HC Deb 08 July 1903 vol 125 cc92-117

Considered in Committee.

[In the Committee.]

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

*MR. O'SHEE

said the Amendment he now proposed was for the purpose of enabling the local District Councils to do for the labourers living outside the villages and towns that which they now had power to do for those living inside the villages and towns, namely, to acquire tracts of land and parcel them out in allotments among the labourers. He never could understand the distinction which had been made in the Labourers Acts with regard to this matter. His Amendment was to insert in the new clause before the word "accommodation" the word "house," and after the word "accommodation," "land for allotment," and after the word "accommodation" in the next line "or land." At present, under Section 16 of the Act of 1885, local authorities had power to compulsorily acquire land in towns and villages, and parcel out that land among the labourers living in those towns and villages. What he proposed to do by his Amendment was to give the Rural District Councils an extension of that right by enabling them to parcel out this land to any labourers. He could never understand the restriction placed upon the Rural District Council in this matter, but the fact remained that whereas they could grant allotments to labourers living in the villages and towns, they could not grant allotments to labourers outside without providing them with a house. He had put this Amendment down as a consequence of the statement of the Chief Secretary when he raised the question on Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out that the proper place to discuss it would be in Part IV. of the Bill, where he stated he intended to put down a clause to deal with the question. The word "accommodation" in the clause of the right hon. Gentleman read in conjunction with the Labourers Acts could only be interpreted to mean house accommodation, and his contention was that it should also include land accommodation and land for allotment. In many cases labourers living outside the villages and towns had fairly comfortable houses, which, at a small expense, could be made sanitary and fairly suitable for their accommodation, and they only applied for new houses in order to obtain the allotments which went with them. The provision of new houses for the labourers threw a very great burden upon the rates, and all he sought to do by his Amendments was to enable the rural district councils to allot land to those labourers without being under the necessity to provide them also with a house. His Amendments, if carried, would make the clause read as follows— (1) Where the Land Commission have purchased an estate, or where application is made to the Commission to sanction advances for the purchase of holdings comprised in an estate, they shall make inquiry as to whether house accommodation or land for allotment is needed for labourers on the estate, and if of opinion that such accommodation or land is needed they shall frame a scheme providing there for.

Amendment proposed— In line 4, after the word 'whether' to insert the word 'house,' after the word 'accommodation' to insert the words 'or land for allotment.' and in line 5, after the word 'accommodation,' to insert the words 'or land.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said that he had great sympathy with the views and object of the hon. Member, who desired to give allotments to labourers living in the country, though no house had been built for them. But he desired to point out to the hon. Member that his suggestion really amounted to an alteration of the Labourers Acts, and in this way he had misapprehended the object of the Chief Secretary's Amendment, which was to render effective the provisions which had hitherto been abortive in the Acts of 1881 and 1890. The question of allotments and their size should be left aside until they came to be dealt with in the general measure which the Chief Secretary proposed to introduce.

MR. O'SHEE

urged that the Amendment was a reasonable one. He had put down an Amendment to Clause 4 to enable trustees to acquire land for allotments. He had also put down an Amendment to Clause 2 to include labourers among the classes of persons entitled to obtain untenanted land. The Chief Secretary had asked that the discussion of the claims of the labourers should be deferred until Part IV. was reached, and he had undertaken to deal in the now clause which he then promised with the question of allotments of land. But the clause as it stood did not fulfil the promise of the right hon. Gentleman in consequence of which he had withdrawn his Amendment to Clause 4, stating that he did so on the understanding that the claims of the labourers to a share of the untenanted lands would not thereby be jeopardised.

MR. WYNDHAM

said a good deal which the hon. Gentleman had said had greatly interested him, but he would ask the hon. Gentleman in this matter for one moment to place himself in his position. Since the discussion on Clause 2 a great deal had happened, but nothing had happened to diminish the claims of the labourers, while much had been done to convince them that they could not deal adequately with the question at the present moment. He would ask the hon. Member to realise that it was not fair to hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were deeply interested in various questions, to suggest that his Amendment should be accepted and theirs pushed aside. That was not likely to conduce to a proper solution of the labourers' question. He appealed to the hon. Member not to try and amend the general law at half-past nine on the 8th July. If that were attempted other Members would naturally follow suit, and it would be impossible to discriminate between their Amendments. They must therefore make up their minds either to devote another fortnight to the Bill or to deal with the question next year. If they would adopt the latter course he would pledge himself to give his attention to the matter in the autumn, and he would welcome and consider any suggestions the hon. Member might forward to him.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CULLINAN

moved a further Amendment, the object of which he said was to expedite proceedings.

