IRISH LAND BILL.

HC Deb 06 July 1903 vol 124 cc1418-64

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 43:—

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 29, to leave out from the word 'estate,' to end of line 30, and insert the words 'agreed to be sold within five years after the commencement of this Act a bonus of fifteen per centum of the amount of the purchase money of said estate, such bonus to be paid upon the completion of the sale.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)

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

MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

said that when the proceedings on the Bill were interrupted last week they had had some discussion with regard to the desirability of imposing a limit of time, and he was bound to say that in his opinion the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford held the field. He did not suppose his hon. friend desired that the point should be discussed at any length, but unquestionably it was a matter of enormous importance to the people of Ireland. Some limit of a reasonable character ought certainly to be placed in the Act because it would indirectly induce a certain number of landlords to sell, who otherwise might be inclined to hold out for some change in the condition of things, or for some imaginary increased advantages. This limit was desirable if the Act was to be successfully worked during the present generation. No doubt a very considerable number of landlords would be induced to sell under the Bill, but they were apprehensive that a certain section, who would never learn anything from past experience or from the lessons of legislation or agitation, would hold out under some delusion that they would get better terms for themselves or advantage their class. That would create a feeling of irritation in the minds of the tenants who would thereby be excluded from the benefits of the Act which other tenants all around them were enjoying. Could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to acceding to the insertion of some limit, of which he was sure all the tenants, as well as a large proportion of the landlords, were in favour.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

asked if the Chief Secretary was in a position to add anything to his previous statement. He fully recognised there was nothing to be gained by prolonging the debate.

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

said the Government still occupied the position he took up the other night. He had had an opportunity of consulting with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many points of the Bill, and his right hon. friend was still of the opinion he was last week—viz., that however small, on the merits, might be the danger of a time limit, that was a responsibility which they could not undertake. It should be remembered that some tens of thousands of persons might come to register their names, but that might not give sufficient ground for believing that the loans would be demanded. On the other hand, the money market was so sensitive at these times in contemplating the possibility of that danger, that they ought not to run the risk of frightening the market. The Government were responsible for financing this Bill, and they held that the blame for any such lamentable occurrence would fall upon them. They quite understood the arguments of hon. Members opposite, but from the financial point of view they were sure they were doing their duty in remaining firm in this matter. Supposing there was an alarm, as there might be, in consequence of tens of thousands of persons registering their names, what would happen? The new stock would be issued at a serious discount, and the loss would fall on the Irish Development Grant, and therefore on the Irish peasant proprietors. It followed that Ireland herself was interested in seeing that the finances of this Bill commended themselves to those who were best capable of giving an opinion on financial matters. The position of the Government was that, while they could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, they favoured an all round distribution of a bonus of 12 per cent., leaving the rest of the Bill in respect to finance intact. That view had been very carefully considered by the Government; and although he admitted that hon. Members opposite were entitled to express their views, he could hold out no hope that the Amendment could be accepted.

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

said he quite saw that there were financial objections which induced the Government to take up the position they had done; but might he observe that there could hardly be the same objection to giving power to the Treasury to fix a limit at some future date? He had an Amendment on the Paper to provide— That if at any time within three years after the passing of this Act the Treasury deem it expedient to limit a time after which such percentage shall not be payable, or to prescribe a reduced percentage, it shall be lawful for the Treasury, and in its discretion, to appoint a day not later than the 1st day of January, 1910, as the last day upon which applications under the first section of this Act may be made, or to declare and prescribe as to subsequent applications a different and lower scale than that in said First Schedule mentioned. It seemed to him that, however great might be the objection to the time limit now, it was a wholly different question to say whether in the years to come the Treasury might not take it upon themselves to fix a limit. But, of course, if the Government were determined in this matter not to accept this Amendment in any shape or form he would not take up the time of the Committee by moving it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the question was that they were not dealing with ascertained facts, but with the impression which their proceedings might create in the minds of financiers, and on that score objection might also be taken to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As he had said, the money market was very sensitive, and they were bound to err on the side of caution.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would not move his Amendment; but was it not rather unfair that those landlords who held out, on the policy of the "dog in the manger," should get the benefit? He thought that the landlords who came in immediately were entitled to something more than those who wanted to squeeze the last drop out of their tenants.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not go further than he had already stated. Under Clause 43 as it stood the Treasury had power to revise the rates. His own opinion was that those landlords who came in now should do better than those who came in later.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that, although he and his friends held very strong views on this matter, it was manifest, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be a waste of time to continue the discussion, and he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said he had an Amendent on the Paper to leave out, in line 29, first sub-section of Clause 43 the word "percentage," and to insert "sum." The Amendment had reference to the distribution of the bonus, but as the right hon. Gentleman said that this could be better discussed on the schedule he would withdraw it now, reserving his right to move it on the Report stage.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he felt himself bound to the hon. Member for East Mayo not to settle this question of the distribution of the bonus until they reached the schedule, although he thought it could be settled now.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said he would rather have it settled on the schedule.

*MR. O'DOHERTY

asked if he was to understand the right hon. Gentleman as stating that it was the intention of the Government to give a 12 per cent. bonus all round?

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in order that there might be no mistake about the matter he might say that it would carry out the views of the Government if he accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh to leave out from "percentage" and insert "of 12 per cent. upon the amount of the purchase money under the Land Purchase Act." But he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that they should wait for discussion on the point till the schedule was reached.

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

said he wished to know the effect of the words in Sub-section 4, which provided that the section should not apply to any estate sold by the Land Judge; where either a Receiver had been appointed over the estate, or the estate was so circumstanced that it would, independently of the Act of 1896, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price. Take the case of the King Harman Estate which, owing to the terms of the will of Mr. King Harman, a former Member of the House, was now in Chancery, and would not be available for the next eight years. Did these words in the sub-section mean that that estate could be withdrawn out of Chancery so as to escape the effect of this Act altogether? If so that would be a very serious matter for the tenants.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 42, to leave out from the word 'either' to the end of the line."—(Mr. Tully.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said that where a Chancery order for sale had been obtained it might have been possible to demand a bonus from the general taxpayer. The object of the bonus was to induce a sale which otherwise would not take place. Therefore, they began with that. But it might be said that there were estates in the Land Judge's Court which were not really going to be sold. His answer to that was that if that were true, and they came out of the Land Judge's Court, they could then be sold with the bonus. However, before the Report stage, he would consider the case of a minor or a lunatic whose estate was in Chancery and see whether some arrangement could be come to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that something was necessary in order to prevent these estates being discharged once the order for sale had been made. Mr. Justice Ross had refused to sell these estates because a sufficiently good price could not be obtained for them, and they could not take the bonus but would be held up for twelve years to come. It seemed to him some words were necessary to prevent these estates being discharged from Chancery. When an absolute order for sale had been made in the Land Judge's Court it should not be lawful to discharge these estates.

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

who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say: With regard to the first point raised it might be necessary to make some small verbal alterations to allow for a receiver who had been discharged. With regard to the point raised in respect of minors and lunatics, no difficulty would arise in that case because the Court had control in those matters, and nothing could be done without the consent of the Lord Chancellor or those under him who had control of the estate.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the case was rather graver than the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. He knew a case where that question came in, the owner, a widow lady, quite against the interests of the tenants, had stated that if a little more time were given she could bring in the mortgage money. The Judge stated that if she did not bring the money in he would commit her for contempt. She had not brought in the money and she was still permitted to prevent tenants from obtaining their holdings. Whenever an absolute order for sale was made the Judge ought to insist on the rigidity of the order and sell the estate out of Court. If there was no intention to sell these estates then the taxpayer ought not be compelled to maintain a Judge at £3,500 a year for that purpose. A gross abuse had grown up with regard to this.

