IRISH LAND BILL.

HC Deb 17 July 1903 vol 125 cc1029-87

As amended, considered.

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

said the Amendment he desired to move stood fifth upon the Paper. It was not, he thought, too much to ask that the appeal to the Privy Council should be abolished where land was desired to be acquired by a local authority for the purpose of building labourers' cottages and the making of roads. Previous to the passing of the Local Government Act for Ireland the old Grand Juries had tremendous power in regard to the making of roads and an appeal to the Privy Council under those circumstances might have been necessary. But now that the tenants had the matter in their own hands and elected the County Councils such an appeal was not necessary. He begged to move.

Clause. (Compulsory acquisition 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. T. M. Healy.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

said this proposal, though perhaps within the scope of the Bill, was somewhat foreign to the general purport of the Land Purchase Bill as he read that all rights of appeal against Provisional Orders should be abolished. That was a very large proposal and one upon which a good deal might have to be said before it was assented to. He had stated in Committee that he could not grapple with the question of the Labourers Acts in this Bill, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.

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

said they quite recognised that with regard to this matter the right hon. Gentleman had many difficulties to contend with, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that those who represented the tenant farmers also had their difficulties. The existing appeal to the Privy Council with regard to the question of labourers' cottages was one of the greatest absurdities on the Statute-book, and he hoped the matter would be dealt with in the Labourers Bill which was promised for next session.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said as there was some misapprehension with regard to the matter he would beg leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said his next Amendment was one to which the Government had no answer. He postponed it on the Committee stage as he understood the Government were considering the question. It seemed to him to be a monstrous thing that men should be deprived of the right to have their rents varied through no fault of their own, but through the failure of the Government to advertise in the Gazette. It seemed strange that the Government should allow this law which had fallen into disuse to remain as it was. The Government had remedied the grievance so far as the most unmeritorious class, the owners of the land, was concerned, but the people for whom he spoke had no influence to get it remedied so far as they were concerned. He begged to move.

Clause (Variable head rents.) Where by reason of the non-publication of the average prices of produce in the Dublin Gazette, it has become impossible judicially to determine the amount by which any variable rent calculable upon an average of prices should be varied, Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of the sixty-third and sixty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter fifty-eight, shall apply in the case of such variable rents, and the words 'tithe rent-charge,' in the said sections, shall be deemed to include my variable rent as aforesaid."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said his sympathy was entirely with this clause, but if they attempted to remedy one grievance it would open the door to other appeals, and they would have others forced upon them, endangering the progress of the Bill. If good reason was shown in the other House for accepting the Amendment it could be accepted there. He did not think he ought to accept it here.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

speaking generally on behalf of the landlords, said they were strongly in favour of the Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

in these circumstances assented to the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause (Sub-divided holdings.) In the construction of Section 5, Sub-section 3, of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the words 'tenants in common' shall be deemed to include two or more persons between whom the holding is divided."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question "That the clause be read a second time," put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that whilst he had little hope of succeeding in adding the clause he now proposed to the Bill, he must, on behalf of the farmers in the north of Ireland, enter a protest against the manner in which, in recent years, they had been deprived of the Ulster custom. A landlord could take a third of the tenant's property and then go into the market and sell the farm for its full value. This was a very real grievance, and was bitterly felt in Ulster. He begged to move.

Clause (Abolition of landlord's right of pre-emption.) Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, relating to the right of the landlord to purchase a holding is hereby repealed."'—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the House would gather that this was a question which excited a great deal of interest in Ulster, and that it was an extremely controversial subject. Without expressing any opinion he deprecated discussing controversial matters for the reason he had given.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said it was his duty on behalf of the Ulster farmers to enter his protest. He had received many representations on the question. He begged leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid)