Amendment proposed— To add at the end of the proposed new clause the following—'When the Council of the rural district approve of any such scheme the Local Government Board shall sanction the same without inquiry.'"—(Mr. Cullinan.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

described this as an attempt to galvanise into life two Acts which had proved dead letters. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

asked the Chief Secretary if he were seized of the fact that the case of the labourers in the north of Ireland was totally different from that of the south.

MR. WYNDHAM

replied in the affirmative. He had gone to a certain extent into the question, and pledged himself to use his utmost endeavours to promote legislation next year.

Clause added to the Bill.

New clause. In page 38, after Clause 85, to insert the following clause—'Nothingin this Act shall affect (a) any sporting rights, mineral rights, or water rights which are not in the possession or enjoyment of the vendor at the time of sale; (b) any mine or quarry which is being worked or developed by the vendor at the time of sale; or (c) any right to water power in actual use by the vendor at the time of sale.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he had intended to move several Amendments to this clause, but he would instead ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that between this and the Report stage he would reconsider this question. The clause was not in any sense satisfactory. It proceeded upon two opposite principles in dealing with matters of outside arrangement between landlord and tenant. He had never been an advocate of taking anything from the tenants which really belonged to them. This clause proposed to exclude from the operation of the Bill sporting rights which were not in the possession or enjoyment of the vendor at the time of sale, while it also excluded mines and quarries, which were being worked by the vendor at the time of sale. These were two exactly opposite principles. A vendor might before sale open and work a quarry on the tenants' land, and would have the right permanently reserved to him; but, on the other hand, if he had a salmon or trout fishery in his own use and enjoyment it would have no protection at all. Surely the same principle ought to apply to both cases? Again, there were many mines in Ireland which were in process of working in the bad times of 1879–1882, which had in consequence to be stopped, because the circumstances of the period frightened away capital, and if they were to lay down the principle that landlords were to be deprived of their rights in them because they were not actually being worked at the time of sale, the Bill would not be likely to bring a message of peace to Ireland. As to the sporting rights, Mr. Gladstone in his Act of 1881 was very careful to reserve the rights of landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had not been equally careful, and, therefore, this clause required reconsideration before the Report stage. He asked for an assurance that it should receive it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said his hon. and gallant friend would not deny that the clause represented the general arrangement which was arrived at on a former occasion, and he thought he would feel that the question ought not to be reopened during the Committee stage. Of course, there would be an interval before Report, and during this interval he would be willing to listen to his hon. and gallant friend. But he would in return ask him to listen to him. If he would, he did not despair of convincing him that the clause was satisfactory.

MR. DILLON

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would also listen to the Nationalist Members, who thought a great deal too much was given to the landlords.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would, of course, listen to every one. But he urged that they could not profitably re-open the question at that stage.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he spoke for very large interests, and he doubted if the right hon. Gentleman, with all his tremendous power of persuasiveness, would convince him that the clause was fair as it stood.

MR. KENNETH BALFOUR (Christchurch)

desired to enter his protest against the proposal to take away without payment the mineral rights now owned by landlords.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

suggested that fishermen had rights which they had exercised for many years, and which ought also to be safeguarded.

MR. WYNDHAM

I think they are.

MR. JOYCE

I don't think so, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put in words to make it clear.

MR. BUTCHER

pointed out the necessity for some definition of mineral and water rights.

Clause added to the Bill.

COLONEL NOLAN

, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, moved the following new clause:

New clause (Erection of new cottages)— In page 37, after Clause 84, to insert the following clause, 'Where there is a labourer in occupation of a cottage which is declared on inspection by the health officer both unhealthy and possessing insufficient accommodation, and which is necessary for the proper working of the farm upon which it is built, the District Council, on receiving the health officer's report, shall direct the erection of a new cottage, and shall have power to purchase an acre of ground surrounding the cottage, for the purposes of the labourer.'"—(Colonel Nolan.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

repeated his appeal to hon. Members not to bring forward those Amendments affecting the labourers' question. He had already promised to consider this matter in the autumn.

COLONEL NOLAN

I withdraw the clause.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

, on behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County N. moved the following clause—

New clause (removal of restraints on alienation). For the purpose of a sale under the Land Purchase Acts, as defined by this Act, whether to the Land Commission or otherwise, all covenants, agreements, and conditions in any lease or fee farm grant prohibiting, restraining, or tending to restrain the alienation of any land held there under, shall be deemed to be wholly void and inoperative, and so much of Section 33 of the Act of 1870 and Section 29 of the Land Act of 1881 as requires the waiver or determination of such prohibition is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Hayden.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. ATKINSON

said he would accept the clause, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage he should be at liberty to consider the matter, as possibly some of the provisions at the end of the clause were rather too wide.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. O'KELLY (Mayo, N.)