*MR. BUTCHER (York)

said he was glad to hear that a modification of the rigour of this clause was to be allowed, and that some estates which originally were not to get the benefit of the bonus were now to get that benefit. He would like it modified in those cases where the estate was solvent and a receiver was appointed mainly for the purposes of administration. As he understood it under this clause, a case of that kind would be entirely excluded from the benefit of the bonus because it would be an estate sold by the Land Court, of which a receiver had been appointed. Would it be open to the parties to discharge the receiver in a case of that kind and take the case out of the Court of Chancery and sell under the provisions of the Act.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it might be necessary to introduce some verbal alterations to carry out the hon. Gentlemen's proposal, because it was part at the policy of the Government that a case in which the Court had appointed a receiver for the purposes of mere administration should not be considered to be in the Court at all.

*MR. BUTCHER

asked whether it would be possible to discharge the receiver and take such an estate out of the Court of Chancery.

MR. ATKINSON

said the appointment of a receiver in the Landed Estates Court was merely for accelerating sale, and in order to get such a receiver appointed it was necessary to petition for sale purely and simply. If such a petition was not bonâ fide then it must be withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHARPE (Kensington, N.)

said there was a very strong feeling that Sub-section 4 would press very hardly on all parties and that it should be withdrawn. He therefore begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 22, line 41, to leave out sub-Section 4."—(Mr. Sharpe.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he thought the desire of his hon. friend would be met by an Amendment which he proposed to move later, and therefore he hoped his hon. friend would not persist in his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45.

*MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said he apprehended the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment he now proposed to move, as it carried out the policy and object of the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 11, at end, to add the words 'No stamp duty or fee fund shall be charged on any searches directed by the Land Commission or Land Judge in the Registry of Deeds, Registry of Titles, or Registry of Judgments.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the object of the Amendment seemed to be to prevent stamp duty being charged for searches. Clause 22 already provided that searches should be made without charge, and he held that that included stamp duty or fee fund, and that clause represented the bargain the Committee had come to. He could not extend it any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

said the grievance his Amendment was designed to meet was a very serious one. It was a grievance which was unintentionally inflicted in all the Acts that had been passed. It had never been called attention to in any of these debates, and he therefore considered he was right in referring to it. Taking the case of a farmer who rented a farm at £125, the moment he had purchased it under the Purchase Acts at a price which represented a purchase annuity of, say, £100, if he put it up for sale and sold, the person who bought had to pay, in addition to the stamp duty on the actual price, a sum of £15 for stamp duty on the redemption value of the annuity. Each £100 of annuity represented over £15 for stamp duty in case of a transfer. If a landlord transferred his mortgage he had to pay, not 10s. per cent., but 6d. per cent.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, line 11, at end, to add the words 'and stamp duty shall be payable on any conveyance or transfer of land purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, or Part II. of this Act, only in respect of the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance or transfer, and exclusive of the redemption value of the annuity payable to the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

said in this matter the Government had a great engine of oppression at their disposal; no lawyer would advise his client to fight. While the Government might say the law did not require alteration it was evident that in practice it did. If he had a farm under the landlord and tenant system and he sold it at £500, stamp duty would be paid on £500; but on the day after it was sold the stamp duty would be on £3000. No doubt there was necessity to prevent fraud, but subject to that necessity some such Amendment as this should be accepted.

MR. ATKINSON

said he did not think the Amendment was necessary. The stamp duty would only be paid on the real sum paid provided it was a bonâ fide sale.

MR. O'DOHERTY

said the wording of the Bill was vague and this Amendment was designed to make it clear.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would consider what had been said as to this practic having grown up and whether these words required altering.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46.

MR. BUTCHER

said he desired to insert words to relieve a trustee who was guilty of a breach of trust. The words he moved followed very closely the words embodied in the English Judicial Trustee Act of 1893. That Act, curiously enough, was not made to apply to Ireland. He failed to see why an Irish trustee should be harder hit than any other, and therefore he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 23, after line 29, to insert the words '(4) In the case of all proceedings in relation to any lands sold in the High Court, or under the Land Purchase Acts, or any charges thereon, or any moneys realised thereby, if it appears to the Court that a trustee is, or may be, personally liable for any breach of trust, whether the transaction alleged to be a breach of trust, occurred before or after the passing of this Act, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the Court in the matter in which he committed such breach, then the Court may relieve the trustee, either wholly or partly, from personal liability for the same.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said, as he understood, the position of a trustee guilty of such act was provided for in the clause if the breach of trust was committed after the passing of this Bill, but it could not be dealt with if committed before. He thought the fears of the hon. and learned Member in regard to the trustee who honestly made a mistake were quite groundless. [Cries of "No, no!"]

MR. BUTCHER

said he could not agree with what the Attorney-General had stated. His Amendment read— In the case of all proceedings in relation to any lands sold in the High Court, or under the Land Purchase Acts, or any charges thereon, or any moneys realised thereby, if it appears to the Court that a trustee is, or may be, personally liable for any breach of trust. The clause was merely confined to cases of sales arising out of land in Ireland, and his proposal would give the trustee the same protection in case there was a breach of trust, as was at present the case in England.

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member's proposal relates simply to the investment of money, where a trustee has invested money where he had no power, then I think his Amendment is in order, but if it relates to other matters, then it is not in order upon this clause

MR. BUTCHER

Then I will move it on Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that when the Act of 1893, dealing with this subject, was before the House, he called attention to the desirability of applying the Act to Ireland, but Parliament did not do so. Now they were creating for the purposes of this Act alone a public trustee, and it was most desirable that he should act as a trustee generally. The Act of 1893 had worked well in England, and it was desirable that a similar provision should be extended to Ireland.

MR. DILLON

reminded the hon. and learned Member for Louth that the Trustees Bill was extended to Ireland upon the Motion of the Lord Chancellor, but that provision was knocked out when the Bill came back to the Commons. What the Chief Secretary ought to do was to extend to trustees in Ireland the same protection and relief which they had got under the Act in England.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think this matter is relevant to this clause. If the hon. Member will bring it up as a new clause it will be further considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47.

*MR. HEMPHILL

proposed an Amendment to insert the words, "and the President for the time being of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." He understood the Chief Secretary to intimate that he would bring in a clause which would include the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. He understood the Chief Secretary to have given a modified adhesion to his former Amendment upon this point, and to have promised to include the President when he came to put forward the general section about rule making.