said his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary justified the grant of £5,000 to Trinity College—which was provided for by Clause 38 of the Bill—on the ground that unless that clause was added to the Bill, land purchase would be hampered over a, great part of Ireland. He went so far as to say that— In his deliberate opinion, if it were not adopted some 9,000 or 10,000 tenant occupiers would be debarred from taking advantage of the Act. The Chief Secretary added— The clause was necessary—if distasteful—if land purchase in respect of all these tenants was not to be hung up. Now, it was with the interests of those 9,000 or 10,000 tenant-occupiers—and especially with the interests of those who resided in the constituency which he had the honour to represent—that he was concerned. The Chief Secretary had shown that he appreciated the position in which these tenants would be placed, and in their behalf he wanted to obtain from his right hon. friend some further explanation as to how Clause 38 was expected to work. How would that clause, of itself, and without further provision being made, facilitate land purchase in the case of the occupiers of Trinity College lands? How was it going to remove the barrier which stood in the way of these tenants becoming the purchasers of their holdings? He voted for the grant to Trinity College, because he believed it would pave the way for a new clause that would really benefit the tenant occupiers by enabling their immediate landlords to secure the redemption of the head-rents at such a price as would allow of the estates being sold to the tenants on fair terms. He could not for the life of him see how this grant of £5,000 to Trinity College—standing alone—was going to benefit the tenants of Trinity College lands in the slightest degree. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary himself seemed doubtful as to whether the grant would be sufficient to accomplish the object which he firmly believed he was anxious to achieve. He admitted, in fact, that he was not confident that even this additional aid would succeed in solving the question. He (Mr. Lonsdale) was more than doubtful on the point. The information which he had received convinced him that, unless the grant was followed up by some such provision as that now proposed, the tenants of these Trinity College lands would be denied those opportunities of becoming owners of their farms which were being extended to other classes of tenants. That would be a deplorable result, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to consider very carefully whether he could not accept the plan suggested for giving effect to the desire they all entertained, that every tenant-occupier in Ireland should be placed in full possession, as owner, of his holding.

Now, what were the facts in regard to these Trinity College lands? Certain lands, amounting in all to about 150,000 acres, were held from Trinity College by tenants in perpetuity. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had told them there were about 100 of these grantees; but the tenants under them numbered 9,000 or 10,000. These occupiers were now almost all judicial tenants. Since the passing of the Act of 1881, they had had their rents judicially revised twice and were now paying to their immediate landlords, the grantees, rents from 30 to 40 per cent. below the rents they paid up to 1881. On the other hand, the rents paid by the grantees to Trinity College had not been reduced. On the contrary, they had stood at the high level to which they were raised prior to 1881. The grantees therefore had suffered a serious loss of income through the operation of the Act of 1881. In some cases, that loss of income had been as much as 75 and 80 per cent.; while in one instance that had been brought to his notice. Trinity College received from the grantee considerably more than the grantee got in the shape of rent from his tenants, and was obliged to make good the loss out of his other properties. Another point that had to be borne in mind in connection with these Trinity College estates was that the grantees had spent very large sums of money in improving and developing the property. That expenditure, representing so much capital sunk in the soil, had not produced any interest in recent years, owing to the heavy reductions in rent. He was not advancing a claim upon the sympathy of the House for the middlemen landlords. His object was simply to show the bearing of the facts he had stated upon the problem of purchase; and to show the difficulty that stood in the way of the occupiers under these grantees becoming the purchasers of their holdings. Under the scheme of purchase embodied in the Bill the price to be paid to the grantees would be calculated on the reduced rental of the holdings. The superior interest, the amount due to Trinity College as head landlord, would, on the other hand, have to be redeemed upon the unreduced rental. That was how the matter stood. The grantee under Trinity College might be very anxious to sell his estate to his tenants; but he would be deterred from taking the necessary steps by the fear that if he entered into purchase arrangements he might find himself squeezed between the upper and the nether millstone. He very naturally shrank from embarking upon an undertaking which might result in his being deprived both of land and money. Unless he was reassured on that head and was afforded a reasonable prospect of securing a fair price for his interest in the land and a fair return upon the capital he or his family might have invested in the estate, he would refuse to sell, and the tenants on his estate would be left out in the cold. He was not justifying that attitude. He was simply stating the facts. Those facts must be faced and dealt with if land purchase was not to be hung up indefinitely in the cases of a large number of the best, most progressive, and most worthy of the farmers of Ireland.