In moving a new clause, "Definition of congested districts," said he hoped to convince the Committee that several districts in the West were wrongly excluded from the operation of the Congested Districts Act, because the Board in making their valuations included valuations of each grazing rancher so as to artificially increase the valuation per head of the population to more than the 30s. limit. In view of the remarks that fell from the Chief Secretary a few days ago on the subject of the definition of congested areas, he could hardly have believed that he would resist a revision of the present system of scheduling districts—indeed, considering what he said on that occasion he was rather surprised that the Chief Secretary did not introduce a clause into the Bill dealing with this very important matter. At the present moment no electoral division answered to the description of a scheduled district if the valuation per head of the population was above 30s., but they knew, and no one knew it better than the Chief Secretary, that there were many districts where the condition of the people is not one whit better than the condition of those in the scheduled areas; yet under the present system these districts could not be brought within the Congested Districts Act of 1891. He could understand the fixing of the 30s. limit. Any rough and ready index sufficed in the experimental stages of the Board's work, but surely these stages were long since passed. The time had come to enlarge the scope of the Board's work, and the first step in this direction must be the abolition of the 30s. limit. As he said, it did not much matter in the beginning, but as a fixed and permanent standard by which the condition of the people in the West was to be judged, he knew nothing more fallacious and misleading. Several districts now excluded would answer to the definition of a congested district if the calculations were made on the valuation of the actual holdings of the occupiers, a course that would seem the perfectly obvious one, but the Board could not do that. They had to include the valuation of the large grazing tracts, which had as little relation to the condition of the people as the gold mines in the Transvaal, with the result that the per head valuation of the population was artificially raised far above the standard. Let him show how this method worked. In the Claremorris Union, in the county of Mayo, there are nineteen electoral divisions, of which eleven are scheduled as congested. Eight divisions are unscheduled, although, to his own knowledge, not a single one of them is a bit better off than the scheduled districts. Take Ballindine electoral division; its area is 5,502 acres, population 849, valuation £3,136, roughly. The valuation works out at £3 13s. per head of the population when the grazing land is included. Of the 5,502 acres in the division, 3,403 acres were grazing land, and are in the sole occupation of four individuals, the 849 people having to be content with the balance of 2,099 acres, but if the valuation of the grazing land, which was £1,863, be excluded, the valuation per head of the people falls, roughly, from £3 13s. to £1 9s., at which figure the Ballindine Electoral Division could be scheduled as a congested district. In Caraun Division the per bead valuation, including the grazing land, was £1 16s. Excluding it, it dropped to a little over £1 1s. In Crossboyne Division, where twelve graziers hold nearly 2,000 acres out of a total of 3,437 acres, with a grazing valuation of £1,189, as against an occupying valuation of only £884, the per head valuation including the grass ranches ran up to £3 17s. Excluding them, it dropped to £1 6s,, well within the figure at which they could be scheduled. In this paradise of the ranches 675 people had to be content with about 1,400 acres, whilst twelve graziers enjoy 2,000 acres. In Kilcolman the per head valuation, including grazing land, was £2 4s, excluding it £1 10s. In Ballyhowley Division, the per head valuation, including grazing land, was, roughly, £1 18s., excluding it, roughly, £1 11s. And so on. Taking the whole union, excluding the valuation of grazing land, which amounted to £8,949, the per head valuation came to a little over £1 6s. It was admitted by everyone that holdings valued at or under £8, some would say £10, but he confined himself to the former figures, were not sufficient to afford subsistence to a family. These were the very holdings which needed the attention of a body such as a Congested Districts Board. They were the holdings which needed to be enlarged and improved, but as those stood now they were shut out from any help. In Ballindine Electoral Division there were 173 holdings under £8 out of a total of 187; in Ballyhowley, 121 out of 187; in Caraun, 170 out of 218; in Crossboyne, 110 out of 137; in Carry more, 176 out of 256; in Kilcolman, 115 out of 162; in Mayoabbey, 149 out of 192; in Tagheen, 100 out of 125 — making 1,114 holdings under £8 valuation out