emolument equality should not be aimed at. As Estates Commissioners they would have the same status and be equally subject to Parliamentary criticism, and he would be prepared to amend the clause in order to meet the views of hon. Members. Without pledging himself to either course he suggested that as Estates Commissioner Mr. Wrench might be paid a separate salary without pension, or the whole of his salary might be transferred from the Consolidated Funds to the Votes, but in that case special consideration would have to be given to his pension. It would be impossible to ask any man who was on the Consolidated Fund to take service on another basis without safeguarding him in the event of his conduct not meeting with the favour of Parliament and necessitating his retirement. By either of these methods Mr. Wrench, as Estates Commissioner, would have the same status as the other members, and his salary could be discussed on the Votes.

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

said he bad no solicitude about Mr. Wrench, and cared not what was done with him, but he was anxious to protect the other men. He did not attach much importance to the right of criticism, for that right in the House of Commons was dead, killed by the new rules It had been shifted to the other House, and in that lawless assembly they could raise a debate every afternoon on every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. So far as hon. Members were concerned they were shackled and muzzled and working in blinkers. Under the new rules Parliamentary criticism was dead, dead, dead. Mr. Wrench was to be one of the Estates Commissioners, but the other two Gentlemen were to hold office during pleasure. This tenure only affected the underpaid men. What did Mr. Wrench care about a debate in the House? The House might talk itself hoarse; the recurring quarter days would not be affected, he would receive his salary. Neither would it matter to him what the newspapers said. But if the—he was going to say, the humblest Peer, but that would be blasphemy, there were no humble Peers, but let the newest creation get up in the House of Lords and make an attack on Mr. Wrench, and it would mean social ostracism in Ireland, where social distinction was cared for. He would not be made a D.S.O., or K.C.B, or something of the sort, when the birthday came round. That was the power they had over these men, who were on the look-out for these mandarin's buttons and stripes. He did not want to keep open old sores, and he was content to leave him alone. He did not think it was good policy from the tenant's point of view to make these attacks on Mr. Wrench, as he would have to work with the other members of the Commission. He did not think it would be good policy to level him down. He was anxious to level the others up, which was a different position. He strongly objected to the proposal that they should allow the other two gentlemen to remain in a position not merely of financial inferiority, but of administrative inferiority. The speeches made from the Treasury Bench that this was not a Court of law were very much like the speeches that were made when the Land Act of 1881 was going through. This body of Estates Commissioner; would gradually become a Court of law. It had got large jurisdiction, and accordingly, while they would have many administrative functions, they would be addressed by solicitors and by counsel, and they would take upon themselves, rightly or wrongly, the attitude and demeanour of a tribunal. They would have to give judicial decisions. Was it right that men who had to handle 200,000,000 of money as a loan, and 12,000,000 of money as a gift, should be in a position that the House of Lords, which was the body whose members would receive most of this money, should be able to say to any of them that they held their office during pleasure? and, while he had the highest opinion of that assembly, they all knew that nothing had ever been got for Ireland unless the House of Lords were squared. They were squared on the Local Government Act, and under this Act. Was it fair—he put it to the Treasury—to make what would be the receiving assembly the critical assembly as regarded these two men, and say these two should hold their office during pleasure? As regarded this House they had no such powers of criticism as were suggested. These powers had long since been taken from them by the rules.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said he was not sure that he quite understood the drift of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. It seemed to him that he attached no importance at all to criticism in this House, and his idea of levelling up would be to put Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane on the same plane as Mr. Wrench was at present, and that the whole of them should be excluded from criticism in this House.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I never said anything of the kind.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that he was not sure that he understood the drift of the hon. and learned Member's remarks.

MR. T. M. HEALY

You understood it perfectly well. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that, of course, he would take no notice of that interruption.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I shall take some notice of your speech.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

If that were so, he certainly would object to it, because he was not one of those who thought that the whole power and value of criticism in this House had disappeared. He was in favour of levelling up in the case of salary, and in addition to that he was in favour of levelling up to this extent, that he did not think these two Commissioners should be left in the position of being removable at pleasure, but he certainly was not in favour of levelling up to the extent of putting them all on the Consolidated Fund, or anything of that sort. So far as the Chief Secretary's speech was concerned, in his view his statement in reference to Mr. Wrench was perfectly satisfactory. He had stated that in some way or other he would take precautions which would enable them to discuss Mr. Wrench's salary on the Votes in this House, just as they would be able to discuss under present conditions the salaries of the other two Commissioners. That was perfectly satisfactory, but he had not said anything whatever with reference to the tenure of these other two gentlemen. If he could give them an assurance that he would change their tenure in such a way that they would not be removable at pleasure, and that at the same time he would not change their tenure in such a way as to put them on the Consolidated Fund or remove them from criticism in this House, he would have gone a long way indeed towards removing the difficulties. As to whether it was possible to postpone this clause, the right hon. Gentleman certainly mentioned the practical difficulty in the way before the clause was passed; he thought on the second branch of the subject, on which they had had no assurance at all, they should have some further information from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. DILLON

assured the right hon. Gentleman that his proposal to postpone the clause was not motived by desire to delay, but quite the contrary. He thought he was mistaken when he said the clause could not be postponed because it was amended. This was the first Amendment, and it was perfectly competent for him to withdraw it.

*THE CHAIRMAN

There have been two Amendments.

MR. DILLON

said if that were so his proposal fell to the ground. He saw that there was extreme difficulty in discussing this all important question of the tenure of the other two when they were in the dark as to the tenure of Mr. Wrench. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was in many respects, so far as it went, very satisfactory; but what they were determined and entitled to press for was that as far as possible, consistently with the appointment, the Commissioners should be on "a level of equality as regarded status" and he should say as regarded salary too. How were they to discuss the question of equality until they had some light thrown on the status of Mr. Wrench? This was so vital a matter that it was not a question the discussion of which they could consent to postpone to the Report stage, where no one would be allowed to speak more than once. On this question of equality and the question of criticism in both Houses of Parliament, the difficulty he saw was that the House of Lords—and he fully admitted that the force of the House of Lords in this matter of criticising officials in Ireland was most pernicious and most powerful—could criticise these men no matter what their status was. The House of Lords had no rules and they could criticise them any day of the week and intimidate them so far as they desired to do it. Their object was to insist upon such a condition of status as would as far as possible protect these men against the intimidation of the House of Lords while not withdrawing them from the full criticism of the House of Commons. That was their real object, and he entirely and heartily supported the view of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that these men ought not to be dismissable at pleasure. If they were to have Mr. Wrench absolutely independent of criticism, so far as salary was concerned, what did he care whether they called him a Commissioner so long as he got £3,000 a year. If he was to be independent of criticism so far as salary went, and his two colleagues were to be dismissable, no matter how they put it on paper, he was the "boss" of the Commission and the other two men were his servants. Their position in the matter was perfectly clear. They wanted equality, and without equality he did not think that the promises of the Government and the understanding given them on the First and the Second Reading would be redeemed.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was far from complaining of the length at which they were discussing this question. It was a very difficult one. Take the phrase "at pleasure"—that occurs in the Bill—it was the phrase, he was informed, always employed in respect of all civil servants and military officers who were officers and servants of the Crown, and though it might be a somewhat shadowy theory, he believed the constitutional theory was that they defended their salaries, because if they thought they were not the proper persons they would be responsible. He thought that was the view of the responsibility of the Government. The words "at pleasure" were the words uniformly used for all these highest officials in the land.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But you removed Sir Thomas Brady without a word.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Could the right hon. Gentleman refer to a legislative document in which these words are used for the highest civil servants?

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had been informed that that was the constant phrase employed. That was his information. He believed it was a concentrated phrase. He believed that the heads of the greatest Departments, such as the Foreign Office, had this tenure. Of course they never were dismissed.

*MR HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said the Chief Secretary said they had never been dismissed. Sir Thomas Brady was dismissed because under the statute his appointment was "at pleasure," and he presented a Petition of Right which was argued at very great length before the Court of Appeal. It had been constantly exercised.

MR. WYNDHAM

dissented.