But although he held no brief for the middlemen landlords he felt bound to protest against the tone adopted towards them by his right hon. friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland. His remarks, when speaking in Committee on Clause 38, conveyed to his mind a covert suggestion that up to 1881 these landlords had been charging excessive rents to their tenants. Trinity College had certainly raised the head-rents, and it might be that some middlemen extracted more than they should have done from the occupiers under them. But that was not the case in every instance. One of these landlords who had written to him said— I know that so far as my grant is concerned, my father only carried forward to the occupying tenants one half the increase the college added to his rents in 1866, and paid the rest out of his own pocket and never raised the rents on any other occasion. He had no doubt the same thing happened on other estates; because he knew among the Trinity College grantees were to be found some of the best of the Irish landlords. At all events he maintained that this suggestion of merciless exaction on the part of the middlemen came with a very bad grace from the representative of Trinity College, which, he himself admitted, had distinguished itself by a rigorous maintenance of its rights; but which could not claim to have distinguished itself by any fulfilment of the duties attaching to property. He would ask the Solicitor-General to inform them whether it was not a fact that when Trinity College obtained possession of the O'Connell property at Cahirciveen, in 1865, they raised the rents in that village from £200 to about £700 a year. Trinity College did not in every case leave the occupiers of its lands to the tender mercies of the middlemen. Some of their tenants apparently had reason to wish they had done so. The middlemen landlords had certainly shown some regard for the duties attaching to property, and it was beyond dispute that in many cases they had spent very large sums of money in developing their estates and in improvements from which their tenants had derived benefit. They were now confronted by the prospect of having to lose the whole of this capital which had been expended on improvements, and that was the consideration which was likely to deter them from entering into purchase arrangements with their tenants. Up to the present time nothing had fallen from the Government which was calculated to relieve their minds from anxiety or encourage them to offer their estates for sale.

What they wanted to know was how many years purchase of the head-rent would Trinity College require to satisfy their demands. Was it correct to assume that Trinity College looked to obtain twenty-five years purchase of the head-rents? The Chief Secretary said in Committee— It was estimated that the net loss to Trinity College would be £9,000 a year, if the present head-rents were redeemed. The total of the College head-rents was £36,000 a year. The capital value of that sum at 3 per cent. would be £1,200,000, which would represent thirty-three years purchase. But the College estimated to lose £9,000 a year—reducing the income to £27,000. The capital value of that sum at 3 per cent. would be £900,000—which would represent twenty-five years purchase of the existing head-rents. If the College really meant to stand out for twenty-five years purchase, then he was afraid the grantees would not be at all disposed to entertain proposals for the sale of their estates. The redemption of the superior interest on such terms would entail such financial sacrifice upon them that they would absolutely decline to sell. What was needed to overcome the serious obstacle to purchase which stood in the path of 10,000 tenant farmers was some such scheme of varying the head-rents in proportion to the variation in the occupiers' judicial rents, as that now proposed. It was all very well for the Solicitor-General to proclaim the inviolability of the arrangement entered into by Trinity College and its grantees, which was embodied in the Act of 1851. The arrangement of 1851 was not a mutual agreement in any real sense of the word. The grantees could not be said to be free agents. They were practically compelled to submit to all that the college demanded. Otherwise their old leases would have been run out in twenty years, and their improvements —including in some cases their family residences—would have been confiscated by the college. The Solicitor-General boasted that the college had held rigorously to the Act of 1851. Of course they had. But why? Simply because they profited by it. Owing to the scale adopted for fixing rents the income of the senior fellows was largely increased, besides being made more secure. The Solicitor-General said had rents gone down Trinity College would have suffered. Doubtless, but in that case he wondered whether Trinity College would have been content rigorously to abide by the arrangement. The admission of the Solicitor-General justified the demand now made for a fresh system of valuation of these head-rents. It was the evident intention of the Legislature that the college and the middlemen should share and share alike as to the ups and downs of value. But while Trinity College rents had gone up and kept up all these years, the middlemen's rents had gone lower and lower. He maintained there was nothing inequitable in the proposition that the balance should be restored; and the grantees of Trinity College be placed in such a position that they would be able to sell their estates to their tenants without prospect of loss.