Amendment proposed— In page 24, line 38, after the word 'Commission,' to insert the words 'and the President, for the time being, of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was anxious that no words of his should be misunderstood. All he promised upon a former occasion was to consider whether it would be proper to discriminate in this matter and bring in the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member opposite had asked him to insert the words— And the President for the time being of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. He had no doubt that the rule making authority would consult the Law Society, but he did not think they should lay a statutory obligation upon them to do so. In drawing up the rules it would not be necessary to bring in the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

*MR. HEMPHILL

said this Amendment had been suggested to him by the Incorporated Law Society after very serious deliberation on their part and after full consideration. The Land Commission consisted of men who were, more or less, lay people. [Cries of "No, no!"] He thought the experience of the Incorporated Law Society, speaking through its President, would be of enormous public advantage. On that ground alone he thought his Amendment was reasonable. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to the contrary, there was no need for him to take up further time arguing the point.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that, unless they had the support of the general body of landlords, solicitors in Ireland this Act would not work with the same smoothness. They would be consulted in every case by the landlords. They were in possession of the landlords, deeds, and from the tenants' point of view it was desirable to recognise this very powerful body. They had the landlords in the hollow of their hands, and to that extent they had also the tenants in their power. He did not think it was good policy for the Government to resist this Amendment.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

thought that when the Incorporated Law Society made a suggestion of this kind the Chief Secretary ought to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withrawn.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

moved to insert after "sale" the words "such rules shall be made by a majority, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one." He said it was very important that these rules should be so framed as to inspire the confidence of all whom they concerned. The reasons for the Amendment were so obvious that it was unnecessary that he should detain the Committee by going into them. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 43, after the word 'sale' to insert the words 'such rules shall be made by a majority, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the object of the hon. Member was already met by the Act of 1891, which would have to be read with the present measure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was very desirable that some assurance should be given that the Trustee Act of 1893 would be applied in some way.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought the matter ought to be dealt with by a separate Bill, and he would consider the possibility of introducing such a measure. Clauses 46 and 47 had been settled after prolonged consideration, in which he had the assistance of the Lord Chancellor of England, and he could not attempt to engraft on to this Land Bill a general Amendment of the Trustee Acts in Ireland.

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48.

Amendments proposed— In page 25, line 1, to leave out from the word 'in' to the first word 'the' in line 5."—(Mr. Wyndham). In page 25, line 5, after the word 'Acts),' to insert the words 'imposing a limit on advances.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said the Amendment he had on the Paper provided for the case of an evicted tenant being restored to his former holding. He did not propose to move the Amendment, as the words to be moved by the Chief Secretary covered not only that case, but also the case of a tenancy created by the Congested Districts Board. He pointed out, however, that the Chief Secretary did not meet the case of an evicted tenant who was given, not his former holding, but another holding on the estate.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought the point referred to by the hon. Member had already been met by the Amendment of Section 2, giving a discretionary extension of the term. The Amendment he now moved covered the conclusion arrived at on a former occasion.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 18, at end, to insert the words 'Provided also that this section shall not apply to the case of a former tenant, or a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative, purchasing his former holding, or to the case of a tenancy created by the Congested Districts Board."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. DILLON

, while admitting that this was a very valuable Amendment, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to making the matter quite clear by adding the words "or the Estates Commissioners."

MR. WYNDHAM

thought the words suggested would go farther than the hon. Member intended.

MR. DILLON

pointed out that, under the Act, the powers of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board would overlap in the matter of migration, therefore the former would require the same powers in that respect as the latter.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would have to consider the matter very carefully. A man could not be asked to give up a farm unless an equivalent were found elsewhere. The words suggested by the hon. Member would abolish all the limitations that had been inserted, unless words were added defining the purpose for which such tenancies were created, and he would rather not attempt hastily to find such words.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the Government ought to consider this sub section in connection with the pledge they had given to amend Sub-section 4 of Clause 43.

MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)

asked whether the object of the Amendment was not to confine the provision to tenants who purchased their old holdings, but to extend it to other cases.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the case of a tenant who purchased a holding other than the one he formerly occupied had been met in another part of the Bill. This provision contemplated the case of a tenant who reoccupied his old holding, in which his contention had all along been that the limit of advance should not apply. But in these voluntary arrangements the Government were bound to see that nobody suffered either in kind or in money value. The amount of land available for enlarging or improving holdings was very small. The original limit had been extended to £1,000, and a discretion had been given. He did not think they ought to go farther, but if he were pressed as to the necessity of introducing words dealing with the Estates Commissioners, he would consider the matter before the Report stage.

MR. CLANCY

understood Clause 2 to apply to cases where tenants were supplied with holdings on estates entirely other than those from which they were evicted. That would leave the cases of the men who returned to the estate from which they had been evicted. The less fortunate men would be entitled to a smaller advance than the more fortunate who got back to their former holdings. The evicted tenants on an estate would be treated unequally, and he did not understand that the case of the tenant reinstated on a holding other than his former holding on the estate had as yet been provided for at all. He thought Clause 2 referred to the provision of holdings for evicted tenants on estates other than those from which they had been evicted. If he was right in that, the case of a man going to another holding was not provided for, or else he was not as well treated as a tenant who returned to his old holding.

MR. TULLY

said this referred to tenancies created since 1st March last. He begged to enter his protest, because he thought it would be a serious thing if the eleven months men in Connaught were to get extended limits there, and if they were enabled to get hold permanently of the grazing lands which they now held under this temporary method of tenancy. He thoroughly agreed with the protest made formerly on this matter by the hon. Member for Cork.

MR. CLANCY

said his Amendment had nothing to do with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. WYNDHAM

admitted that this was a somewhat difficult question. The clause did not embody all the arrangements at which they had arrived. In proper cases it would enable a man to acquire a holding other than that from which he was evicted up to £7,000. They were all agreed that it was proper to do this in order to put estates in a proper state to be resold. That could only be done by men going out of farms in badly congested districts, so that the farms vacated might be available for increasing the size of other holdings. He thought that covered the whole ground. It was not proper that persons, in expectation of this Bill, should proceed to map out holdings of convenient size. The Government introduced Clause 48 to prevent that. The general policy of the Government was that there should be a limitation to the manufacture of holdings in order to capture land in the manner already described. That would be the effect of adopting the hon. Member's proposal. They must carry out and not defeat the general policy of the Act, and the way to do that was to foster migration.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he entirely agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He pointed out that in order to make the intention of the Government clear it was desirable that the drafting should be altered. There was no definition of "holding" in the Bill. By Clause 2, Sub-section 3, it was provided that the expression "holding" in the Land Purchase Acts "shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section." The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment enabled provision to be made for a former tenant, but it would not enable a part to be sold. The reference to a parcel of land was confined to Clause 2. He suggested that a definition should be put in so that "holding" should embrace part of a holding.

MR. O'SHEE

said there were farms which were in part occupied by new tenants. Would the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman cover these cases also?

MR. WYNDHAM

said Section 1 of the Bill dealt with a holding as it was, and which was to be sold as it was. Section 2 included everything else.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he thought the word "holding" in Section 2 was confined to the provisions of that section. The Committee were now discussing Clause 48 which began with these words— Notwithstanding anything in Section 2 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888.

MR. ATKINSON

said it was necessary, in order to make the Purchase Acts apply to these parcels of land, to say that the parcels were holdings.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he quite followed what the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, but he still thought that there was something in his point. He would confer with the right hon. Gentleman on the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

said the Chief Secretary had told them that Clause 48 was put in the Bill to prevent the manufacture of holdings. They were still hampered by the provision in regard to £2,000 in exceptional cases. That appeared to him to be entirely wrong. It was probable that the words at the beginning of Sub-section 1 were really intended to apply to this class of tenants as well as others. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 19, to leave out Sub-section 2.