of a total of 1,459 holdings in the eight unscheduled but really congested electoral divisions of the Claremorris Union. He would be curious to know what defence the Chief Secretary could make of a plan of scheduling that excludes 1,114 occupiers under £8 from the operation of an Act that was passed for the relief of that very class; and he might say here that almost three-fourths of these 1,114 holdings were under £4 valuation. These extraordinary anomalies were produced in every union in Mayo that was not scheduled as wholly congested. Take Killala Union. In this union but two of the eight divisions were scheduled. In the scheduled there were 439 occupiers of £8 valuation, while in the unscheduled districts there were no fewer than 1,004 under £8. How can the Chief Secretary have said that he was satisfied with the definition of a congested county that excluded 70 per cent. of small holders, the great majority of whom were under £4 valuation, in one of the poorest unions in the west of Ireland? Take Ballina Union. There are twenty divisions, of which ten were unscheduled In these ten unscheduled districts there were no fewer than 1,632 holdings under £8, the great majority of them being under £4. Here over 42 per cent of the small holders are excluded. Take Castlebar Union. Eight divisions out of nineteen were defined as congested. In the eleven undefined districts there were 2,917 holdings under £8, the great majority of them being under £4. Out of a total in the scheduled and non-scheduled divisions under £8, 5,444, or over 53 per cent. of the very poorest people were put outside an Act that was supposed to be passed for their benefit. What was the condition of things in Ballinrobe Union? Five out of eighteen divisions were scheduled. In the scheduled portion there were only 794 occupiers under £8, whilst in the unscheduled divisions there were 2,649 or nearly 77 per cent. of the small occupiers excluded by an arbitrary and senseless definition. Ballinrobe was essentially the land of grazing ranches. The thirteen divisions unscheduled were kept outside the provisions of the Congested Districts Act, because the high valuation of the grazing ranches, in which the Ballinrobe Union abounds, took them far above the 30s. limit. The occupying valuation in this union was £27,780, the grazing valuation no less than £26,000, forty-seven landlords, of whom thirty-four were absentees, holding one-third of the entire union; 43,115 acres at a valuation of £15,000; and thirty-four graziers, of whom sixteen were absentees, holding nearly 18,000 acres, at a valuation of nearly £10,000. It was not difficult to understand that in this union, in these circumstances the per head valuation was over £2 13s., including the grass lands, of course, whilst the per head valuation falls to £1 4s 3d. when the grazing lands were omitted from the calculation. He had not referred to the few unscheduled districts in Westport Union. In Belmullet and Swinford all the divisions were scheduled. From the figures placed at their disposal by the excellent reports prepared by the clerk of the Mayo unions they find that over 9,000 occupiers under £8 valuation, representing some 40,000 people, the very class of small holders to whom the work of the Board would be an advantage, had their divisions unscheduled through a provision for which the Chief Secretary would find it hard to make even a plausible defence. What he (Mr. O'Kelly) suggested was that the counties be scheduled as a whole. Let the Board not be hampered in its work by a rule which confines its labours within narrow and arbitrarily selected areas. Let it be free to apply itself to congestion where congestion exists. The present Bill would give the Board a larger and increased credit. Let the area of its work be increased accordingly. He asked to have the counties scheduled as a whole. It was true that he did not give the figures for any county save Mayo, but the condition in the county of Mayo approximately represented the condition in every other county of the West. He would watch with interest to see whether the Chief Secretary would put an end to a system which results in such unfair and indefensible distinctions between the same class of small occupiers, and which were so lucidly set forth in the admirable reports of the Mayo District Council. However, the Chief Secretary said there were difficulties in the way of rescheduling. Of course there were. The land question bristled with difficulties in every aspect of it, but what was Parliament for? What were Irish Secretaries and Irish Law Advisers for? To solve these difficulties, of course. The Chief Secretary wanted this Bill to settle for ever the Irish agrarian difficulties, but his refusal to revise the present system of scheduling would not tend to improve matters in the West, and surely he ought to know by this time that until the problem of congestion be solved the last word would not have been said on the Irish land question. He begged to move.