How was this to be done? The plan which he suggested was that the grantees of Trinity College lands, and the tenants of lands held under Church perpetuity leases should be able to go into Court and obtain a revision of their rents, so that they would be proportionate to the rents they received from their sub-tenants. Purchase could then proceed throughout upon the revised rentals. The purchase advance for the holdings would be calculated, as the Bill provides, upon the judicial rents; and the amount due in respect of the head-rent would be proportioned in accordance with the revised rental. The grantees would, in that case, stand to receive some return for their capital and interest in the land, which would, at all events, ensure that they would not adopt a policy of "passive resistance." Further, he would call attention to the precedent established by the Tithe Rent-Charge (Ireland) Act, 1900. That Act provided that all tithe rent-charges should be varied in accordance with the average percentage of the variation of judicial rents. If tithe rent-charges could be so varied, why not head-rents? Tithes had been reduced by as much as 28 per cent. and he could see no reason why this system of revision should not be applied to the head-rents. The machinery was in existence, and ready to hand. It might be easily and quickly applied, so as to remove what was undoubtedly a serious obstacle to the scheme of this Bill. He might point out that occupying sub-grantees in perpetuity were admitted by the Land Act of 1887 to the benefits of the Act of 1881. A statutory perpetuity grant was thus varied by Parliament in favour of occupying tenants. What Parliament has done Parliament might be reasonably asked to do again. It might be argued that the superior landlord does not want to sell and that no proportion of the loss should fall upon him. He thought the answer to that was that the State wished the sale to take place; and it was manifestly unfair that all the loss should fall upon the middle landlord. As he had shown, the practical result of leaving this difficulty untouched would be to hinder land purchase in a great number of cases and interpose a serious obstacle to the complete success of the Act.

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 1896, make a further reduction of ten 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

admitted that the hon. Member had earnestly pleaded the cause of these people, but it would be inadvisable, he thought, to enter fully into the question then, because he understood it was the general wish of the House that the Report stage should be concluded that day. The hon. Member's proposal opened up a vista of controversial questions, which if entered into fully would take up so much time as to defeat the object they all had at heart. The hon. Member had not taken into account the fact that there might be more than one middleman, and he did not perhaps give as much allowance as he might for many provisions in the Bill, which assisted the class whose cause he had championed. His (the Chief Secretary's) chief reason for insisting that the bonus should go to the vendor was to help the class to whom the hon. Member had referred. Further than that he could not go, and he would ask the hon. Member to accept that assurance, and not to think that he was insensible of the importance of the question he had raised.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said the expressions of impatience from his colleagues were addressed not to the merits of the proposal, but to the length of the speech of the hon. Member. Unless Members made up their minds to present their case within moderate limits they could not under the circumstances expect to obtain a fair hearing. He and many of his colleagues strongly sympathised with the view of the hon. Member, and they greatly feared that unless some such proposal were accepted the £5,000 grant to Trinity College would have no effect whatever in facilitating the sale of lands to the Trinity tenants. The whole sum would be grabbed by Trinity College, and middlemen and tenants would be left exactly in the same position as if no grant had been made.

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out that in Committee the Chief Secretary contemplated taking further action, either by Royal Commission or a Committee of the House, to investigate the entire question. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would indicate some plan in order that the matter might not remain where it was.