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said this was not a new provision. It appeared in the Bill which he introduced last year. When an estate was in Court, holdings were let to persons, and it might be held that those who occupied under these Court tenancies had no right to come under an Act of this kind. A fair compromise had been struck in the case of those who had the advantage of taking land which had not been finally disposed of, by permitting advances to be made up to £1,000, and in some cases up to £2,000. It would defeat the policy of the Government if they omitted the sub-section. These estates often comprised untenanted land. He would remind his hon. friend that even hon. Members who had taken exception to the Bill as a whole had all said that some effort should be made to deal with the problem of the congested districts. He doubted whether they could deal with these districts if they omitted the sub-section.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he entirely accepted the view of the Government in this matter. He thought all restrictions were mischievous. It was another instance of legislating for all Ireland by reference to the condition of what were called the congested counties. Besides that, it was a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Owens case. He asked whether the case of an evicted tenant who had been created a Court tenant was met by the Amendment the Chief Secretary moved, a moment ago. Thousands of the Court tenants were evicted tenants. To say in an offhand way that these evicted tenants when they became Court tenants were not to have the full benefit of the Act would be to deal a blow at the general body of the evicted tenants. Did Sub-section 2 override Sub-section 1, even in the case of an evicted tenant provided for by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman? He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to put in his proviso as an entirely separate sub-section, and then it would appear that neither Sub-section 1 nor Sub-section 2 would govern the case of the evicted tenant. There were a great number of cases of which he was personally cognisant where there had been no eviction, but the tenant had remained with the consent of the landlord and encumbrancer, and it was out of the money which the tenant had spent in improvements on the tenancy that the owner had been kept from sale.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would take into consideration the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

said that in that event he would not press the Amendment to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said he had an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (c) of this clause which he proposed to put for the purpose of eliciting an opinion from the Attorney-General for Ireland in regard to its effect. At present the almost universal practice was that when a tenant died intestate leaving a widow, she went on keeping the holding and paying the rent though she could not bequeath it. It seemed to him that that sub-section, if it became law, would be at variance with the general practice.

Amendment proposed— In page 25, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (c)."—(Colonel Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (c) stand part of the clause."

MR. ATKINSON

said that the condition of things which the hon. and gallant Member wished to provide for was covered by the proviso at the end of Sub-section 1.

COLONEL NOLAN

said he was satisfied with the explanation and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he had two Amendments on the Paper relating to the same sub-section. The effect of these Amendments taken together would be to reverse the procedure in the case of the death of a tenant. Under the clause, on the death of the proprietor of a holding, the Land Commission might require the holding to be sold within twelve months, or, in default, they might cause the holding to be sold, provided that the Land Commission might, instead of that procedure, nominate some person interested in the holding to be the proprietor of the holding. As he had said, he wanted the procedure to be reversed.

Amendments proposed— In page 26, line 2, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'nominate' in line 8. In page 26, line 12, after the word 'otherwise' to insert the words 'or may cause the holding to be sold.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

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

*MR. HEMPHILL

confessed that in his opinion the Amendments of his hon. and gallant friend were an improvement. The arrangement in the clause as it stood would cause delay and the Amendments would facilitate the working of the Act and prevent family differences.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that if the Government yielded on Amendments of this kind they would be giving away one of the most effective securities the Treasury possessed. The Land Commission might nominate a person or in default order a sale; but what would happen if there were a dozen sons and none of them would say he was responsible for the annual payments? Why should not the Land Commission have the power to order a sale within twelve months of the death of the owner of a holding?

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

thought that the question was important. The nomination ought to come first, and if the Land Commission were not satisfied with the nomination then they ought to have the power of sale.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that this was really a question of drafting. His draftsman had considered the clause very carefully, and he agreed with the draftsman. He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would not press his Amendment.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he knew from experience that, though his Amendments might not be so good as a matter of drafting, they would be better law in the interest of the peace of families.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was to the national interest of Ireland that this clause, which was a little stringent, should be retained so as to defeat any attempted fraud.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he agreed that all these questions had to be carefully considered. If he accepted the Amendment he would have to elaborate the second part of it. There was the difficulty of intestacy and of relations who could not make up their minds to do anything, and unless they could come to a satisfactory family arrangement they must put up the estate for sale.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

knew what was likely to happen. The first thing was to nominate somebody, as innumerable family feuds ought to be avoided. He thought that his Amendment would bring about a better state of things, but after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

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

moved to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 49. He said he was not in want of sympathy with the object, but he thought the clause was so drafted as to defeat the object it wished to attain. It would be important in Ireland in the future, when the sales had been achieved, that the greatest care should be taken to protect the interests of the small peasant proprietors. With regard to sub-letting he perfectly agreed that sub-letting and mortgaging were some of the greatest drawbacks Ireland had to combat, but he could not agree that this sub - section would altogether eradicate the system of over-borrowing, and he therefore thought a sound system of credit ought to be established in Ireland. Abroad most of the peasant proprietors had a system of land banks. In Germany there were the Raiffeisen Banks, and they had the Crédit Fonciers in France, which helped the peasant proprietors to obtain loans on favourable terms and at the lowest rates of interest. If this sub-section were retained in its present form he felt there would be a temptation for the peasant proprietors to surreptitiously borrow money from the small shopkeeper or the gombeen man, and it would go a long way in the future to establish a system of landlordism, which he would look upon as a very great evil. They did not want the tenant and the gombeen man going hand in hand and imitating "Charles Surface" and his uncle in the scene where they were found drinking to the toast of "Success to Usury." Therefore, if the Chief Secretary could promise to establish some sort of State credit in Ireland for the benefit of the peasant proprietors, it would go a very long way towards increasing their prosperity. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would eliminate this sub-section from the Bill and introduce some clause in order to counteract the difficulties which he saw ahead in the mortgaging and sub-letting of Irish land.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 13, to leave out Sub-sections 2."—(Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Gentleman had asked him to omit this sub-section in order to draw attention to another reform. He quite agreed that this was an important matter and that they ought in the future to do something towards the establishment of land banks, but he did not hold that they ought to omit this sub-section. On the contrary, he attached great importance to it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the words of the right hon. Gentleman should be printed on the back of the vesting order of the tenant in letters of gold.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

expressed himself as being entirely in favour of, and as supporting the sub-section. He would, however, like to have an answer to one question. This sub-section made null and void on a holding of the rateable value of £2 any instrument or mortgage for sums exceeding £20; did it make null and void three or four mortgages of £5 or £6 each, which would in the aggregate be more than the £20, or must it be in one mortgage; and if in more than one how were they to find out what money had been lent?

MR. ATKINSON

said that when a man had mortgaged his land for the amount, whether the loan was covered by one or by ten mortgages it was the same thing. With regard to the second point, if the mortgage was registered it could be seen from the register.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

thought the lenders of the money would see to it that they did not lend too much.

MR. T. M. HEALY

suggested that if it was made ten times the annual instalment instead of ten times the rateable value it would be far better, because undoubtedly the valuation differed very much in different parts of the country. Under the circumstances it might be well to consider that question.

*MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE

said he was quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth. In future the status of the Irish peasant proprietor would be considerably improved. Agriculture would no doubt flourish to a very much greater extent than hitherto, and there would be more foreign trade from Ireland. Ireland, in spite of her drawbacks, dealt with North America for grain, and with South America for manure, and she had to compete with Denmark, Holland, France, and Russia in produce. He thought if extended credit was given to the tenants it would be a great advantage to them. Where a man had to pay a lump sum to his relatives he would be able to do it with much greater advantage to himself in the future.

MR. TULLY

hoped that the Chief Secretary would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth, because otherwise this clause would be used to extort from the tenants a larger price than the landlords were entitled to. That was a thing they should try to prevent. In the old days of the plan of campaign they had hunted the gombeen man out of the west, and they did not want him back again.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

supported the suggestion that it should be ten times the annual instalment, because in many cases ten times the rateable value would be more than the whole farm would be worth.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was a useful one. The Government aimed roughly at one-third of the balance, and ten times the annual instalment would come to about that amount, and therefore he would accept that.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

said the instalment would increase in ratio to the number of years rent the tenant paid.