New clause (Definition of Congested Districts)— The whole of each of the counties of Galway, Mayo, Sligo Roscommon, Leitrim, Cork, Kerry. Limerick, Clare, and Donegal shall be a congested districts county within the meaning and for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)

Brought up and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. DILLON

said he desired to support the speech of his hon. friend, although it might not be of much avail at that period of the discussion. The original system under which these districts were scheduled was preposterous, and the only answer that had ever been made was that when the original schedules were prepared the Board had no conception of the importance of migration. It was a great misfortune that the Chief Secretary had not dealt with the question in this Bill in a more liberal and comprehensive spirit, but it was only fair to the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had mot many of the objections by the Act of 1901. That was a very valuable Act, as it gave the Congested Districts Board power to buy estates in any part of Ireland, and to turn them for the time being into congested districts.

MR. WYNDHAM

urged that the Bill should be given a fair trial. He recognised that this question had been very briefly discussed, and hon. Members who were particularly interested in this particular matter had shown a great sense of proportion in subordinating their interests to the interests of Ireland as a whole. He himself felt very deeply in this matter, and might easily be led into making a long speech. It was impossible to re-schedule the congested districts without altering the fundamental financial provisions of the Bill and existing Acts, and that was an operation that could not be performed now. He agreed that the present system was arbitrary and fallacious as regarded congestion and migration; where he differed was as to the proper course to be taken to remedy that situation. Although the Government could not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member, they had gone a long way to turn the position, if they had not attempted to take it by a frontal attack. The Board with its great credit facilities and working capital could buy land anywhere in Ireland. Where would it buy land? Outside the areas of the congested districts. He had made the Estates Commissioners into a Congested Districts Board, with a 10 per cent. loss in addition to the bonus for all their operations in cases of congestion, and they would operate in the very zone which the hon. Member thought was neglected. The labour of dealing with this Bill, though heavy, had been made light by the spirit of those who had taken part in the discussions, and the real work would begin at the end of August.

MR. O'KELLY

said that, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw the clause.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

, on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, moved the following new clause.

New clause (Mill holdings)— Where a mill or other non-agricultural ingredient of a holding is held under the same tenancy as agricultural land, the tenant may apply to fix a fair rent on the agricultural portion of the holding, and the Court shall direct that the non-agricultural portion of the holding shall thenceforth be treated as a separate holding, and shall be held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the Court may determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the holding, and the Land Law Acts shall apply thereto as if it was a separate holding. This section shall apply irrespective of the nature of the tenure or demise under which the tenancy has been created."—(Mr. Tully.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said this clause was really an Amendment of the Land Law Acts, and he was not prepared at the present time to take up anything in connection with those Acts. This was a demand to amend the Act of 1896 in a Land Purchase Bill, and it was practically asking the other House to consider the question of land laws as well as land purchase.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. LONSDALE

said this clause was designed to relieve tenants holding under the Ulster Tenant Right Custom from certain disabilities, which in some cases had entailed much hardship and serious loss. These disabilities were connected with the sale by tenants of their holdings under the Ulster Custom. In effecting such a sale two methods of procedure were open to the tenant to adopt. He might proceed under the Act of 1881, which expressly provided that the rights of a tenant holding under the Ulster Custom should not be interfered with or injuriously affected. Or he might proceed under the Custom. The procedure was different in each case, and the tenant must take one course or the other. He could not sell partly under the Act of 1881 and partly under the Ulster Custom. If a tenant who wished to dispose of his holding elected to proceed under the Act of 1881, he served his landlord with notice of his intention to sell his holding. That notice could not be withdrawn, and so soon as the landlord received it, he might make an offer to the tenant to purchase the holding. The tenant might not think the offer sufficient; but in that case it was open to the landlord to apply to the Land Commission and get the "true value" of the holding fixed, and the landlord might then compel the tenant to sell his holding to him at the price fixed. Now, Sir, the "true value," as decided by the Land Commission, was not by any means the amount which the tenant might get in the open market. As a matter of fact, the price so fixed by the Commission has been considerably below the price which the tenant might have obtained had the landlord not exercised his compulsory powers. Still, the tenant, having once set the machinery of the Act of 1881 in motion, was absolutely powerless to arrest it, and in nearly every case tenants suffered heavy losses. Within recent years, in his own county of Armagh, there had been a considerable amount of litigation between landlords and tenants in consequence of the general exercise by landlords on two estates, of the right of pre-emption given by the Act of 1881. The result to the tenants had been loss through delay, as well as loss of the far better prices they might have obtained in the open market. The natural consequence was that the tenants on these estates abandoned the practice of seliing under the Act of 1881, and attempted to proceed under the Ulster Custom. In a sale under the Custom the tenant was not bound to give notice to his landlord of his intention to sell. Having, made an arrangement for the sale of his holding, he took the would-be purchaser to the landlord or his agent and got him accepted as the tenant. Of course, if he were a very objectionable person the landlord might refuse to accept him as tenant, and in that case a more acceptable person would have to be found. This was the procedure which the tenants on the two estates in Armagh, to which he had alluded, had to adopt, when the result of selling under the Act of 1881 proved so prejudicial to their interest. They were, however, at once met by a new move on the part of the landlords. There was a general refusal to accept the purchaser. The object, of course, was to force the tenants to sell under the Act of 1881, so that the landlord might exercise his right of preemption. The matter was taken into the Courts, and at the Armagh Assizes on 10th March, 1899, Chief Baron Palles decided that the landlord could not be compelled to accept any purchaser, however unobjectionable, in a sale under the Custom, and that the only remedy the tenant appeared to him to have, was to make a claim for compensation under the Land Act of 1870. The result of that decision was that in many oases the tenants were practically debarred from selling They would not sell under the Act, because they knew that the result would be litigation, delay, and a price fixed considerably below the tenants' right value. They knew that if they attempted to sell under the Ulster Custom, the landlord or his agent would refuse to accept the purchaser. They were in a cleft stick, and had a distinct and definite grievance which Parliament ought to remedy. The remedy which he proposed was that the landlord should be obliged to accept a purchaser to whom he could not make reasonable objection, and that the Land Commission should have power to decide whether the landlord's objection was reasonable or not. It was suggested that in a sale by a tenant under the Ulster Custom, he should give notice to the landlord of the name of the purchaser and the amount of the purchase money. Then if the landlord objected, the tenant would have the power to take the matter before the Land Commission and obtain a decision as to the reasonableness or otherwise, of the landlord's objection. If the Land Commission decided that the objection was not reasonable, the objection could be set aside and the landlord would be obliged to accept the purchaser. He begged to move.