*MR. HEMPHILL

Yes, but it was so. It was a reported case, and any law officer could get it and satisfy the right hon. the Chief Secretary.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he might be pardoned from arguing about this matter. It was not a matter which came before him, but it was a matter of Treasury rules running throughout the whole of the public service. There was a certain tenure which made the person under that tenure under the control of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford invited him to find some other form of words which would keep the Estates Commissioners in an executive position with respect to their executive work, and would not turn them into Judges. He feared he could not promise to succeed in doing that. He did not know whether there was any form of words that would meet the hon. Member's objection, but what was proposed expressed part of the policy of the Government on which the Bill was founded. He would be the first to defer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth on these matters. It might be that their policy was wrong, but that was their policy. The Government had endeavoured to deal with the judicial aspects of the work by providing "that any question of law may be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner" by the Estates Commissioners. They knew that legal questions would arise. In connection with their executive and administrative work the Commissioners were not to expend large sums of money unless they were in the position of other officers who carried out work under the Government, and subject to control and criticisem. If he could find words as between the two, he would endeavour to do so, but he could not take any words which would impair that policy. He treated Mr. Wrench as an Estates Commissioner, and gave him a small additional salary. An alternative plan was to put him, with his £3,000, on the Votes and on the same tenure. He had done his best to meet a difficult position. To one thing he must adhere, and that was that the tenure of Mr. Wrench, Mr. Finucane, and Mr. Bailey was not to be judicial, but was to be a tenure making them executive officers under the Government, and responsible to the Government and this House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said this was really tinkering with phrases. What was the good of saying that a man's position was not to be a judicial position. He was to be an Estates Commissioner, and there would be no difficulty in giving him such a tenure that he would not be put out of office if he did his duty, as was done some years ago in the case of Sir Thomas Brady, who was summarily dismissed by the Treasury, it being held that he was not under Rule 65, and that there was nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant, as representing the Crown, from dismissing him. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford pretended that he could not understand the drift of his speech. His speeches were generally pretty plain. He would undertake now to make it perfectly understood by the meanest intelligence. What they desired was that these two gentlemen should have such a tenure as that the Lord Lieutenant could not dismiss them at a moment's notice, as he did in the case of Sir Thomas Brady. Where was the difficulty in providing words to fit that? He would tell the Committee what the difficulty was. The landlords wanted to have these two gentlemen under their thumb. They were perfectly satisfied that Mr. Wrench would be friend them, and they knew with regard to these other two gentlemen that, if they held office "during pleasure," one word from the Lord Lieutenant and their dismissal was assured. The right hon. Gentleman could not suggest that this matter had come upon him by surprise. It was a very long way since the debate on the Second Reading. This matter had been fully gone into. The right hon. Gentleman had managed, with great dexterity, to meet matters of greater importance. He had indicated his intention to accept one of the Amendments on the Paper. He himself did not care which one was accepted, but let them have some words that would assure these two gentlemen in the greatest office, whether judicial or non-judicial—call it X—ever yet created in Ireland. It was an office that would have to deal with the evicted tenants, transplanting, congestion in the West of Ireland, the giving out of the £12,000,000, and it would have to do with the loan of £100,000,000. In fact, these two gentlemen, who had the tenure of ordinary removables, would have to exercise during the next twenty years, if they lived, functions of intimate relation with the daily and domestic life of the country. Therefore, it was utterly impossible, so far as the Irish Members were concerned, to hail with satisfaction the appointment of this Commission, unless some solid tenure, as good as Mr. Wrench's, was given to these two gentlemen.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said it appeared to him that great and unnecessary difficulty had been made by the Chief Secretary with regard to this matter. He was not referring to Mr. Wrench's case at all. It was not desirable to make the other two Commissioners Judges in any sense of the word, or to bring them within the rule which would prevent this House criticising their conduct. He believed that rule was strictly confined to Judges of the Superior Court. County Court Judges held office on a different tenure, and he did not see any practical objection to giving these two gentlemen the same status and tenure as County Court Judges, but without calling them Judges. County Court Judges, under a recent Act regulating their appointment, now held office during good behaviour. That was a technical phrase, and when an office was created to be held during good behaviour the officer could not be removed as long as he behaved well The Superior Court Judges were remov-Able by an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. County Court Judges could be removed on certificate of the Lord Chancellor certifying to their incapacity. That certificate was laid before the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant, by order in Council, could in motu proprio at the Privy Council remove County Court Judges. He had removed one or two of them. Why not adopt that machinery, adapting it to cases of other than physical or mental incapacity, to enable these two gentlemen to hold office during good behaviour in the first instance, and have at the same time the special power of removing them on the certificate of the Lord Chancellor. That would give control over them and a check upon them. In that way Parliament could ensure that they would have a tolerable tenure of office. Nothing had so much shaken the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of the civil and criminal law as the circumstance of reposing that administration in the hands of removable officers. For human nature was always the same, and when a man had before his eyes the possibility of being dismissed and deprived of the means of livelihood, that fact might possibly go far to influence him in the discharge of his duties conscientiously as between the public and the Government.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that as far as Mr. Wrench was concerned, the Chief Secretary was prepared to bring up words that would ensure that his salary would be brought under the criticism of Parliament without interfering in any way with his tenure as an Estates Commissioner.

MR. WYNDHAM

dissented from this interpretation of what he had said.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said it came to this—that Mr. Wrench was to be levelled down to the position of security which Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey were to enjoy. This was not a question of salary so far as he was concerned. He did not question Mr. Wrench's salary in any way at all. He thought that Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey were very well paid with £2,000 a year. This was a question of tenure. Surely it did not pass the wit of man to let these two men draw their salaries and, at the same time, to secure that the salaries should be subject to the criticism of this and the other House of Parliament, and yet to provide that they should not be subject to dismissal by any Lord Lieutenant who might be in Dublin Castle in future, surrounded by landlords or ex-landlords. They should not be at the mercy of those men. That was what constituted the real difference between Ireland and other countries. They were dealing with Dublin Castle, and that was the real reason why Irish Members were anxious that the tenure of these two Commissioners should be secure. He did not wish to make them irremovables, but surely the Chief Secretary and his legal advisers could devise words which would secure them against being subject to dismissal at the mere pleasure, which might be interpreted as the mere whim, of the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. WYNDHAM

said if there was to be general control on the part of the Government over those Estates Commissioners who were to administer public money, then there must be control of an effective character.

MR. DILLON

said that they did not know where they were. The Chief Secretary had not even said that he would present an alternative; he only said that he would cast about to see if possibly he could find words, but he had not been able to find words. This was one of the most vital matters that had turned up in the whole debates. In justification of his own Amendment he insisted that the whole of this difficulty had arisen from the introduction of Mr. Wrench. He was not quite certain whether he would not be prepared to go as far as to let the whole three Commissioners be appointed with their present tenure if there was no Mr. Wrench in question. But what was intolerable was that the landlord representative, or the landlord element, on the Commission was irremovable to be beyond and above criticism, and above fear, while the other Commissioners were to be placed in a position to be removable by the Government of the day. It was all very well to talk of the small chance of their being removed. That was not the fear; it was the effect on the minds of these men that they were removable; that they were not independent men. The Chief Secretary met their criticism by saying that there would be an addition to Mr. Wrench's salary. That was good, so far as it went; but he hoped it would be a very small addition. Mr. Wrench was a gentleman who had the reputation in Ireland of spending all his time in providing for himself and his friends, and in doing no public work; and he ventured to point out that so far as the purpose of criticism was concerned a £5 note would be enough.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in addition Mr. Wrench would have to give up his title to a pension.

MR. DILLON

said they would have a word to say about pensions, the granting of which was one of the most remarkable features in recent Irish history. Mr. Wrench was to be placed in a position that he might lose £5 a year, but the other Commissioners might lose everything—their office and their salary. Was that equality? If Mr. Frederick Wrench retained his £3,000 a year and with nothing to do, nothing would please him better; and to hold out to the Irish Members the comfort that they could punish Mr. Frederick Wrench by depriving him of his work and leaving him with his salary of £3,000 a year was the most monstrous proposition ever made. That was not equality. The Committee was in a most unfair position, because they had really obtained, so far as the status of the other Commissioners was concerned, no pledge of any kind from the Chief Secretary. He believed he spoke for the whole of the Irish Party when he said that they heartily supported equality in the members of an administrative Government Board, and that that Board should be under the constant supervision of the House of Commons.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

said they had been for close on two hours waiting to see whether the right hon. Gentleman could ascertain the views of Mr. Frederick Wrench—whether that gentleman would accept this alteration of service and the new conditions in regard to salary. Having regard to the fact that they all objected to the appointment of Mr. Frederick Wrench, he would, with all respect, ask whether it was worth while occupying the time of the Committee in discussing hypothetical conditions which depended upon Mr. Frederick Wrench. The right hon. Gentleman was misinformed by his legal advisers when he said that an officer appointed during pleasure was practically irremovable. No one knew better than the Solicitor-General that Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane would only hold office subject to the whim of the Government of the day. Mr. Charles Bourke, who had been Inspector of Prisons for a great number of years, and to whom the age limit of sixty-five did not apply, was dismissed by the Chief Secretary of the day. The Land Commissioners were to be charged with purely administrative business, and it was not to be tolerated for a moment that one of them should have a tenure of office which was practically that of a superior Judge, and therefore irremovable, while the other two were to be removable at pleasure. It was quite intolerable that this gentleman should be foisted into this place against the wishes of the Irish Members, and that he should be given a different tenure from that of the other Commissioners. He agreed thoroughly with what had been said about the inefficiency of Parliamentary criticism in regard to the holders of a secure office. He had tried it in all its phases. When he entered the House Members were allowed to attack officers in the position of a Judge, but now they were not permitted to even sneeze a complaint. He would therefore be unable to approach such an austere gentleman as Mr. Frederick Wrench; that gentleman would be irremovable, and therefore his salary could not be discussed. He challenged the right hon. or any other gentleman to give an instance of a man who discharged administrative and executive duties as distinguished from judicial work, who was irremovable. Such a case did not exist. There was, he thought, a possible way out of the difficulty. There was one class of executive officers who, although they discharged executive duties, were not under the control of the Executive Government, but of the House of Commons itself. He meant the clerks at the Table of the House of Commons. These gentlemen's salaries were on the Estimates and were subject to Parliamentary criticism, but they were only removable by an Address carried in the House of Commons. If the Commissioners were made removable by an Address to the Crown by the House of Commons it would be a different thing from being removable by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland sitting in Privy Council. He wanted to keep the Commissioners from being subject to the back-door operations of some gentleman who had climbed up to Dublin Castle. If Mr. Bailey or Mr. Finucane were to be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, Mr. Wrench himself might be summoned to that Privy Council and brought under the influence of Dublin Castle. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman for the mere personal matter of the pension or no pension of one man should obstruct the business. He impressed on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the only instance of administrative and executive officers being removable was the case of the clerks of Parliament, who might be removed from the House itself. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to himself make terms for Mr. Wrench.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked the right hon. Gentleman where he proposed to move the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had stated would facilitate the change in the position of Mr. Wrench. He supposed it would be in Sub-section 3 of Clause 76.