*MR. O'SHEE

pointed out thatf or the first ten years the tenant could borrow ten times the annuity, and that that amount would be much higher than the annuity for the second ten years, and considerably higher than the annuity for the third ten years, and that the effect of this Amendment would be that at the time when their holdings were most heavily charged they would be able to borrow most heavily. He wished to know how the acceptance of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Louth would affect the case of the 80,000 tenants who had already purchased their holdings. He thought it would considerably prejudice their case.

MR. WYNDHAM

said this provision could not affect those who had already purchased their holdings. They could not take away that which had already been sold.

MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, lines 15 and 16, to omit the words 'rateable value' in order to insert the words 'purchase annuity.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. O'SHEE

moved to insert in Sub-section (3), after "registered," the words, "within three months of the date of execution by the mortgagor or chargeant."

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 20, to insert the words within three months of the date of execution by the mortgagor or chargeant."—(Mr. O'Shee.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

was understood to accept the Amendment.

MR. GORDON

thought the Attorney-General had hardly considered the situation. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman wished to protect the owner, but he failed to see how this Amendment would do so.

MR. BUTCHER

pointed out that three months was rather too long a period. A man might mortgage his holding to its full value, keep the mortgage in his pocket, mortgage the holding a second time, and then register the first mortgage. In that case the second mortgagee would lose his money. The instrument ought to be registered within less than three months in order to prevent fraud on a subsequent mortgagee.

*MR. O'SHEE

said the ordinary law of priority would apply in such a case.

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal W.)

said that when introducing the Bill the Chief Secretary laid great stress on the dangers of excessive sub-division and excessive mortgaging of small holdings. The former was already sufficiently provided for, and the Chief Secretary had proposed to provide against the latter by a permanent rent-charge. That provision, however, had, very properly, for other reasons disappeared from the Bill, and in considering what should take its place regard might be had to an example afforded by America. In most of the States a provision existed by which a forced sale of a homestead was prevented, except for the nonpayment of taxes or money due to the State. The Amendment he desired to move followed the American precedent very closely, in that it proposed that no such sale should be made in the case of a holding not exceeding £20 rateable value, on which the proprietor actually resided. It might be suggested that this would lead to an undue restriction of credit, but it could hardly be contended that unlimited credit was good for these small tenants. There were other means of obtaining credit than running into debt with the local shopkeeper, and he thought the better class shopkeeper would not resent such a restriction being imposed. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to devise some better means of dealing with the matter he hoped he would accept this proposal.

Amendment moved— In page 26, line 22, at end to insert the words, '(4) No writ of fieri facias or other process of a Court shall be executed by seizure or sale of the estate or interest of any proprietor of a holding, not exceeding twenty pounds in rateable value, upon which he actually resides; nor shall any judgment be registered as a mortgage against same, nor shall any such writ, or judgment, or judgment mortgage be registered as a burden affecting same under the provisions of The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891.'"—(Mr. Hugh Law.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member asked the Committee to accept a law which prevailed in America but not throughout America. The objects which the hon. Member had at heart were very desirable objects, but they were achieved by some other provisions in this Bill. It would be the poorer tenants who would probably be driven to borrow, not improvidently or in such a way as to risk their interest in the land, but up to 25 per cent. If they were to say that those who lent the money would have no remedy at all against the tenants, the result would be that they would not be able to borrow at all.

MR. DILLON

said there appeared to be a false idea prevalent as to the powers of the small farmers to protect themselves, but he thought they would be found as competent to protect themselves as the landlords. If they wished to protect these small men from themselves the one effective way to do it was by a homestead law. When the Chief Secretary told them that this homestead law would prevent these small farmers from borrowing it was absurd, because it had been provided by a previous clause that they were prevented from borrowing more than one-third. This proposal would leave them free to borrow as far as they chose to do it. It would also put a check on what had been a real danger to them and that was unlimited and excessive credit being given to them with the object of depriving them of their holdings. He was aware that some of his colleagues thought this would destroy the credit of the small holders; he did not think it would have that effect. He thought that a very considerable section of shopkeepers would have no objection to this proposal because they did not desire to give excessive credit, and if they did they would not sell the holding. He had known many cases of shopkeepers who preferred to lose their money rather than sell a man out of his home. He thought this Amendment would put a most wholesome check on what threatened to ruin the people and the shopkeepers themselves. He believed that the only safe path was to put a check upon undue credit being given to the small holders. In nine cases out of ten a trader would go for the goods, and if the trader was foolish enough to give credit to a man who had no goods he deserved to lose his money. He maintained that if they were going to adopt the policy of protecting people against themselves the best way to do it was to limit their credit.

*MR. O'DOHERTY

said he had heard of a "no rent manifesto," but until he read the hon. Member's Amendment he never heard before of a "no debt manifesto." In the county of Donegal they had very few gombeen men, but the people largely depended upon the shopkeepers to make both ends meet. In some instances the people in six weeks had to make enough money to keep them a year. This Amendment struck at the small farmer and fisherman, and the result of its operation would be that every shopkeeper who gave credit to a farmer whose holding was less than £20 rateable value would take care that he got a duly registered mortgage, and the tenant would have to pay the costs. So far as his own constituency was concerned it would mean disaster, not only to the shopkeepers but to the very people whom the hon. and learned Member wished to protect. It would absolutely destroy credit in Donegal, and he thought Donegal was typical of Con naught and other congested districts. Therefore he hoped the Government would not engraft this proposal upon the Land Act of 1893, for an Amendment more calculated to do harm to the shopkeepers, and more particularly to the poorer counties, was never introduced. He believed that the more opportunities they gave to the people to borrow the more they would borrow and this Amendment would mean a great loss not only to the shopkeepers but also to all those who purchased under this Act, and whose valuation was under £20.

MR. O'SHEE

contended that this Amendment carried out the very objects which the hon. Member who had just sat down desired to further. He thought the shopkeepers would be glad if the Committee adopted this proposal, because then they would be in a better position to refuse credit.

MR. TULLY

asked whether the protection which the tenants already had was done away with under the clause as it stood. If the effect of the Bill was to remove that protection he thought it should be amended.

*MR. HUGH LAW

said he recognised the force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said when he stated that this was a very large question to engraft upon the Land Bill, and for that reason he would not press the Amendment. He did not move the Amendment of his own whim or fancy, as the hon. Member for North Donegal seemed to suppose. He moved it in accordance with a resolution of the National Convention held in Dublin.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON (Londonderry)

moved— In Clause 49, page 26, line 25, to insert—"This Section shall not apply to demesne or other lands re-sold or sold under Section 3 of this Act. He said this clause was intended to take care of the present proprietor after he had purchased. He did not see why it should not refer also to the landlord who had sold his demesne and re-bought it. Under the clause as it stood he would not be able to sub-let his demesne without being tied to the apron strings of the Land Commission.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 25, at end, to add the words, 'this section shall not apply to demesne or other lands resold or sold under Section 3 of this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Hamilton.)

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

MR. DILLON

said he wondered on what ground the noble Lord moved this Amendment. He thought it would set up an invidious distinction, and it was desirable to avoid any further distinctions between the different classes of men who were to use public money under the Act. The landlords who bought back their demesnes would become permanent proprietors so far as this Act was concerned. He did not see why they should be treated on a different footing from others.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said there was a difference between the two cases. In one case the State advanced the whole of the purchase money, and in the other case it advanced only one-third of the price of the holdings sold.

MR. DILLON

asked whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the State was only to advance one-third of the purchase money.