MR. WYNDHAM

was understood to say that the matter would be looked into in the autumn.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

said there was a strong feeling on the part of Irish Members in regard to this matter which affected about 1,000 tenants in North Kerry. He would give one case as a sample. A middleman, who formerly received £2,735 in rents from his tenants, now received only £1,641, but in the same period his rent to Trinity College had been increased from £954 to £1,255, so that while the amount he received had decreased by 40 per cent., the rental he paid had increased by 30 per cent. It appeared therefore that Trinity College had got the best of the deal. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that there was fair play all round.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LONSDALE

formally moved a new clause.

Clause (Mill farms). A tenant of a holding upon which a mill is situated may make application to the Court, and the Court may direct that the non-agricultural portion of the holding shall be separated from the agricultural portion thereof, and may determine the proportion of rent to be allocated to each portion, and may thereupon fix a fair rent for the agricultural portion of the holding, to which the Land Law Acts shall then apply as if it was a separate 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

replied that it would not be possible to enter upon an Amendment of the Act of 1896 if they intended to finish the Report stage that day.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'as amended by this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

took the opportunity of pointing out that he and his colleagues had not put down any Amendments to that stage of the Bill, but it should not be taken as meaning that they were at all satisfied with the form in which the Bill left Committee. There were a number of important points raised in Committee on which they could not get their way and which in the ordinary course they would have felt bound to raise again and discuss on the Report stage. But the circumstances under which they met were of an extraordinary character. If they discussed all the points on which they were dissatisfied it would take some days, and at that time of the session the passage of the Bill would be imperilled. Therefore they had abstained from placing any Amendments on the paper. They had some reason to complain that the chief measure of the session was not brought forward earlier, so that there would have been time for discussion at the present stage. They had, however, to face the inevitable and do nothing to imperil the passage of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR T. W. RUSSELL

moved the omission of the proviso to Clause 1. He said the zone for the first-term rents stipulated that the tenant should get a reduction of at least 20 per cent. and not more than 40 per cent. He did not seek to alter that, but to leave out what followed namely— Provided that in the case of a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to before the passing of the Act of 1896, the Land Commission may, if they think it equitable, and if the purchase agreement so provides treat the holding for the purposes of this section as a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed since the passing of the Act of 1896. That was to say, that a tenant farmer going into a holding with a first-term rent had a right under the zone to a 20 per cent. reduction, but if he could be bamboozled into signing an agreement to be transferred to the second zone that right was taken away and his reduction limited to ten per cent. What was the object of that? He did not think this was a fair proposal, and it ought to be left out.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 25, to leave out from beginning of the line to the end of line 3, page 2"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'may,' in line 27, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that when they were discussing the first clause of the Bill he contemplated that a solution of the difficulty which had arisen might have been found by putting a complementary proviso providing that in some cases second-term rents might be turned into first-term rents. He thought, however, that under the circumstances, they must adhere to this proposal as it was left in the Committee stage. Clause 1 read with Clause 5, and he thought it was a good solution of a difficult question which had been arrived at by the consent of hon. Members representing various parts of Ireland. Therefore he should do all in his power to maintain it.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that upon that statement he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

in moving the Amendment standing in his name said he thought it would be better to have the definition in the way he suggested rather than have a new definition imported into the clause. There was no such thing known to the law as a large farm. There were a number of cases of very great hardship, in his judgment, where the tenant had been compelled to keep his land in grass because of a covenant forced down his throat by an old lease. Be that as it might, it seemed to him that the true test should be whether he could get a fair rent fixed or not. That was a safe and certain plan, and to tamper with Mr. Gladstone's legislation by fresh exclusions was a most dangerous course. Such technicalities caused difficulties never dreamt of by those who inserted them, and if it was taken in the form he suggested, he knew that a very large number in his constituency who were interested in the matter would appreciate it. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 23, to leave out from the word 'a' to end of line 25, and insert the words 'holding' to which the Land Law (Ireland) Acts apply.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)