MR. WYNDHAM

Yes.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he supposed that would be so. But he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to say anything further now to show how the change was to be brought about.

MR. WYNDHAM

said these three officers were to have the same tenure, and Mr. Wrench's salary would be determined in one of two ways—either he would come on to the Votes at £3,000 a year, in which case his pension would be considered—there was no pension now, but in one clause of the Bill there was a provision for a pension—or his salary would remain on the Consolidated Fund, and in place of a pension he could have a separate salary as an Estates Commissioner, with the same status as the other Estates Commissioners. The status was to be the same, and the only point was what was the tenure to be. He could not say more than he had already said. They must be executive officers of the Government. If they were only to be removable for inability or misbehaviour that was the tenure of a Judge of the High Court, and that was a position independent of the Government, and the Government would not be responsible unless these gentlemen were responsible to the Executive Government.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman involved this. A vote in the House of Lords against A and B—A would say I am very sorry for having quarrelled with my Peers in Parliament, and would retire on his pension, while B would slip down a hole in the ice.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the others were to have Civil Service pensions, under the Act of 1881, but by a mistake in the drafting it was not put into the clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that was a most marvellous statement. Now they found because Mr. Wrench was to get a pension Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane were to get one also. He welcomed the statement. No doubt it was a mistake in the draftsmanship, but where was the Treasury when that mistake took place? These gentlemen were not holding office under the Act of 1881, and it was absurd to say they were to have pensions under that Act. This discussion had been of some benefit, for it had, at all events, secured pensions to Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane, and if, as the result of attacks upon them in the other House, they were driven out, they would not go without a pension.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was wrong in his explanation though right in his facts. These gentlemen got a pension under the Superannuation Act of 1859.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said there was no reference to the Act of 1859 in the Bill. What they wanted to know was, was Mr. Wrench to take a pension under the Superannuation Act of 1859, or was he to be left by this Bill with a pension. The right hon. Gentleman knew them perfectly well, and knew they never gave way on a good point. They had got a good point now and would stick to it till the facts were before the country. He last night advised the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind in the few moments that remained, but he would not do so, and they had two hours discussion to-day in consequence. But the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind to this. He believed the Treasury view was that Mr. Wrench should have the other two under his thumb, but he was determined to prevent that. He would not be a party to this thing.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said there were two points in this clause, and the Government had gone wrong in both. First of all there was the question of making two different kinds of Land Commissioners. Whatever they chose to do with the Land Commissioners should be done with all three. Under the present scheme one was to be responsible only to his conscience, and the other two, who were to hold office during pleasure, were to be responsible to the Lord Lieutenant. They could not harness sheep and goats together in this way. They could only take the clause as it stood, and under the clause one of them would be master of the other two. Why the Government should have made an exceptional rule for one Commissioner, and left the other two under the other rules he did not know. What was the rule to be? Were the Commissioners to hold office during pleasure, or be practically irremovable like Judges, except on the vote of both Houses. There was a middle course which certainly would not make them as irremovable as Judges, but by which they could hold office during good behaviour.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that when he spoke of the Commissioners not receiving pensions he was interrupted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary, and referred to a subsequent clause; but it was not quite clear to him that that clause provided for pensions. They were also referred to the Act of 1859; but there was nothing in the Bill about that Act. Why should not the Government make it clear that pensions would be secured for those gentlemen? He was not quite sure that the Commissioners would find themselves very comfortable in their positions. A great deal had been said about the Commission not being a Court. He certainly did not wish them to have a judicial position; but they would be dealing with the property of the country. Further, the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the Bill had been entirely changed since it was introduced; and that the Commissioners were now vested with discretion, which it was not originally proposed they should possess. He did not wish to touch Mr. Wrench, and he did not believe his position could possibly be taken from him. Indeed, as far as he was concerned, the Government could do anything they liked as regarded Mr. Wrench; but he wished that the other two Estates Commissioners should have the same status as Mr. Wrench, and that Mr. Wrench should not have a superior status and be the consulting party at the Castle. If that were done he would be quite content.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that that was his intention.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that if the right hon. Gentleman would state that he was prepared to bring up words later which would change the position of these two Commissioners from being removable into a more stable tenure, at the same time not removing them from the cognisance of Parliament, that would meet the point. All the right hon. Gentleman had said up to the present was that he would look round and see whether it was possible to find such words, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it would be a hopeless task.

MR. WYNDHAM

said, as he understood the hon. Member for South Tyrone, his position was that although he did not approve altogether of the course which had been taken, he would be prepared to accept it if all the Estates Commissioners were given the same status. Then the hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked what that status was to be, and he said that he was not satisfied with the words of the Bill. His reply was that those gentlemen would not have a judicial status, and that he did not know of any other phrase, other than the words in the Bill, which would not give them such a status. He had, undertaken to endeavour to find words which would form a new tenure, but he did not yet know whether it would be possible. If there were a half way house between tenure at pleasure and a judicial tenure he would endeavour to find it, but beyond that he could not go.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

asked if the Committee was to understand that if there was a tenure which was a half-way house between tenure at pleasure and a judicial position, which would give those gentlemen a more stable tenure, but would not withdraw them from the cognisance of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to conduct the Committee to it?

MR. WYNDHAM

said that was his policy.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked if the Commissioners were to be on the same footing as regarded pension.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had already stated all he had to state on that point. If the £3,000 paid to Mr. Wrench were taken off the Consolidated Fund, then they would have to specially consider his case.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said the Committee had not yet been told what Mr. Wrench's present tenure was. When they knew that, all that would be necessary would be to raise the other Commissioners to the same level.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the pensions of the three Commissioners in one clause.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that if the hon. and learned Gentleman attached any importance to that, there would be no objection to it; but it should be understood that the pensions of the two Commissioners, other than Mr. Wrench, would be at Civil Service rates. He could not reopen the financial question; but he was informed by the draftsman that the tenure in the Bill did not require any explicit statement as regarded pensions.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that although the reply of the Government was not quite satisfactory, he recognised that there had been a concession. It was some concession to those gentlemen that they could not be turned out of doors without getting some solatium. For his part, he was prepared to wait until the Chief Secretary had introduced his clause. The position of Mr. Wrench was becoming extremely interesting; he seemed to be the fairy god-mother of the situation, and had already showered down pensions on Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane. What they had to do now was to concentrate their attention on Mr. Wrench's pension, and the pension Mr. Wrench would get would also have to be provided for the other Commissioners.

MR. DILLON

said he had struggled hard to get out of the difficulty, but he was bound to say that he was not satisfied with the result. The whole matter had arisen from the introduction of Mr. Wrench. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he certainly would not withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the precedents he had placed before him.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked when the right hon. Gentleman would put down his new Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it would be put down before the Report stage.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

formally moved the following Amendment—

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'Any member of the Land Commission who has been nominated or appointed as an Estates Commissioner shall not be entitled to be a member of the Congested Districts Board as the member of the Land Commission to represent forestry and agriculture.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment, because it was not necessary. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman wished to put into an Act of Parliament a provision that a distinguished public servant should be given work involving no emolument because he was discharging work to which an emolument was attached. Mr. Wrench had informed him that his work as an Estate Commissioner would not enable him to undertake other duties.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he was not aware of Mr. Wrench's action. The Chief Secretary would admit that he was not ungenerous to Mr. Wrench. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. BUTCHER (York)

said as the Bill stood the Estates Commissioners would be the servants of the Lord Lieutenant, and be subject to his orders. He proposed to leave out the words "shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant." The policy of the Commissioners ought not to be controlled by the Executive Government. They would have very large matters within their discretion, and they should bring all their mind and intelligence to bear on them without such control as was suggested, although it was quite right that their actions should be subject to discussion in this House. It was quite a different thing to say that their action should be dictated by the Lord Lieutenant of the day. It would not be right to put these men, who had to discharge most important duties, involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, under the control of the executive, with instructions to do whatever the Lord Lieutenant told them. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said it would be clearly improper to decide in essence the question which they had been debating when they had agreed to adjourn the actual decision until the Report stage. This was the old question in a new form, and he would not add anything to the argument, he had already adduced.

MR. T. M. HEALY

entirely concurred in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, but he pointed out that this proposal relieved the Chief Secretary of any difficulty in giving these gentlemen the tenure which had been suggested. With such potent words as "shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant" in the Act, he could not conceive any difficulty in providing a proper tenure for these men.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had had these words in his mind during the whole of the previous debate, and it was because he could not assent to the proposition that the words used in the case of a Judge would fit in with these words, that he could not agree that the words were applicable to the tenure of a Judge. These words expressed the policy of the Government.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

regretted the decision of the Chief Secretary. "Control" meant that the Lord Lieutenant would be able to influence the Commissioners in the way he wished them to go. What was wanted in the administration of this Department was continuity of principle uninterfered with by party exigencies on either side.