MR. WYNDHAM

said his noble friend had just handed in the Amendment, and he must have an opportunity of considering it before stating what course he would take in regard to the proposal. His general view was that the permission for the landlord to sell his demesne and buy it back was a separate matter put into the Bill largely to induce the landlord to sell. The landlord must take his chances with other people. He did not think they would be effecting equality by saying that all that was proper and applicable to a peasant proprietor was proper and applicable to a home farm, or whatever it might be, which the landlord retained. The object of the Treasury was to induce the landlord to sell. He doubted the policy of restricting that inducement. He was not prepared to give a definite answer on an Amendment which he had not had an opportunity of studying.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON

said that he would bring up the matter on Report. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. DILLON

said this was a very serious question if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce a provision allowing the landlords to sublet. When a landlord got money to buy the home farm it was on the assumption that he would reside on it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that what had been stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo showed that the Amendment required to be considered in connection with all the other proposals in the Bill. His idea was that the money was to be advanced to buy back the demesne as an inducement to the resident landlord to enjoy his property. He would consider whether it was possible to meet the proposal of his noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'SHEE

called the attention of the Chief Secretary to the powers conferred by Clause 4, on trustees to acquire land for the purposes of the Labourers Act, and stated he was sure it was not intended or desired that trustees should be compelled to go to the Land Commission for permission to sublet or subdivide for labourers' allotments. That, however, was what they would have to do under this clause. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter before Report.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not think the clause would apply to that, but he would consider the matter.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50—

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 26, to leave out the words 'subject to a perpetual rent-charge under this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, line 30, to leave out the words 'and the perpetual rent-charge.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51.

MR. HEALY

said the clause contained the following sub-sections— (2) When any collector of poor rate becomes aware of any sub-division or letting of any such holding he shall, as soon as may be, give information thereof to the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor. (3) The district registrar of births and deaths shall, so soon as he is aware of the death of any person who was at the time of his death the proprietor of any such holding, situate in whole or in part within his district, give information to the Land Commission in the prescribed manner of such death. (4) Every district registrar and collector of poor rates who fails to comply with the requirements of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. It appeared to him that the duty of collecting poor rates was already sufficiently difficult, but if he was to have this duty imposed on him, subject to a penalty of £10 for failure, he ought to be paid. The collectors were appointed for local purposes, but now they were to be constituted Imperial officers. They would be looked upon as spies and informers, and if they were to be subject to this penalty they should get some such fee as was paid under the Jurors Act.

He begged to move as a new sub-section—

Amendment proposed— In page 27, after Sub-section 5, to insert a new Sub-section '(6), The fee to be prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant shall be payable by the Land Commission, in each case, to any official who gives information as is required by Sub-sections 2 and 3.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

COLONEL NOLAN

said that they would get a much lower class of poor rate collectors in the future than at present if the sub-section remained as it stood. At present the collector was looked upon as a commercial man of some importance, and the duty to be imposed upon him by the clause was quite extraneous to a collector's general work. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman, if he lived in the country, would like to give the information.

MR. TULLY

said that at present the poor rate collector had to give information under the Franchise Act. He had to state any changes that had taken place in the occupancy of the holding. But for that work he was paid extra; and if he had to do a new, and, to a certain extent, an invidious duty—which might be a perfectly proper duty—to prevent sub-division, he was entitled to extra payment. The fee should be the same as he got under the Franchise Act and the Jurors Act.

MR. WYNDHAM

said they were all agreed that sub-division was an evil, and that it could not be prevented unless information of the sub-division was obtained through the poor rate collector. So far as he knew that official was the only person who could give the information. The hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the point that it would be unfair to impose new duties on existing officers without extra pay. He admitted the force of the contention that new duties imposed upon an official should carry with them some remuneration, and he agreed to consider this point in consultation with the Vice-President of the Local Government Board. He could not go further at present than that, and he could not accept the words of the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, he maintained that a fine of £10 was excessive for a first offence, although he could understand that fine being imposed for the third or fourth offence. Under the Franchise Act the fine was only 40s.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the penalty should have some relation to the remuneration. He was not in a position now to say what the remuneration should be, and, therefore, what the fine should be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52.

MR. DILLON

said he had an Amendment on the Paper to delete from Sub-section 4, the words "not more than one year's arrears of" for the purpose of ascertaining the full meaning of these words.

Amendment proposed— In page 27, lines 41 and 42, to leave out the words 'not more than one year's' and insert the word 'no.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said that this provision was a restriction on the powers of the Land Judge's Court.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that it was only right that he should state that the Land Judge exercised his jurisdiction in regard to arrears in the most clement manner.

MR. DILLON

said that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53.

MR. DILLON

said he had an Amendment to leave out Sub-section 2, which he had put down for the purpose of eliciting some information. He wanted to know why one Commissioner instead of two was to make the report.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 4, to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That Sub section 1 stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said the section was intended to amend the present practice under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. They were not now dealing with the Estates Commissioners but with the Land Commissioners. When Judge Ross asked for a report it was sent in by two Commissioners; and unless the two Commissioners were agreed nothing happened. That was the trouble. The case was handed on to two other Commissioners, and very often a considerable time elapsed before any decisive result was achieved. It was now proposed that the report should be sent in by only one Land Commissioner; and if there was any difference of opinion between the Land Judge and the Commissioner the case was to be referred to three Commissioners; and when it was referred to three Commissioners a result must be arrived at.

MR. DILLON

said that one of the reasons why he put down his Amendment was to ascertain clearly what the machinery was to be. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed the Committee on that point. He said that the Committee were not now dealing with the Estates Commissioners, but with the Land Commissioners. By a subsequent clause, however, Mr. Murrough O'Brien was to be kicked out; Mr. Lynch was to retire; and Mr. Wrench was to be appointed an Estates Commissioner. There would then only remain Mr. Fitzgerald and Judge Meredith. Were all the reports to be made by them? If so, it would be perfectly monstrous. It was perfectly plain that if the reports were not made by the Estates Commissioners they would have to be made by Judge Meredith and Mr. Fitzgerald; and that would, be a very mischievous proceeding.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the whole of the clause would be either useless or mischievous. It was not the Land Commissioners who made the report; they only signed it. As far as the clause was concerned, it merely dispensed with the signatures of the Land Commissioners, and was introduced to cover the nakedness of the Land Commission, which, as soon as the Bill was passed, would consist only of the gentleman named by the hon. Member for East Mayo. It was the report of the journeyman who was sent down to the county that was signed by the Commissioners. The futility of fair rent appeals had often been commented upon; but, after all, if the Court did not see the farm it heard the evidence. But in those cases the Commissioners neither heard the evidence nor saw the farm. The entire section was absolutely futile and of no value; and, whether it was left in or taken out, exactly the same amount of judicial acumen would be applied to the report, whether it was signed by one person or two persons. The report did not really represent the opinion of the gentlemen who signed it. The delay to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not a judicial delay; it was an attorney's delay or a receiver's delay, and had no connection with the judicial persons concerned. It was also provided that Section 40 was not to apply to the case of a present occupier under a letting. It had been already provided in the Bill that Court-letting holdings should only be sold to the extent of £1,000 advance; and it was now proposed that the section should not apply at all in cases of demesne land, or land suitable for building sites. That looked magnificent; it looked a paternal exercise of jurisdiction by the Land Judge. But the real intention was to screw up the price in favour of the landlord as against the unfortunate tenant. The Judge might be told that there was land in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen suitable for building. How could the Judge know that? Of course, some agent or receiver, anxious to screw an additional sum out of the tenants, might tell him. Then there were to be no townparks; but with two or three exceptions every city and town in Ireland was shrinking. It was also to be provided that where the Land Commission reported that three-fourths of the tenants would not sell, the Land Judge was not to apply Section 40. Had any such case arisen? If so, he was not aware of it. The whole clause was either of no value at all, or was purely mischievous; and it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking the official view, to strike it out altogether.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that the clause provided that one Commissioner was to inspect the land, and make a report, and that if the Land Judge disagreed with that report, three Commissioners were to report. But after the Bill was passed there would not be three Land Commissioners left. That was the difficulty which he saw.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that perhaps the words he used were not clear enough to convey his meaning. He meant the Committee were not dealing with the Estates Commissioners as Estates Commissioners; but the Estates Commissioners would also be Land Commissioners; and no doubt Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey would be available under the section. It was not a very large question, as there would not be so many Section 40 sales in the future. He submitted to the Committee that it was a perfectly short and fair plan that one Commissioner should make a report, and that if the Land Judge did not agree with him, three Commissioners should report. At present a case might go through the whole roster of the Land Commission before a decision was arrived at. The hon. Member for North Louth took exception to Paragraph 2; but that introduced safeguards to prevent parks being sold. Where the landlord wanted his park it was provided that he should have it; but where he did not want it, he did not see why it should not be dealt with in order to enlarge very small holdings in the locality. It was not a matter which affected the State or the landlord; it was a matter which affected the smaller tenants.