New clause (Ulster Custom)— When a tenant has agreed for the sale of a holding to which the Ulster Tenant Right Custom, within the meaning of Section one of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870, applies, and such sale purports to be made under the Custom, but the landlord, in breach thereof, refuses to accept the purchaser as tenant, any party interested in such agreement may apply to the Land Commission Court, who shall have jurisdiction, subject to the prescribed rules, to decide upon the reasonableness or otherwise of the landlord's objection and, if it thinks fit, may make an order declaring the purchaser, notwithstanding such refusal, to be entitled to all the interests of the tenant in such holding; and the Land Commission shall have all such jurisdiction and authority to make a decree for enforcing the rights of the purchaser in such case, including the payment of costs, as are vested in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland relating to the specific performance of contracts, subject to the like appeal as in the case of other orders made by the Land Commission."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

agreed that this was a burning question in Ulster. During these discussions they had been discussing the right of landlords to sell, and now he wished to call attention to the right of the tenant to sell. The right of the tenant to sell under the Ulster Custom never was questioned until quite recently. Take the case of a tenant under the Ulster Custom who desired to sell his interest in his holding. He would probably find a farmer willing to purchase. That farmer might be a man of unblemished character, perfectly solvent, and in every way a suitable tenant for the holding. They might agree upon terms, and then, according to immemorial custom, the purchaser and the vendor proceeded to the rent office where the landlord was asked to accept the new tenant. For nearly 200 years that practice had gone on almost without exception. What took place now? Since the Act of 1881 was passed a new system had sprung up which allowed sale either under the Custom or under the Act. The tenant could sell under the Act of 1881, or under the Ulster Custom. If he sold under the Ulster Custom the farmer got the full market value and the landlord accepted the new tenant; but if he sold under the Act of 1881, the landlord had the right to exercise pre-emption and the landlord might come in and buy the holding at the true value and afterwards sell it at the full market price. This was a regular system—he would not call it a conspiracy—which had sprung up since the Act of 1881 to destroy the old Ulster Custom, and the very best tenants of the land were being penalised in this way, and were practically being robbed of one-third of their property. The Chief Secretary might say that this was a question of land law; so it was in one sense, but it was a sale in another, and the result would probably be that many estates would not be sold under this Act. He put it to the Chief Secretary whether this was a fair thing. Here was an immemorial custom which, by the way, was legalised in 1870 under the Statute. The Act of 1881 gave this right of pre-emption to the landlord, and he thought it was time Parliament took this matter into very serious consideration in order to bring relief to the majority of tenants in Ulster, who under this system had been deprived of their rights and robbed of their property.

MR. ATKINSON

said that this was no doubt a burning question, but he hoped it would no longer remain a burning question, because this Bill would put an end to that practice. This Amendment would really do nothing to settle this controverted and complicated question. He hoped that, in view of the circumstances in which they found themselves, the Amendment would be withdrawn and the question raised on some other occasion.

MR. DILLON

said this was a proposal to exempt a section of the tenants of Ulster from a penalty which affected the whole tenants of Ireland. If the hon. Member would bring in an Amendment upon the Report stage abolishing the right of pre-emption, which was a most oppressive and outrageous right, then he would give him his heartiest support. The proper course was to abolish the right of pre-emption, because by that course the tenants' right of free sale would be preserved all over Ireland. This was a burning and all-important question, and if nobody else did it, he should raise it himself on Report. He knew a poor tenant in the county of Cavan who, after having been victimised by this penal provision, was committed for contempt of court two years ago, and was now lying in Dundalk Gaol because his family took possession of the farm against this right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord. That unfortunate man was going mad in gaol because he would not surrender to what he considered was an act of robbery on the part of his landlord.

MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh for bringing forward this Amendment. It was a question in which Ulster tenants were more interested than any other that had been broached in connection with the present Bill. Great injustice had resulted in the part of the country he represented from the capricious refusal of the landlord to accept a reasonable purchaser to whom the tenant had sold in the exercise of his immemorial tenant-right. He trusted the hon. Member would bring this question forward on the Report stage in such a shape that the House would have to decide whether this injustice was to continue.

MR. WYNDHAM

agreed that this was a burning question, but it could not be discussed that night. He wished to point out in regard to the general state of affairs that the position was this. They had an hour and ten minutes left to-night. If they did not finish the Committee stage to-night it would go over to next week, and every day next week was allotted to other business. There was enough on the Paper to-night to take up a week of Parliamentary time, and he thought they should all be ready to make sacrifices in order to get the Bill through. He appealed to the Committee to take that view of the question.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he and his colleagues all desired that the Bill should go through Committee to-night, in order that they might have the Report stage at an early date. He thought it would be a great misfortune it the Committee stage did not finish to night. If it went over to next week that would throw back the Report stage, and in that case he did not know what the result would be. It would not get to the House of Lords for a fortnight or three weeks, and that would be very serious indeed. The question now before the Committee could be brought up on Report, and he thought it would be fair that hon. Members should make sacrifices to night in order to let the Bill through Committee. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would use his influence with the Government in order to secure that the Report stage should not be postponed for ten days or a fortnight.

MR. WYNDHAM

said his influence would be exercised in that direction. The other House had a right to discuss the Bill, and would discuss it. To drive the discussion back into the second week of August would be an act of suicidal folly.

*MR. LONSDALE

said he had no desire to obstruct the passing of the Bill through Committee, but this was a matter of so much importance to his constituents that he should like some assurance that the Chief Secretary would give it his consideration.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he had two Amendments on the Paper, but he would not move them as he did not desire to delay the Bill. The question raised by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh was a most serious one for the province of Ulster, and it was unfortunate that it could not be discussed on account of the Committee having given five hours of this precious day to the discussion of a question relating to Trinity College.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HEMPHILL

said he would not move the following Amendment, of which he had given notice— In the framing of any rules under the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland for the time being shall be associated with the Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners, as the case may be, as a member of the rule-making authority. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he could bring up a clause on the Report stage to give effect to the proposal.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would consider the point.

MR. HEMPHILL

moved the following new clause. He said the object of the Amendment was merely to prevent the legal assistant Commissioner from being dismissed summarily.

New clause (Tenure of legal assistant Com missioners)— Each legal assistant Commissioner on the permanent staff shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and shall hold his office by the same tenure as a Commissioner, other than the Judicial Commissioner, as provided by Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."—(Mr. Hemphill.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could develop his objection to the clause at length, but if he were to do so he should be sinning against the canon he had asked other people to observe. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he thought the following new clause, of which he had given notice was necessary—

New clause (Extension of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 to certain estates,— Where a judgment or order for sale of an estate in Ireland which is in the main agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, has been or shall be made by the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, or by the Court of Session in Scotland, the Judge making said judgment or order shall be deemed to be the landlord of the tenants upon said estate for the purpose of sales to the Estates Commissioners under the provisions of this Act, or to said tenants under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act. And if a receiver has been appointed over the estate, or the estate is so circumstanced that it would, independently of this Act, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 shall have effect in regard to the estate in the same manner, and all proceedings under said Section 40 in regard to the estate shall be had and taken in the court of the Land Judge as if an absolute order for the sale of the estate had been made under the Landed Instates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858."—(Mr. William Redmond.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was conferring with the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Advocate for Scotland on the subject, and he hoped to arrive at a conclusion before the Report stage.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

moved—

New clauses (Labourers representation, Repeal and Interpretation)— In page 37, after clause 84, to insert the following clauses:—Where it appears to the Local Government Board that the labourers are not sufficiently represented on any rural district council in any county, the Local Government Board may nominate any number of persons not exceeding three to act with the rural sanitary authority for the purposes of carrying out the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. And such person or persons shall be appointed for such term as the Local Government Board may think lit, not exceeding three years, and shall have all the powers of the elected members of the rural sanitary authority. Provided, however, that the Local Government Board shall have power at any time to remove any such person or persons without filling up the vacancy caused by such removal. Section 3 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891, is hereby repealed. A representation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts shall mean a representation signed by not less than six persons, each one of whom must either be rated for the relief of the poor within the sanitary district or be included in the definition of an agricultural labourer contained in this Act."—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

*MR. LONSDALE

said as the Chief Secretary had appealed to them to allow the Bill to pass through Committee to-night he hardly liked to take upon himself the responsibility for entering upon a statement of the reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept it now he would bring it up on the Report stage.