MR. BUTCHER

agreed that these Commissioners ought to have their action considered in Parliament, and that they ought not to have such a tenure that they could not be removed. What he objected to was that in carrying out the provisions of this measure they should be subject to the daily and hourly control of the Lord Lieutenant. It could not be right for the Lord Lieutenant to give directions that the Commissioners should buy a particular estate or give a certain price for it. If that were done, the Commissioners would be prejudiced in the discharge of their duty, and he was unable to see what other meaning could be placed on the words.

MR. BLAKE

said the words, when taken in conjunction with those that followed, seemed to lend themselves to some extent to the criticisms which had been made. He agreed that these gentlemen were to be executive officers, and there was no harm in making it perfectly plain that the Government were responsible for their conduct. That being so, the Government must be able in a general way to regulate the course the Commissioners should pursue, and that object was secured, not only by the tenure of office, but also by the words— Shall act in accordance with such general, regulations as may be made by the Lord Lieutenant. But when the two provisions of this sub-section were taken together, it seemed possibly to be intended that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise a daily and hourly control over the detailed performance of the work and the determinations of the Commissioners in regard to particular estates. He thought that could hardly be intended, and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman explained exactly what the words did mean.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. Member who had just spoken, having held high office in another part of the Empire, must be aware that a member of a Government could not interfere minutely from day to day in the detailed work of a great Department. These words merely meant general control and guidance, the Government being responsible for the success of the Act. The Government would not interfere in regard to a particular estate, or as to the sphere of the operations of the Commissioners. But seeing that the Government of the day would be criticised in Parliament if the hopes raised in the course of these debates were disappointed, it might be right for them to have a word as to whether the energies of the Commissioners should be directed towards dealing with congestion or some other of the objects of the measure. There was a great deal of policy in a Bill of this kind; and the Government were responsible for that policy; therefore it was necessary that they should have a general control to see that their intentions were carried out.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that in the administration of a new body with large funds at its back it would be intolerable if the Chief Secretary of the day, who would be constantly subject to criticism in Parliament, had not a directing voice. Especially would that be the case in regard to the present Chief Secretary, who was responsible for this Bill. If the measure failed to work satisfactorily, the right hon. Gentleman would be attacked on all sides, and it would be impossible for him to defend his position, unless he could say he had given the necessary directions, or something to that effect. It would be a satisfaction if the Committee could be told whether the regulations were to be prescribed, published, or submitted to Parliament. He would suggest that they should be laid on the Table of the House with power to present a prayer against them if necessary.

MR. BLAKE

said there was a great deal to be said for the position of the Chief Secretary, so long as the interference of the Executive Government was directed to the principles of action, to seeing that the Act was carried out in the spirit in which it was intended, and did not extend to the minor details of judgment, and so forth.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had not yet decided on the exact form of publication, but he agreed the regulations should come before the House in some way.

MR. BUTCHER

said that as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the control was to be merely a general control, he would withdraw his Amendment, and move the insertion of the word "general."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 32, after the word 'the' to insert the word 'general.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 34, to omit the word 'general.'"—(Mr.. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BUTCHER

said that this Act was going to work for a considerable number of years before it was worked out, and therefore he did not like the Lord Lieutenant to be able to lay down any regulations he liked. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 34, at end, to insert the words 'and such regulations shall be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

was understood to say that he had no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member, but some other form of words would be necessary if the Rules were to be laid upon the Table of the House.

MR. BUTCHER

said he much preferred that they should be laid upon the Table. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ATKINSON

said if the desire of the House was that the Rules should be laid on the Table, he would bring up a clause on Report dealing with this matter.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

said he desired to move an Amendment leaving out the words "Judicial Commissioner," and insert "said Commissioners." The Chief Secretary had already stated that he was anxious that the Bill should be worked with the greatest possible expedition, and he thought this Amendment would expedite matters. It was only fair to assume that the Estates Commissioners who would be responsible for the administrative work of the Act would be the best judges in regard to the selection of the officials to carry on their work in the most satisfactory and expeditious manner.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, lines 30 and 37, to leave out the words 'Judicial Commissioner,' and insert the words 'said Commissioners.'—(Mr. Cullinan.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Judicial Commissioner' stand part of the clause."

MR. ATKINSON

said the clause enabled the Judicial Commissioner to appoint a staff to assist the Estates Commissioners. The Judicial Commissioner was the head of the Commission and he was the person who must decide what members of the staff he could spare to be transferred from his own Department to the branch presided over by the Estates Commissioners. This Amendment would enable the outside body to strip and carry away the staff of the Judicial Commissioner against the wish or contrary to the orders of the head of that staff. That was a perfectly impossible state of things, for the Judicial Commissioner must have control over his own staff.

MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)

said he agreed that the less the Judicial Commissioner had to do with the appointment of officials the better. He did not agree that it would be better if the appointment went to the Lord Lieutenant. He did not see why any objection should be raised to the proposal to give the appointment to the Estates Commissioners themselves. The hon. Member opposite said that if they got the proper men the work would be carried out in a proper manner, but many of them did not think that the present Judicial Commissioner was the man who was likely to make the best selection and carry out the work satisfactorily to the Irish people. He strongly supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.

MR. BLAKE

pointed out that these officers would be the officers of the Commission. He did not see why the Judicial Commissioner should have the sole voice in the disposition of the staff. It seemed to him that if it was to be left to the Commissioners at all it should be left to the whole Commission to determine their officers, and then the Judicial Commissioner would have his say and the whole question would settle itself. He did not see why the Judicial Commissioner should be given this special patronage.

MR. DILLON

said that the proposal of the Government was introducing a totally new departure into the administration of the Land Commission. As far as he understood it, the Judicial Commissioner at present had no such power as was proposed, and, as a matter of fact, he did not actually deal with this matter.

MR. ATKINSON

said that the question of transferring some part of the staff elsewhere had never occurred before.

MR. DILLON

contended that the question of dealing with the staff had arisen and arose continually, and the Judicial Commissioner had no special powers of this nature. It stood to reason that if this appointment was to be left in the hands of the Commission it should remain in the hands of the whole Commission, so that the matter could be arranged in consultation with the men who were to be responsible as Estates Commissioners. Those Commissioners were to be appointed as additional members of the Commission, and if they gave this appointment to the whole body then the Estates Commissioners would have a voice in the appointment of their own officers. Was that an unreasonable thing to ask for? He thought it was an extraordinary proposal that the Judicial Commissioner should be invited to have the sole voice in appointing the staff of this new Department, and it would be a very ill omen for the new Department if the staff was appointed without giving the new Commissioners a voice in the matter. What earthly objection could the Government have to allowing these Estates Commissioners to come into the room when these matters were being settled so as to have a voice in them? Really it was a matter of very considerable importance that these officials should know at the start that the men who were to be their masters and employers and directors had had some voice in appointing them, and it might tend to impair the smooth working of the official machine at the very start if these men were to look upon the Judicial Commissioner as their sole employer.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that the proposal was that the Judicial Commissioner should have the sole power of nominating men on the staff of the Land Commission to work under the Estates Commissioners. He contended that this was not a judicial act; it ought not to be confined to the Judicial Commissioner but ought to appertain to the whole Commission. There was an additional reason for that. Two of the new Estates Commissioners had been in the service before. One was a Land Commissioner, and the other had for fifteen or sixteen years been in the service as an Assistant Legal Commissioner. Consequently they knew all the men who had been doing this work and their capabilities. It was no use putting too fine a point upon this question. They were not living in a foreign country. They knew what they were talking about, and they were not prepared to have this new organisation packed with anybody's creatures. He hoped the Chief Secretary would say that in a matter like this they should not distrust the whole Land Commission. This was not a question of distrusting the Commission but of trusting them, and in this case the three Estates Commissioners ought to have a voice with the other members of the Land Commission, and that would be very much more satisfactory than leaving the whole executive work to the Judicial Commissioner.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the Attorney-General had stated that this case had not arisen before. He was sorry to tell him that it had. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed, Mr. Justice Lawson stated that the officers and clerks of the Church Temporalities Commissioners who were suitable would be transferred to the new Land Commission. He objected to the present proposal on the same ground that he objected to the other—namely, that they would pick out certain favourites for the appointments. Judge Lawson was then Judge of the Church temporalities; and the Committee could imagine what chance Catholics would have with him. He got a distinct pledge from the then Attorney-General that nothing in the nature of discrimination would be attempted, but what was the fact? They boycotted every Catholic, and a number of the men who received appointments afterwards took a prominent part in Orange demonstrations and had to be dismissed by the Land Commissioners. On the matter being referred to the Lord Lieutenant they were told to go back to the office, hang up their hats, and apologise. They did not want all this kind of thing over again. He did think it was a most invidious thing that all the nominations for appointments from the existing staff should be made by one man. He thought this was a matter in which the claims of the individual men should be considered. The proposal made was most unfair to Mr. Wrench, who was to be excluded from making appointments from the existing staff. He thought that for Mr. Wrench's sake alone they ought to make a stand in order that he might not be put in the position in which the Bill proposed to place him in regard to these appointments. He hoped the Chief Secretary would yield on this small matter.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it would be very difficult to frame words saying what the members of the Land Commission were to do in this matter. He thought the Government should nominate and appoint the persons. They would do that with due regard to the nature of the work to be performed.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that so long as the nominations were in the hands of one man the appointments would follow. If the Judicial Commissioner nominated a certain number of men for duty, who in the Government was going to intervene to prevent the appointments? He suggested the substitution of the words, "Land Commission" for "Judicial Commissioner." The Judicial Commissioner was a Judge, and did not know the capabilities of the men. If the nominations were made by the Land Commission they would come from a body who knew the capacities of the individual men.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said a far more serious matter arose on this question than had vet been mentioned. He referred the Committee to Clause 76 of the Bill, which provided that— The Hon. Gerald FitzGerald, one of the Land Commissioners, shall, for the purposes of the Land Law Acts and Land Purchase Acts, but not further or otherwise, in addition to his existing powers, have all the jurisdiction and powers of a Judicial Commissioner, with the same rank and tenure of office as if he had, at the commencement of this Act, been appointed a Judicial Commissioner under the Act of 1881. The Hon. Gerald FitzGerald would, therefore, have the appointments in his hands. That would be wholly objectionable to the people of Ireland, and to all parties in the country who had any dealings with the Land Commission.