*MR. O'SHEE

said that in his opinion the new provision would make for delay. In the first place, it was based on a hypothesis which had never materialised in fact. There were very few cases during the twenty-two years in which the Land Acts were in operation in which the two Commissioners had disagreed, because they always adopted the principle of splitting the difference. How the sub-section would work out would be as follows: Judge Ross had declared over and over again in public Court that it was an accepted principle in the conduct of his proceedings that he would never accept a lower price than the Commissioners reported ought to be taken, except at the request of the incumbrancers or owner or both. The result would be that where the single Commissioner, now to be substituted for the two Commissioners, was in disagreement with the Land Judge it would always be because the Land Judge considered the advance too low, and the only object of referring the matter to the three Commissioners was to induce them to accept the view of the Land Judge that the advance first suggested was too small. The result would be to put up the price. He thought the section referred to did not refer to the Land Commissioners. It dealt with the Commissioners sent by the Land Commissioners to inspect the holding and not with the Land Commissioners who sat in Dublin. The language of the section was very vague and it ought to be made clear.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that here, as in every other case, the Government proposed to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, and to reverse it in a sense injurious to the tenants, as they had already reversed it in the case of Lord Owen's estates. He had been very curious to see what this Section 40 meant, and he had assumed, as anyone would assume, that there was some machinery in it which entitled Judge Ross to refer the matter back to the Land Commission, but upon looking it up he found there was no machinery whatever. This was a most mischievous proposal. It must be remembered that nobody saw these holdings at all except the inspector. The Land Commissioners did not see them. The Land Judge did not see them. The Land Commissioner signed the report. The words of the section were— The Land Commissioners shall at the request of the Land Judge cause the estate to be inspected. They having caused it to be inspected and fixed the price, Judge Ross, who had not seen the property, thought he was entitled to put the price by the Land Court, which had seen it, which he had no power to do. This was an attempt to reverse the decision of a Court of equal jurisdiction with his own. This was part of the Murrough O'Brien conspiracy. Of that he was satisfied. First of all the Government provide that the Land Commission shall consist of only one man, and then, if Judge Ross is not satisfied with the price that has been arrived at, he is to get that man to raise it. This was an anti-Murrough O'Brien section and was designed to turn Mr. Murrough O'Brien out. He hoped Mr. Murrough O'Brien would sit tight and refuse to be turned out. Judge Ross had no power to refer the matter back to the Laud Commissioners, who were the persons to inspect the land. All he could do was to ask the receiver for a report. The receiver was not an independent person at all as compared with the Land Commissioners. The Estate receiver had no object whatever except to enhance the value of the report. It was quite clear that the class of drafting which ran through so many sections of the Bill was personal drafting. This clause, he would venture to say, was drafted in the Land Judge's Court and sent to the right hon. Gentleman direct from that Court, and whoever drew it drew it solely with the view of humiliating Mr. Murrough O'Brien, or at any rate with the view of depriving the tenants of his fairness and independence.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's account of the origin of the clause. He believed the provisions of this clause would make Section 40 work more smoothly and would not prejudice the tenants.

MR. DILLON

said he put down the Amendment for the purpose of eliciting some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, and if he were right in believing that if Sub-section 3 came into force and Section 40 of the Act of 1896 was suspended that the Estates Commissioners could proceed under Section 6 of the present Bill, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said Sub-section 3 was drafted to deal with cases where the Land Commissioners sold without any advance at all. In those cases under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 nothing happened and the Commissioner's had to deal with the case as a congested estate.

MR. TULLY

said it came to this: that a single Estate Commissioner could make a report as to what should be sold and, if Judge Ross agreed with the Commissioner, they could settle the matter between them. Under this clause Wrench and Judge Ross would be able to sell an unencumbered estate, and Finucane and Bailey would have nothing to say.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked whether the hon. Member would after the word "consideration" insert "on any question except that of price." It had been decided that Judge Ross had no power to enhance the price fixed by the Land Commissioners, and this was simply an attempt to enable him to say—"The price is not big enough; I want you to give more." Unless the provision was intended to be hostile to the tenants, some such words as had been suggested were necessary.

MR. ATKINSON

said the object of the sub-section was obvious. By Section 40 of the Act of 1896 more than one Commissioner was concerned in determining the value of the holdings and the sum to be advanced. Those Commissioners might disagree, and this subsection was intended to solve the difficulty.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that no such disagreements had ever been heard of. It was impossible for these Gentlemen to have disagreed, because if they disagreed they could not make a report; they had invariably made a report, therefore they had not disagreed. This proposal was simply an effort to enable Judge Ross to get over the decision of the Court of Appeal by which it was laid down that he had no authority to raise prices.

MR. TULLY

thought some attention should be given to a point which arose when the zones did not exist in their entirety. The sub-section simply meant that Judge Ross could force prices above the maximum.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

moved the insertion of words limiting the reconsideration to "any question other than one of price." The Land Judge would still be able to obtain from the Land Commission a report on any conceivable subject except that of price over which the Court of Appeal had decided he had no jurisdiction. If such jurisdiction was to be given, it ought to be done by actual words. As it stood, the provision was an indirect means of enabling Judge Ross to subvert the law of the land; it could have no other meaning.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 87, after the word 'reconsideration' to insert the words 'on any question other than one of price.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

reminded the hon. Member than on an earlier clause the Government had not seen their way to take away from Judge Ross the discretion indubitably vested in him to protect the interests of mortgagees and others in the estate. The decisions under Section 40, as he understood, were that Judge Ross must sell; he might not fix the price, but he could go on refusing prices to the end of time if he held that the prices were unjust to the persons whose interests he had to protect. This sub-section was intended, to bring such a conflict to an issue as rapidly as possible.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the Chief Secretary's statement was inaccurate with regard to Section 40. The Land Judge could not go on refusing, he was compelled by statute to make a definite offer to the tenant. The meaning of that was that as soon as the report came in from the Land Commission, the encumbrancer or any outside person might offer more, but the Land Judge was bound at some figure to give the right of pre-emption to the tenant. There could not be indefinite delay. The clause proposed an entire change of procedure, for which no case whatever had been made out. The proposal was simply that where there were no higher offers, the Land Judge was to refer the report back, and, because he thought the price not high enough, to bring to his aid Mr. Justice Meredith and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to overrule Mr. Murrough O'Brien in a pure question of price. Such a change would be most mischievous to the interests of the tenants, and was a reflection on the draftsman of Clause 40—a clause which the right hon. Gentleman had declared to be one of the best drafted sections that had ever passed the British Parliament.