said he was sorry to have to differ from his hon. and learned friend, and he urged the Chief Secretary to stick to the words of the clause. He believed there was scarcely a sentence in the whole Bill which would be received with more satisfaction, and there was no part in which this would be more intensely felt than in Meath and West Meath, where the mass of the small holders suffered just as keenly as the people of Con-naught. One of the largest agriculturists in Leinster wrote to him stating that it would be almost better to retain the £3,000 or £5,000 limit in the Bill than let the grass men buy without cultivation. Quite 40 per cent. of the sales would depend upon the proper arrangement of this question. This large farmer who wrote to him was one of those who would be shut out by the limit, but he said that on public grounds it would be a lesser evil than to employ the taxpayers' money to stereotype the grass question. There were districts in Ireland where the Bill would work no good for many years if the grass men got the right without cultivation. Under the law as it stood at present, the graziers had quite enough facilities out of the public funds for carrying out a system which was pauperising the people of the country. What the National Convention desired was encouragement for tillage and employment, and the Resolution of the Convention was met by the clause as it stood. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could rely upon it if he stood by the words of this clause that the result would be to create almost universal satisfaction amongst the masses of the people of, Ireland.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he differed from the hon. Member for Cork upon this matter. He thought that under this Bill any man who had a holding to which the Land Acts applied, ought not to be debarred from the benefits of the Act, and, without any desire to stereotype graziers, he thought the clause as it stood would shut out a large number of men who held judicial rents. These words were exceedingly difficult of interpretation. Anyone who had followed the discussion on the land question in Court, knew that over the word "mainly" the most terrific fights had taken place, and that one word had put more money into the lawyers' pockets than would have paid half the rents involved. He could understand the laughter on the Front Ministerial Bench. The junior Member for Trinity College had a really good time over that word. These tenants had to prove that holdings had been so used for five years before the passing of this Act, and that would be rather difficult. He agreed with the hon. Member for Louth that the safest way was to walk in the old path.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would endeavour to persuade the hon. Member for Cork City that if he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth he should not let in the graziers. That was the one thing he should not do, because the holdings were any non-residential grass holdings and any residential holdings of a higher value than £100 a year. It could not be urged against this Amendment that it would enable graziers to buy up land that might otherwise be purchased by the tenants. The hon. and learned Member asked him why he did not leave the matter as it stood. On the Committee stage he stated that it would be necessary to scrutinise those words very carefully to see what their legal bearing and interpretation would be. After consideration he had concluded that those words would give rise to a great deal of litigation. If they took the words suggested by the hon. Member for Louth, they would know where they were, and if they attempted to describe the case in the Act they might get into a difficulty. Further down on the Paper he had an Amendment on page 3 to leave out lines 7 to 12, the object of which was to apply for the purpose, for example, of putting an evicted tenant back upon a holding and for dealing with congestion of the limitations as to purchase. The £7,000 limit would be defined and construed in accordance with this provision. Unless they ran the risk of not being able to give a man something equal to the holding he had lost, and not being able to move a large farmer in order to remove congestion in that vicinity, they must put a liberal interpretation here, and take a liberal definition. Unless they did this the £7,000 limit would become inoperative.

MR. LEAMY (Kildare, N.)

reminded his hon. friend that the object of forming this clause was to give the benefits of the Bill to a class who were not included as the Bill was originally drawn. If the clause were passed as it stood the constituents of his hon. friend the Member for Louth would undoubtedly benefit, but he was not quite sure that the tenants of a number of pretty large farms would be particularly pleased by discovering that so many of them would be excluded.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

said he would look with considerable jealousy on any Amendment which would interfere with the arrangement which was formerly made. It was no sympathy with lawyers that would induce him to say that the words in the Bill should remain, but surely after the experience they had had on questions of construction nobody could be deceived as to the meaning of the words in the Bill as they stood "mainly used for tillage and dairying purposes." As between the words in the Bill and the words in the Amendment he would say that ninety-nine out of a hundred of his constituents would be in favour of the words in the Bill.