MR. WYNDHAM

did not think it was very convenient to cast upon the Land Commissioners the duty of selecting the staff. He proposed to put that duty on the Lord-Lieutenant, and to let the Government accept the responsibility.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 36, to leave out the words 'the Judicial Commissioner may nominate such officers of the Commission, and.'

Amendment agreed to. In page 12, line 39, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'land clerks of ten years service and.'"—(Colonel McCalmont.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he objected to an Amendment which would specify these clerks. He had no doubt the gentlemen would be suitable candidates for employment under the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 40, at end, to insert the words 'and the remuneration of those persons shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON (Londonderry)

moved— In Clause 21, page 13, line 2, after 'Commissioners,' insert 'or by any vendor.' He said his object was to extend the same facilities to all landowners as to the class mentioned in the clause.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 2, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'or by any vendor.'"—(The Marquess of Hamilton.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had not had an opportunity of considering this matter. He asked his noble friend not to press the Amendment at present.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON

said he would move it on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said the Amendment he now wished to move was to leave out the words "and completed" from line 3 of Sub section 9. He was aware that in moving this—which was one of a series of Amendments—he was taking a course which might not be very popular in the Committee, because, as a general rule, lawyers were not in great favour there. Why they should not be he never could understand, because this House was the fountain and creator of all law, and one would have thought that those who tried to administer the law should not be marked out for derision. He had observed that any clause bearing on lawyers' fees was received with a good deal—he would not say of obloquy, but with a great deal of discouragement—on both sides of the House. The scheme proposed in the sub-section was that sales of estates to the Estates Commissioners, and sales by those Commissioners to tenants and others might be negotiated and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners at a fixed price or percentage, according to scale fixed by the Estates Commissioners. That was to say, when a landlord wanted to sell, and a tenant to buy his property, neither landlord nor tenant could have any voice in the appointment of the solicitor but he was to be appointed by the Commission. In starting the original negotiations he thought it was right and reasonable that the landlord's or tenant's solicitor should not interpose or be recognised, and accordingly his Amendment did not interfere with that. It only enabled the negotiation to be carried to a completion by the solicitor of the landlord or tenant. Why should landlord and tenant be compelled to put their title deeds into the hands of a solicitor who was not nominated by themselves, of whom they knew nothing, and who could not be supposed to have their particular interest at heart? It was most unreasonable that such a novelty should be introduced into legislation. The object of his Amendment was that when the sale came to be completed the landlord and tenant should be able to exercise the ordinary citizen's right of nominating their own solicitor to carry out the contract to its completion. His Amendment was supported by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, who could not be accused of being animated by selfish motives. After a great number of years experience he could say that there was no more intelligent and honourable profession in the Empire than the solicitors of Ireland, who, under great temptations, and struggling under very trying circumstances were an example of public trusteeship of which any country ought to be proud.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 3, to leave out the words 'and completed.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and completed,' stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the subsection did not by any means lay down that solicitors other than those connected with the particular properties were to be employed by the Estates Commissioners. It was a permissive clause, subject to the goodwill of the Treasury. He was quite sure that the Treasury would not permit the Estates Commissioners to employ a solicitor to the detriment of the solicitors who were connected with a particular estate; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that it might occur that if the solicitors to the estate were compulsorily employed it might put a certain premium on factitious opposition to the completion of the transaction. He had no doubt that in a great number of cases the family solicitor would be employed; but he could not accept the Amendment.

*MR. HEMPHILL

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester

moved that Sub-section 9, line 3, should be amended by leaving out "agents, solicitors, or other persons" and inserting "land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and"—approved by the Estates Commissioners.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 3, to leave out the words 'agents, solicitors, or other persons,' and insert the words 'land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)

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

MR. WYNTDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment. As he had already stated the Estates Commissioners would, as a rule, employ the solicitors connected with the property, but some discretion must be left to the Estates Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR JOHN ROLLESTON

had an Amendment on the Paper to insert in Sub-section 9 relating to the scale of fees to be paid to the solicitors, the words— Such scale to include in the case of a land agent of an estate acting in that capacity on the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and three, a three per cent. negotiation fee, but such negotiation fee shall, in the case of a land agent in receipt of an annual salary less than five per cent. of the rental of the estate, be assessed on the proportion the salary hears to five per cent. of the rental, and the negotiation fee shall be reduced accordingly.

*THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment was incompetent, as it was outside of the Money Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

said in moving his Amendment he desired to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the enormous number of employees under land agents who would be deprived of their livelihood because, having regard to the number of years they had served as land clerks, it would be impossible for them to obtain other occupation at their age. Could nothing be done for that class of workers who had been most faithful in doing their duty to their masters?

MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)

Let the masters do it themselves.

MR. SLOAN

said they should not be left without any occupation; and he submitted the Amendment to the kind consideration of the Chief Secretary.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 8, at end, to insert the words' On the sale of any estate under the Land Purchase Acts, whether to or by the Land Commission or otherwise, one fourth of the percentage or fixed price allowed to an agent for the negotiation and completion of the sale shall be paid to the land clerk employed in the office of such estate, and if there be more than one land clerk employed in the office of the estate the said amount shall be distributed to the land clerks in proportion to their number of years service as land clerks in Ireland respectively.'"—(Mr. Sloan.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment. Where the Estates Commissioners employed a person in any capacity, the scale of payment would be arranged between the Commissioners and the Treasury; and justice would be done as regarded any work done for the Department. As regarded the second part of the Amendment, they ought not to interfere with a landlord who was conducting his own negotiations. He assumed that the landlords would do their best to see that those who had been in their service would not suffer. He wished to repeat what he had already stated, that in administering the Act they would, where-ever they could, do their best to see that persons would be compensated in meal where they could not be compensated in malt. He knew that it had been suggested that in addition to the bonus there should be a grant; but his colleagues and himself could not see their way to adopt that policy. In administering the Act it would, however, be their earnest desire to give as much employment as they could to agents and others concerned.

*MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough)

said he should like to ask, on a point of order, at what particular point the interests of the land agents could be discussed on this clause?

*THE CHAIRMAN

The interests of the land agents is rather a large question. Financial compensation for land agents could not, I think, be introduced at all in this Bill without obtaining previously a Resolution, which would have to be proposed in Committee on the authority of a Member of the Government, as it would involve the expenditure of money; and the Committee could not initiate expenditure of money without obtaining the authority of the Government.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said that the clause enabled the Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, to make rules for carrying the Act into effect. In several recent Acts of Parliament the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland had been included on the rule-making body; and the Incorporated Law Society thought that where the interests of their clients were so deeply involved as they were in this Bill, it was only reasonable that a representative of the solicitors' body should be a member of the rule-making body. The Amendment had, he believed, been submitted to the Chief Secretary and to the law officers; and, of course, if the Chief Secretary was unable to accept it he would not occupy the time of the Committee further. It appeared to him, however, to be an eminently reasonable proposal; and it was a practice which was followed in England as well as in Ireland in all modern Acts of Parliament which provided for the making of rules.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

asked if there was a salary attached to the position.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said there was no salary.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 9, after the word 'Commissioners," to insert the words 'and the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland for the time being.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment as it stood. Many of these rules would be administrative rules, but he would undertake to consider whether the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland should not be brought in on particular occasions.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that although no salary was attached to the membership, it would involve work; and he thought that the Government ought to welcome an independent mind in regard to those rules. When they had a gentleman who, in the interests of the smooth working of the Act, undertook to go over the rules without pay, the Government should jump at such an offer. The offer was, he understood, made by a responsible body of great experience, and it followed English precedent as well as Irish precedent. He did not think it would water the wine of the Estates' Commissioners if they had to act with a grave and reverend seignor of the legal profession who had long experience. He did not know the present president, but he thought the Amendment should be accepted here and now. If the words were too wide they could be limited. He should like to know if the Chief Secretary was resisting the Amendment on the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.