New clause (Trinity College and Church perpetuity leases)— Holders of land under ecclesiastical perpetuity leases and Trinity College leases may apply to the Land Commission to have their rents reduced proportionately to the reductions of rent granted to their tenants; and the Land Commission shall reduce such rents accordingly, and shall, in the case of any holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to before the passing of the Act of 1890, make a further reduction of 10 per cent. on the rent payable for such holding."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the clause as proposed. He therefore thought the best course to pursue was for the hon. Member to give notice of the Amendment for the Report stage. Between now and the Report stage he would discuss the question with the hon Member.

MR. FLAVIN

said there was a strong feeling in many parts of Ireland on this question.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. TULLY

moved the following new clause, of which Mr. Healy had given notice.

New clause (Compulsory acquisition of land)— Where any land or easement sold under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts is required by any local authority under any Act enabling such authority compulsorily to acquire same, no appeal shall lie from any order of the Local Government Board sanctioning the acquisition of such land under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, or the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, and the decision of the Judge of Assize under Section 10, Sub-section 3 (d) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be final except when the order therein referred to is refused."—(Mr. Tully.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time.'

MR. WYNDHAM

expressed the hope that as the hon. Member for North Louth was not present the hon. Member for South Leitrim would be satisfied if he agreed that this should be considered on Report.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

moved the following new clause, of which the hon. Member for South Meath had given notice.

New clause (Covenants against tillage)— Where by reason of any covenant expressed or implied the tenant of a holding (other than demesne lands) is restricted from tilling or meadowing the whole or any portion thereof, such covenant is hereby declared void and of no effect, and the tenant of every such holding shall be entitled to any advance which under Section 1 of this Act may be made to any other occupier."—(Mr. Tully.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

appealed to the hon. Member to acquiesce in the self-denying ordinance and not press the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he would not move the new clause on the Notice Paper in regard to labourers' allotments, as he understood the Chief Secretary was going to deal with the question in the House on the first favourable opportunity.

MR. WYNDHAM

indicated that that was his intention.

SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester)

moved a new clause dealing with the question of the expenses of negotiation between landlord and tenant in sales of land. He was proceeding to state reasons in support of the clause when

MR. DILLON

interposed and stated that the self-denying ordinance should apply to this question, where the interests of land agents were concerned, as well as to a question where the interests of the labourers were involved.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the question of the labourers had been discussed. The case of the land agents had not been discussed, but he could not go in regard to them beyond the undertaking he had already given in regard to the labourers. He recognised that the Act would not work smoothly unless the feelings of the land agents were considered; but that was a point which might be held over until the Report stage.

SIR JOHN ROLLESTON

said he should detain the Committee for only a few minutes. He was sorry that the position of the land agents had not been brought forward by an Irish Member, but he thought it right to call attention to it, as he had the honour of being last year the President of a society of which the Irish land agents were members. The opinion of that institution on any question of the administration of land must carry weight with it in this House, and the members of that institution were entirely in agreement with the Amendment he now proposed. This Bill was unique in land legislation, and he might be allowed to say that it displayed broad minded statesmanship. He hoped that the expectations formed of it in promoting the peace and prosperity of Ireland would be abundantly fulfilled But, if the carrying out of this state policy did injury to a great profession in Ireland, the members of that profession ought to receive consideration at the hands of the Government and the Irish Party. [Loud cries of "Divide."] He recognised that the feeling of the Committee was against him, and he would only say in conclusion that he trusted the Bill would settle the Irish laud difficulty without doing any in-justice to a great and deserving class like the land agents.

New clause (Expenses of negotiation)— In page 22, after Clause 43, to insert the following clause:—'After making or providing for the prescribed payments to vendors felling direct to their tenants, there shall, in respect of any such sale, be paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund to the Estates Commissioners, a sum not exceeding three per cent. on the purchase money of the estate, which sum or such less sum as may seem reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall be paid by them to the land agent negotiating the sale of such estate.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that the Committee was unwilling to hear him, or that they were insensible to the value of the services rendered by the land agents. The reason why some impatience had been shown was because he had made a personal appeal to all sections of the Committee not to press Amendments, and hon. Members having responded to that appeal, it was thought that any other Amendment, however important, should not be pressed on their attention. He had already suggested that the allocation of the bonus should be discussed on the first Schedule.

Question put, and negatived.