MR. ATKINSON

was understood to say that the business of Judge Ross was to consider the interests of all parties, and to make to the tenants such an offer as he considered just and reasonable. He had power to fix the price; but he had no power to fix the amount of the advance. Those two things ought not to be confounded. No such substantial change of procedure as had been suggested was being made.

MR. TULLY

said that unless the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was accepted it would lead to a great screwing up of prices. Mr. Sexton's view was that the result of the operation of this proposal would be to induce the Land Judges to put the screw on the tenants.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it seemed to him that the answer of the Attorney-General was a mere technicality, because the price and the advance were the same thing so far as the tenant was concerned. The tenant could only offer what the Land Commission advanced and the effect of this Amendment would be that a larger sum would be granted. No delays had arisen by reason of the action of the Land Commission.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55.

*MR. BUTCHER

said that the object of his Amendment was to ensure that certain Crown reversions should be valued like any other Crown interest by the Land Commission and should be got rid of under the sale to the tenant. Some of these reversions were a most singular class of property which in the open market would not fetch one farthing. It had been decided that this particular class of reversions with which the Amendment dealt were not superior interests vested in the Crown under the Act of 1896. The value of these reversions was not estimated like all other reversions, and the result was that the Treasury, acting through the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, demanded 1 per cent. of the purchase money as the price at which they sold these worthless reversions. The Amendment proposed that these reversions should be valued like every other superior interest was valued by the Land Commission, at whatever was considered to be a fair value. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 27, after the word 'Dublin,' to insert the words '(5) The expression' 'superior interest' 'in Section 31 Sub-section 8 of the Act of 1896 shall include any reversion or remainder of the Crown expectant upon the determination of any estate in the lands sold to any person, and the price or compensation to be paid in respect of the redemption of the same shall be determined in the manner provided by Section 31 of the Act of 1896 as amended by this Act in respect of superior interests vested in the Crown expectant on the determination of any lease or term.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

*THE CHAIRMAN

Has the hon. Member obtained the assent of the Crown? It seems to me that this Amendment would endanger the interest of the Crown.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the hon. Member for York might be committed for high treason.

MR. BUTCHER

said he certainly had not obtained the assent of the Crown, but he thought the Chief Secretary might do so, and thus sweep away what was undoubtedly a serious blot upon the operation of this Bill. The effect was to enable the Treasury to get 1 per cent. of the purchase money for property which was worth nothing at all. Upon this point he supposed he should have the support of hon. Members from Ireland representing both landlords and tenants, and if the assent of the Crown was necessary he asked the Chief Secretary to get that assent.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think this is an Amendment which can be moved unless the hon. Member is prepared to say that he has obtained the assent of the Crown. If he has not done so his Amendment is out of order.

MR. BUTCHER

asked the Chief Secretary whether he would take steps to obtain the assent of the Crown and introduce a similar proposal on Report.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It is out of order to move this proposal without having previously obtained the assent of the Crown.

MR. BUTCHER

said that Sub-section 6 of Clause 55 left it at the discretion of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to remit any case involving a question of law or other question to the proper legal authority. His Amendment made the sub-section read that the Commissioners would be bound to remit such a question which ought not to be left to their discretion.

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 28, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. O'SHEE

said that any Amendment intended to stir up the Woods Commissioners was most important, for they had been the cause of numerous delays in the past.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that this clause had been drafted after very long conferences between the Irish Government and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and this proviso was put in for the purpose of relieving them from those obligations. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be proper to accept this Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he thought that the action of the Government in this matter was hardly fair, because the whole of this money was taken out of Ireland and spent in England, and not one sixpence of it went to Ireland. This was only a question of procedure to compel the Commissioners to do what they really ought to do as a matter of course, and that was to remit cases to the Land Judge or the Land Commission involving questions of law. Was that an unreasonable thing? Why should this Department, because it happened to be connected with Royal properties, have a right superior to any other Department of the State? Surely the landlord was entitled to some better protection. Considering how strongly the landlords fought the Nationalists when they got some concession from the Government, he was amazed at their patience.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. and learned Member for Louth was probably aware that, as far as the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were concerned, drastic changes in connection with Crown property were not always very favourably received.

MR. BUTCHER

said he could not conceive why the Commissioners of Woods should be entitled to decide questions of law. They were not a legal body, and if questions of law came before them these questions should be remitted to the Land Judge. It was the right of every subject to have his case referred to a Court of law, and he did not see why anyone should be deprived of that right when the Commissioners of Woods were concerned.

MR. WYNDHAM

did not think he could make any modification of the clause. The Amendment of his hon. friend would not run with other parts of the clause. He would consider the matter, for it was not easy to see at short notice how the clause could be amended.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the defeat of the Government on the Amendment. Perhaps it might have some effect on the Commissioners of Woods.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would have a great objection to the defeat of the Government. Besides, this financial clause was bound up with other financial clauses to which the representatives of the tenants attached great importance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER

moved to substitute "Judicial Commissioner" for "Land Commission" in Sub-section (6).

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 30, to leave out the words 'Land Commission' and insert the words 'Judicial Commission.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BUTCHER

moved an Amendment dealing with the question of costs in cases where the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues are parties. When the Commissioners of Woods embarked in a litigation in which they were unsuccessful they should pay the costs of the successful party. The old theory that costs should not be awarded against the Crown in unsuccessful actions was antiquated and wrong. He asked the Chief Secretary to see that the Commissioners of Woods, when wrong, should pay in the same way as a private individual who was unsuccessful.

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 35, at end, to add the words '(8) In all cases in which the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, are parties to any proceedings in the High Court or the Land Commission, the Court or Judge shall have power to award costs to or against said Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed "That those words be there added."

MR. ATKINSON

said he agreed with his hon. and learned friend to a great extent. The whole question of costs in cases where the Crown was concerned required consideration. This was not the proper time for that, nor was this the proper clause on which to propose such a change.

MR. T. M. HEALY

suggested that words should be added so that Subsection 7 would run in this way—"Rules for the purpose of this section shall be made by the Commissioners of Woods, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and such rules may include rules as to the award of costs to or against the Commissioners of Woods." That would enable the Commissioners of Woods to make the rules. The Attorney-General said this was not the time for making such a change in the law. He had always noticed that was the reply when an inconvenient proposal was made. This would be an admirable occasion for making the change. There was no time like the present, and he thought his proposal to leave it optional to the Commissioners to make rules was a suitable compromise.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was not in a position to deal with the matter at present. The question was entirely for the Treasury, and he would have it considered before the Report stage, but he could not hold out any great hope that a change would be made.

MR. T. M. HEALY

was amazed at the landlords of Ireland standing up for a proposal of this kind. He reminded the Committee that this was a question affecting the interests of tenants, for sales would be hung up while these matters were being determined. He remembered that Lord Ormonde's estate took at least eighteen months to litigate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept some such suggestion as he had just adumbrated.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was not in a position to accept the suggestion at present, but he would consider the matter before Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY

appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to give favourable consideration to the Amendment. This was not a matter to be passed over in a cursory or summary manner. He was sorry they had not the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's presence, because they knew the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of free trade and concessions of that kind being made.

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.