MR. ATKINSON

said the clause covered duties which would not be discharged by solicitors at all. As regarded the professional duties of solicitors, it would be a matter for consideration whether the co-operation of the President of the Incorporated Law Society should not be secured.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said he hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the position. He joined in the request which had been made by the hon. Member for North Louth.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would reconsider the matter before the Report stage.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said on that assurance he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.)

said the Amendment which he wished to move would greatly expedite sales. Several solicitors had informed him that otherwise there would be no end of delay. Indeed, it would be a great improvement if there was an examiner appointed in each county town.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 10, after the words 'Lord Lieutenant,' to insert the words 'appoint two examiners of title in each province and.'"—(Dr. Thompson.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ATKINSON

said it was not possible to accept the Amendment, as it would upset the work of the staff altogether.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BUTCHER

said the Amendment he wished to move was to the effect that the rules under Section 10 should be laid on the table of the House. He had been given an assurance to that effect with regard to Section 6.

Amendment proposed— In page 13, line 19, at end, to insert the words, 'All such rules shall be made by a majority, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one; and such rules shall be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

replied that these were rules of a wholly different character.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

thought it was very desirable that they should know that these rules were for the costs and expenses of the Land Commission. That ought to be made quite clear.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,) Dublin University

said it was desirable wherever publication was required, that it should be publication of the same kind whether under the Act of 1893 or by laying on the Table of the House, and he would promise and undertake that the Government would provide that wherever publication was required it should be publication of the same kind.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

Does the hon, and learned Gentleman acknowledge that these rules should be published, and it is only a matter of form as to how they shall be published?

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

replied that would depend upon the scope and nature of rules. Some it would be ludicrous to lay upon the Table. Others might relate to such important matters that it would be desirable they should be laid.

*MR. BUTCHER

asked who was to be the judge of whether they were of sufficient importance to be published or not. He pointed out that there were rules "for carrying into effect the foregoing provisions of this Act," and it might be necessary they should be considered by the House. He suggested that all should be laid upon the Table of the House so that the House could have control of them. If some were laid and some not there would be great confusion.

MR. BLAKE

concurred in thinking that the general description of the rules in this section involved the proposition that they might be of far-reaching importance and ought to be laid.

MR. T. M. HEALY

regarded the position taken up by the Government as not at all unreasonable. There were rules so insignificant in their character that it would be absurd to ask Parliament to discuss them.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

thought they might say that all rules made in pursuance of "such and such" should be laid on the Table. That might bring in the subsection they were then dealing with.

*MR. BUTCHER

said he would be content with this assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

said, with reference to the last sub-section, he hoped the Government were not going to assent to the Report of the Estates Commissioners being simply and solely a financial report. It was desirable that the Commissioners should furnish a much fuller Report than was received from the Land Commissioners. He suggested the Report should be more of the character of that of the Congested Districts Board. It was not a question for Amendment, and he merely made that suggestion.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22.

*MR. BUTCHER

said the objection to Sub-section 3 was that where there was a sale by the landlord to the Estates Commissioners by the operation of the preceding clause, the landlord would get 3½ per cent. on the purchase money until the final distribution of the purchase money took place, but the effect of this clause would be that when there was a sale by the landlord to his tenants he would get the 3½ per cent., but part would come out of the purchase money if the investments did not earn sufficient to pay it. Why should that distinction be made between the two methods of sale? He believed that sales to the tenants were the best, and he desired to encourage them, and that that could best be done by leaving out this sub-section. He therefore begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 1, leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 3 stand part of the clause."

MR. ATKINSON

said the two cases were entirely different. When an estate was sold to the Land Commissioners the purchase price was immediately paid into Court, and during the twelve months the money ay in the bank the Government gave 3½ per cent. upon it, although the receipts from the land might not amount to that. By so doing they did away with one of the great deterrents that prevented landlords from selling, which was the fear that the percentage on the purchase price would not be sufficient for them to live upon. Where a landlord sold to the tenant, the Commissioners were in an entirely different position. In that transaction the Commissioners lent the money and the landlord received it at once. Therefore the State did not feel themselves bound to come forward and, out of public money, provide what might be necessary to meet the claim of the landlord measured at 3½ per cent. But in order that he might receive something equivalent to the 3½ per cent., they provided that if the produce of the money was insufficient to pay him 3½ per cent., he should be entitled to go upon the principal for sufficient to keep his income up to the 3½ per cent. level for twelve months. It was true that that was at the expense of the remainder-man, but inasmuch as the landlord had chosen to deal with his tenant direct, if anybody was to suffer it was more rational that it should be the remainder-man rather than the State, who, in the transaction, only assumed the character of a lender of the money.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said that as an estate meant anything the Commissioners chose to call an estate, it might be a portion of an estate. In such a case a landlord who sold three or four holdings might get advantages from which another landlord selling an equal number of holdings direct to his tenants would be precluded. The transfer of land in many parts would be best promoted by a gradual process, and he knew several cases where two or three tenants had bought, and then the surrounding tenants, when they saw the advantages, had come in afterwards. Sales would not be accelerated by penalising the landlord who, from the circumstances of his estate, desired to deal with the individual tenants.

MR. BLAKE

said there was no doubt that in many cases the uncertainty as to whether the purchase money of an estate would produce the income of the landlord had acted as a great deterrent to purchase, and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this provision had been inserted to get rid of that deterrent. To the extent to which that deterrent had been removed in the case of sales to the Commission, its existence had been emphasised in the case of sales direct to the tenants. The two methods of sale ought to receive equal treatment, but here a preference was given to one mode as against the other. In the one case the landlord secured 3½ per cent., while in the other he ran a certain risk.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

thought it very unfair that the landlord who dealt direct with his tenants should have to take money from his children or the remainder men to bring his income up to the 3½ per cent. level. It was rather shabby on the part of the Treasury to insist on that, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would avoid making this invidious distinction.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

had always understood the view of the Government to be that direct sale should be the normal transaction. This provision, however, would offer the greatest possible incentive to the landlord to sell to the Land Commission; in fact, it would be quite sufficient to prevent men selling direct who otherwise would do so. The provision was altogether inconsistent with the view the Government had over and over again expressed. It was necessary to have both methods of sale, and in many parts of the country it might be desirable that the sales should be largely to the Commission, but fair play must be given to both systems. This provision penalised the very procedure which the Government had declared they wished to see generally adopted.

MR. GORDON

could not see any logic for the reason given for the distinction. If the Treasury were put to greater expense or had to provide a large sum of money, he could understand it, but neither of those conditions obtained. In each case they were dealing with the difference between what the price would produce and the 3½ per cent. It was desirable that landlords and tenants should deal direct with one another as far as possible, and that no distinction should be made. He hoped the Government would give way on the point.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in the opinion of the Government this subsection, if it favoured either, favoured the landlord who dealt directly with his-tenant rather than the landlord who sold to the Commission. The landlord who sold to the Land Commission went at once on the 3½ per cent. basis, whereas the landlord who conducted his own negotiations continued to draw rent for a longer period, so that the gap before the cessation of the rent-paying and the investment of the purchase money was shorter.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

pointed out that the Attorney-General had just declared that the existing system acted as a deterrent, because the landlords were afraid they would not get sufficient money to preserve their income. That was inconsistent with the argument the right hon. Gentleman was now adducing.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not hear the speech of the Attorney-General, but he was clear that the sub section acted rather in favour of the direct sale than otherwise. In the case of a sale to the Land Commission, as soon as the estimated price had been assented to by the landlord and three fourths of the tenants, and the estate was vested in the Land Commission, the landlord immediately went on the 3½ per cent. basis. In the case of the landlord selling direct the question of the three-fourths did not arise, and the interval was shorter than in the other case. Under Sub-section (2) the Land Commission would be drawing rents for a certain period, out of which it would be easy to take 3½ per cent. so that, while the Treasury would not gain they were not exposed to loss and the solvency of the land purchase transaction would be strengthened. In the case of a direct sale the contingency of 3½ per cent. not being available was very remote; but it had to be provided for, and, as the money was there, the Government held it was better that the landlord should have a certainty of 3½ per cent. than be exposed to the chance of less than 3½ per cent. Of course, in the long run, the landlord was anticipating the aid grant, but in the opinion of the Government the interregnum in the case of a direct sale.

would be shorter than in the case of a sale to the Land Commission.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General were absolutely inconsistent. It was the distribution that caused the delay, and the landlord after he made his agreement could not draw rent; and he would only be getting interest on his purchase money. The Chief Secretary had stated that the owner who had sold to his tenants direct could prolong the payment beyond the date of the agreement. He could not get rent beyond the date of the agreement, and after that date a whole year must elapse in most cases. The consequence would be that they would have the sales blocked because under Section 8 the Land Commission could not hold more than £50,00,000 worth of property.

MR. DILLON

asked if it was not a fact that when a landlord sold an estate and the agreement was arrived at, in the interval between that and the final completion of the transaction and the payment of the money the tenant had to pay 4 per cent.

MR. ATKINSON

said that when a landlord came before the Land Commission, and the Commission agreed, a vesting order was made immediately. The money was then put into Court and the Commission had their fund out of which they could get the money to pay 3½ per cent. on the purchase money for twelve months. In the other case, when the agreement was made between the landlord and the individual tenant, rent ceased at the date of the agreement.

MR. DILLON

asked if it was not a fact at the present moment when they sold an estate in Ireland, that when the purchase agreement was signed the rent stopped, and then the tenant went on and continued to pay 4 per cent., on the purchase money. In that case the statement of the Attorney-General was not in accordance with the facts, because he stated that the moment the agreement to sell was signed all rents stopped, and there was no fund except that which arose from the investment of the purchase money.

MR. ATKINSON

said that when the vesting order was made then the tenant's payment of 4 per cent. ceased.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it was rather difficult to explain how these things worked out. He was perfectly clear, however, that the general effect of contributing under Sub-section 3 would be to put a premium upon the direct sale of land. When the landlord sold directly to the Land Commission he got 3½ per cent., but when he sold to his tenants he went on getting the rents for a longer period. They could not lay down a rule that it would take so long in one case and so long in another, but the general effect would be that 3½ per cent. would be paid for a longer period in the case of a tenant of the Land Commission than in the case of the landlord. He was perfectly satisfied that if he left out this subsection hon. Members, after considering its ramifications, would wish to have it re-inserted.

MR. CLANCY

said that he thought the right hon. Gentleman must admit that the landlord who sold direct to his tenants could not get rent after the date of the agreement for purchase. A whole year elapsed in most cases, and during that time he would not be getting rent, but instalments of purchase money, which might be insufficient.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that, as a matter of fact, where the landlord sold direct to the tenant all the agreements for the whole estate were signed about the same time. In the case of a sale to the Land Commission a period of negotiation came after the sale. Consequently, the 3½ per cent. period was longer than the other.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

said this clause simply referred to a case after a vesting order had been made or the money had been paid into the bank. When the money was paid into the bank it was invested at a lower rate of interest than 3½ per cent. It would be absolutely impossible to have any other result. In the one case the Land Commission received the rent, and therefore they could afford to pay 3½ per cent.; but in the other case they received the rent-charge, which was about the same thing. He thought it would be very shabby on the part of the Government to throw what he still considered an obstacle in the way of direct sales to tenants.

MR. BLAKE

said that under this sub-section interest was to be paid at the rate of 3½ per cent. He contended that this applied to both classes of cases and in each case 3½ per cent. was possible. The section seemed to apply to both classes of cases. In that case the deficit would have been paid out of the purchase money, and the transaction was going to be a more profitable one. The net result would be that there would be more money to meet the intervening period. It was rather a singular provision which was contemplated in this case while no deficit was contemplated in the other case. He thought this must mean a general provision for the payment of interest at 3½ per cent., but in case of direct sales if there was a deficit it was to be borne by the purchase money.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in the case of a sale to the Estates Commissioners there could be no deficit. In this case if they were to drop the sub-section the only result would be that if there was any deficit the landlord would bear it. There was no proposal to spend money upon this, and certainly no money would be spent on direct sales to the Land Commission. They certainly did not propose to spend money on direct sales to the tenants. After all, the position of the Irish landlord was not so very bad that they would have nothing left of the purchase money. He promised to consider the propriety of doing something in the case of men who were really bankrupt.

MR. FFRENCH (Wexford, S.)

asked whether the bonus would be available in cases where bargains were made between landlords and tenants direct.

MR. WYNDHAM

was understood to say that it would.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 8, after the word 'claim' to insert the words 'or in respect of any premium or any policy of insurance charged on the lands sold.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)

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

SIR WALTER THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)

expressed the hope that the Government would accept this Amendment. What was proposed was just and reasonable.

MR. ATKINSON

said there was some difficulty in this matter. He knew the kind of case to which his hon. friend referred. It was the case where a tenant for life went to an insurance company and gave a mortgage on the land at 5 per cent. The tenant for life insured his life at a certain premium, and he charged this premium on the land in addition to the mortgage debt and the interest. It was more or less a contingent liability. While he thought it was quite right that the mortgage and the interest on it should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, he was very much afraid that a collateral and contingent charge of this kind might very often crush out some pecuniary encumbrances. It was not by any means clear how that had been charged. It was not an annual charge. It was only ultimately in the case of default by the insurer that the land was come down upon. More consideration would be required to see what particular method could be adopted whereby the placing of this contingent liability, in addition to the mortgage and interest secured by it, might not crush out a pecuniary encumbrancer.

*SIR LEWIS McIVER (Edinburgh, W.)

instanced by way of illustration of the nature of the liability the case of an ordinary investor who instructed his solicitor to invest £1,000 in land mortgage in Ireland on a life interest. The invariable practice in such cases was to receive a policy of insurance as collateral security, and to make the premium on that policy a charge on the land of the mortgagor who had the life interest. These premiums were an integral part of the mortgage. They were not contingent. They were simply part of the transaction. All that he claimed by the Amendment was that the mortgagee should have the full benefit of the mortgage of which the policy of insurance was only an incident.

MR. ATKINSON

said he could not accept the Amendment at this s age, but he would consider the matter.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. HEMPHILL

moved the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Clause 22, with the object of safeguarding the interests of parties concerned in cases of sale where disputes arose over the distribution of the purchase money. This sub-section was a most important one, because it laid down what was to be done with the purchase-money after an estate had been sold, the vesting order made, and the tenant put in possession as the owner in fee. Of course the tenant was in no way interested in what was to be done with the purchase-money of the estate. He thought they might assume—and he said it with some regret—that a majority of the estates in Ireland which would be brought within the provisions of this Act were encumbered—some of them very heavily encumbered. He doubted whether there was a single owner of an estate with a clean bill of health, as it were, who would take advantage of the Act. The sub-section dealt with an important part of the purchase-money in a perfunctory way. It said— After the vesting order, or the payment into the Bank of Ireland, as the case may be, has been made, no proceedings shall be taken, without leave of the Land Commission, in respect of any claim against the purchase-money, or the income thereof. In dealing with his Amendment he asked the Committee to keep in view the eighth sub-section, which went on to show how the purchase-money was to be dealt with. What he proposed was that the money in dispute should be paid into Court, that being necessary for the protection of the encumbrancers. When the money was in Court it could not be paid out until close investigation had taken place as to whether the whole or part was due to the claimant, and also as to the relation in which he stood to the other encumbrancers. This was a matter they could not deal with by any rule of thumb. The proviso he proposed to add did not interfere with the general policy of the Act, or in any way retard the conversion of the tenant into the fee-simple proprietor. It was all very well in theory, but when it came to practice that was a different thing. He gave the three Commissioners credit for being, if they liked, the greatest administrators that had ever sat on any tribunal, but there were only three of them, with only three brains, and three hearts to keep alive, and they could not go through all this business without considerable assistance. If an attempt was made to force these enormous duties upon them there would be innumerable mistakes, and great injustice would be done to the community. The time had gone by when technicalities caused delays in the Court of Chancery, and there was now no more difficulty in getting money out of the Court of Chancery than out of any other Court. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 22, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'Provided that any person making any claim against the purchase money, or the income thereof, may apply to the Judicial Commissioner to have the said purchase money paid into the High Court to be distributed thereby; and the Judicial Commissioner, if satisfied that the said claim is bunâ fide, and that a dispute exists as to the title to, or distribution of, or payment of the said purchase money, or any part thereof, or of the income thereof, shall make an order for the payment of the said purchase money, or any part thereof as to which a dispute exists, and the income thereof, into the High Court, to be distributed among and paid to the parties entitled thereto in the same manner as if it were the proceeds of the sale of lands ordered to be sold by the Chancery Division of the High Court under its ordinary jurisdiction.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said that there was an axiom that the multiplicity of suits ought to be obviated, but under such a clause as was proposed by his right hon. friend it would be possible to establish half a dozen Chancery suits, or more. [An HON. MEMBER: That is what he wants.] In addition to the general provision made for the distribution of the purchase money the 64th Clause provided that questions of law arising under the Land Purchase Acts might be taken to any Division or Judge of the High Court. All the rest thereof was a matter of administration. It would be most unfortunate if the purchase money was to be consumed in Chancery costs.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 23, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting same, and.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said he could not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 40, after the second word 'the.' to insert the words 'Local Registration of Title Office.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 24, to leave out the words 'twelve months,' and insert the words 'two years.'"—(Mr. Sharpe.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the clause."

MR. ATKINSON

said that the period of twelve months had been chosen after great conaideration; it at once protected the landlord, and gave a stimulus to despatch.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

moved— In Clause 25, page 16, lines 11 and 12, leave out 'two and three-quarters,' and insert'three.' So far as he could gather, there was no probability of raising this huge loan of £12,000,000 at 2¾ per cent., because at the present time Irish land stock stood, not at par, but at 92 for every 100. The most recent example of the Government issuing stock was the Transvaal Loan, but that was not issued at 2¾ per cent. but at 3 per cent. The Transvaal had enormous possibilities compared with Irish land; it had enormous quantities of gold and diamonds, and he did not know that Irish land was as valuable as gold and diamonds. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give an explanation as to how this money was to be raised, and at what price it was estimated it could be raised. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise something like £5,000,000 a year for the next two years. If they took the present price at 92, that meant a loss of £8 on every £100 to be raised, which meant a loss of £400,000 a year. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said the rate of purchase should be accelerated, the loss which would have to be made up by the British taxpayer would amount to not less than £800,000 a year. The whole financial Press, and the whole financial opinion of the country, was against the view that the £112,000,000 could be raised at 2¾ per cent. This £800,000 a year could not be covered by an equivalent grant of £185,000 a year, and really he did not See from the point of view of an Englishman why this equivalent grant should be used. He apprehended that in the future they would have Irish Members asking for more money for educational purposes that were required so urgently in Ireland. His own impression was that the rate was put at a low level in order to artificially increase the price of land in Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation as to how this money would be raised, and at what price it was estimated that it could be raised, because the whole financial Press and the whole financial opinion of this country was against the view that the £112,000,000 could be raised at 2¾ per cent. He further thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have a very considerable difficulty when he placed this loan in competition with other loans of a similar character. Surely the Transvaal loan gave as good security as this Irish loan, and that had to be raised at 3 per cent., so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not count upon raising the money on lower terms. What grounds had the Chief Secretary for supposing that in the future money could be raised on cheaper terms than at present? It might be cheaper, but it might, on the other hand, be dearer, especially if the present policy of the Government were pursued. Therefore without going into questions of detail he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some information upon this most important point because it affected very considerably the security of the Treasury in guaranteeing this £112,000,000 at 2¾ per cent.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'two and three-quarters,' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member had invited him to make a statement that would be more appropriate on a First Reading than on a clause in Committee. He would refer the hon. Member to his speech in introducing the Bill when he made a careful justification of the financial foundations of the measure. It was difficult—even impossible—in Committee to develop once again the arguments he then laid before the House. He thought the hon. Member must realise on reflection that his colleagues and the Guardian of the Purse would not have assented to the financial provisions of this Bill except after long and anxious investigation. The hon. Member could take it from him that this was not a plan devised on the spur of the moment. In arriving at it recourse had been had to persons not connected with the Government, whose opinions on financial questions were valuable and always on such occasions obtained. He had received from many sources—perhaps people more competent to advise on financial matters than the hon. Gentleman could pretend to be—prospects of the future that could be regarded with equanimity. The hon. Member seemed to think that the difference would fall perpetually on the Irish development grant. That was not so. Assuming the loan as floated at £95 or even £92, the interest on the difference was to be paid at the same rate as the repayment by the purchaser—viz., at sixty-eight and a half years. It would be found that the charge would not fall as a heavy burden on £185,000 a year. He apprehended no difficulty on that score. The hon. Member had challenged his estimate of the security of the whole transaction, and had asked them only to lend the money to Ireland at 3 per cent. He could not repeat what he had already said on the question of security. They had felt it their duty to Ireland, to this country, and to the Empire to lend the money at the lowest possible rate. Had the finances of the Empire justified it they would have been glad to lend the money at 2½ per cent., and then the period of repayment would have been less. In view of the facts referred to, however, that had been found to be an impracticable policy. They had followed the most-favoured-nation policy in respect to Ireland by letting her have the money at 2¾ per cent. as it was their duty to do. He could not accept any Amendment which would shake the financial foundation of this Bill and bring it with a crash to the ground.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the purpose of the Government should always be to raise a loan at a natural interest and to issue it at par. They knew that last year a loan of £30,000,000 was issued at par, and 3 per cent. was the rate of interest upon which it was found possible to raise the money. If 2¾ per cent. was the right price of issue, then the price of the Transvaal loan was wrong, and something ought to be done to reconcile the difference between the two loans. He really could not allow these financial clauses to pass without reminding the Committee of the existence of the British taxpayer, and of the fact that the security for this loan was the security that he furnished, as any default would have to be made good out of the Consolidated Fund, in which the British taxpayer was so greatly interested. It was an invidious thing to utter a discordant note when two sides of the House so seldom in agreement were ready to fall upon each other's necks and embrace each other. If he were to describe the present condition of things from the fiscal point of view, he should picture up a remote and inaccessible cave in which a band of brigands was engaged in cutting the throat of the British taxpayer, and complaining that he did not bleed to death quickly enough. Far be it from him to disturb the harmony, but he felt it his duty to say again that in his opinion there was no adequate security furnished for these sums to be advanced by England. There was absolutely no limit to the amount of the loan. £100,000,000 and £150,000,000 had been suggested, and even £200,000,000 had been mentioned that day on the opposite Benches. So far as he could see, so long as there was land to be sold in Ireland for more than it was worth, and there were tenants to buy for less than it was worth, so long would the British taxpayer have to furnish extra millions. He would not go into the reasons for thinking that the security was inadequate. In his opinion the whole finance of the Bill was most disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had taken the advice of financial experts, but if that had been done surely he would have been advised to follow the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and deal with the matter not on sentimental or political, but solely on fiscal grounds. If he had done that this stock would have been issued at 3 per cent. He did not want to stop the passage of the Bill, but although he stood alone he felt he must make a protest on behalf of the British taxpayer against the facility, and even the wantonness, with which the Chief Secretary had persuaded his colleagues to pledge the credit of the British taxpayer to an enormous and incalculable extent. If this stood alone it would be bad enough, but these sums were to be put on our shoulders at a time when other vast sums were also being placed there. He confessed that he was very far from envying the position in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer some three or lour years hence would find himself.

MR DILLON

said that this was a most important clause, and he desired to say all he had to say upon the clause, on this particular Amendment because he went very strongly in the opposite direction to the Amendment. He would point out that in this Bill, for the first time in the history of Irish land purchase, the financial scheme proposed to issue the stock at a higher rate of interest than the rate of interest on Consols. Many Irish Land Acts had been passed, commencing with the Ashbourne Acts, and in every single instance the land stock, whether paid to the landlord direct as by the Act of 1891 or the Act of 1888, the stock had always been issued at the same rate of interest as Consols. But that was not all. This stock was to be irredeemable for thirty years. He objected very strongly to that and urged that it should be issued at 2½ per cent.

*MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE

And at the same price as Consols.

MR. DILLON

said it was not for him to say. His desire was to point out what a serious effect this would have on the people of Ireland. On such a large transaction ¼ per cent. was a very important matter. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of the present state of the money market and pointed out that Consols were much below par, but hon. Gentlemen must remember that within the last seven years the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to the rise in the price of Consols, declared the price to which they had risen to be a public danger. Consols, it was true, were below par now, but he saw no reason why, if there were no fresh war, they should not rise above par in the course of the next five or six years. In that case this 2¾ per cent. stock, which was not rede mable for thirty years, might rise to 115 or even 120, and the effect on the Irish tenant would be unfortunate, for his redemption period would be considerably lengthened, and he would be obliged to pay a great deal more money. When Consols rose to 114 five years ago they were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole of the debt would be paid off in twenty-five years, and if the Sinking Fund were to rise to the figure mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech Consols would undoubtedly go up. This stock ought to be issued at 2½ per cent. The result no doubt would be that for the first two or three years a heavy loss would have to be made up by a comparatively small charge on the savings from Irish expenditure, and on the Irish equivalent grant. And if at the end of three or four years it was found the stock was not rising, and there was no prospect of it standing at par, then it would be competent for the Government by a one-clause Bill to alter the stock and turn it into 2¾ per cent. If they began with a 2¾ per cent. stock they could not turn back. Then, again, by making the interest on the annuity 3¼ per cent. instead of 3½ per cent. the Government were taking another vicious departure from a financial point of view, for they were cutting down the Sinking fund to a point unsafe both for the tenants and the Treasury. The principle on which the decadal system was founded was the proper principle to adopt. That system was a great advantage both to the tenants and to the Treasury. Then further reductions were given at the end of the second and third terms of ten years, and by that system great relief was afforded to the tenants, while it was also a great system of insurance for the taxpayer. As far as human foresight could do it, that system provided against all future contingencies or depression in agriculture, and the whole matter was placed on a secure basis. By fixing the interest now at 2¾ per cent. and the annuity at 3½ per cent., the Government proposed to cut down the Sinking Fund from £1 5s. to 10s., with the result that it would be absolutely impossible to give any decadal system of reductions worth considering. He spoke in this matter for himself; but he had a strong view as to the desirability of making this a sound system of finance. In 1877, if any one had proposed to settle the land question by the perpetuation of the then existing rents, the proposal would have been accepted readily; and the result would have been national bankruptcy. Who could say with confidence that a reduction of 20 per cent. on the present judicial rents would be sufficient to carry over the events of the next sixty-eight years? The system of decadal reductions was one of the greatest improvements introduced into the system of land purchase, and he deeply regretted that the Government had made this departure from that plan. He was strongly opposed to the finance of this Bill as unjust to the tenants, and, having regard to the vicissitudes of agriculture, as less safe than the system which had worked so admirably in the past. He would have wished to see the stock issued at 2½ per cent. for the first few years at any rate, whatever the price it would fetch, and the annuity fixed at 3½ per cent.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said that the Chief Secretary had exercised a very wise discretion in fixing the rate of interest on this new stock at 2¾ per cent. This stock was to be issued gradually, and its amount was an unknown quantity. That fact in itself would operate against any undue rise in the value of the stock.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he had heard with intense gratification the encomiums the hon. Member for East Mayo had poured upon the Land Act of 1896.

MR. LAMBERT

said that as he had received no support except from the hon. Member for King's Lynn he should not press his Amendment to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 40.

Amendment proposed— In page 21, line 4, to leave out Subsections (1) to (6), inclusive, and insert the words '(1) Every advance shall be repaid by means of a purchase annuity, calculated at the rate of three pounds five shillings for every hundred pounds of the advance, and so in proportion for any less sum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

And, it being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.