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

said the result of keeping the clause as it stood would be that no evicted tenant would be able to get an advance up to £7,000 for anything except a large farm which had been used for five years mainly for tillage or dairying purposes. He was perfectly confident that they would exclude some of the largest evicted tenants in Ireland whom they wished to restore to their original holdings by permitting advances up to £7,000.

Question put, and negatived.

Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill" put, and agreed to.

MR. BUTCHER (York)

, moved an Amendment making the section applicable to holdings "in respect of which the Land Commissioners have given a certificate under section six of this Act." He said the object of the Amendment was to carry out the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act,' and insert the words 'in respect of which the Land Commission have given a certificate under section six of this Act,'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he thought these words made the intention clearer. It was all the more necessary to make the intention clear because of the Amendment which he accepted of the hon. Member for Mayo. In the definition of congestion there was originally a standard of area as well as a standard of price, and at the instance of the hon. Member for Mayo he omitted the standard of area and confined it to holdings of the annual value of £5. He urged on the Committee, and he thought the Committee agreed with him, that the definition of what was a congested estate was not consistent with an estate on which half the holdings were of £5 annual value. It might be an estate of small dairy farms. The true definition of a congested estate was an estate which was certified to need aid because of the wants of the tenants upon it. In Sub-section 4 of Clause 6 there was the true test of what was a congested estate. Sub-section 5 was only a Treasury check. The Government was not to say that an estate was congested merely because the holdings were of so much value, so that it was proper to take as the true definition the circumstances of the tenants and not the Treasury check on the money in the case. It was all the more necessary to do that since at the instance of the hon. Member he took out the standard of area.

MR. DILLON

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. He thought the action taken by the rish Party deserved a considerable amount of recognition from the Government and also from hon. Members opposite. They had abstained from bringing forward a number of points on which they were extremely interested. On the point dealt with by the hon. Member for Waterford they exercised a considerable self-restraint. The Amendment now before the House might seem small, but it raised a question of far-reaching importance, because that touched the whole of the matter of the definition of a congested estate. That very question of the definition of a congested estate was one which was debated at considerable length in Committee, and which he would have very much desired to press again on the Report Stage, but he abstained from doing so in accordance with an agreement come to by his Party. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman without any serious cause making any change in this machinery. He would like to know if he was correct in saying that this Amendment, which exempted certain estates from the restrictions on the operation of Clause 1 as regarded the zones, and as it originally stood exempted all estates defined in this section as congested estates, now limited that exemption and limited it on the extraordinary statement of the Chief Secretary that when an estate fell within the definition of a holding of £5 value it might be prosperous. To assume that they might be, was to his mind a most extraordinary doctrine, because he held that the limit of £5 was too low, and that in this great measure of policy for the future resettlement of Ireland £10 ought to be the lowest limit for an economical holding. This Amendment involved the assumption that land valued at £5 a year might be prosperous land. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept contentious Amendments of this kind.

MR. ATKINSON

said if the Amendment was not accepted there would be estates which would not be entitled to any of the benefits of the Bill

MR. DILLON

What are the benefits from which they will be excluded?

MR. ATKINSON

said he would take the advance of £7,000. A congested estate if it satisfied the first definition, but without satisfying the others would lose the benefit of all the preceding sub-sections of Clause 1, and yet inasmuch as the Commissioners did not certify it would not get the benefit of this clause. So it would be absolutely left out in the cold.

MR. DILLON

What are the other benefits?

MR. ATKINSON

said what they wanted in order that an estate should get the benefit was that it should conform to this definition of the £5 value. For instance, if half the estate consisted of small farms and the other half say of six large farms, such an estate could not have any of the benefits of Clause 1.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 35, to leave out the words 'ten acres in area and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. DILLON

said he gladly admitted that the Chief Secretary's Amendment was a great improvement on the present definition, but he wished to record his conviction that a limit of £5 was a great mistake in a great operation of this character. It was too narrow a restraint on the discretion of the Commissioners. There was force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there was not sufficient land to go round; but the Commissioners should have some discretion, and naturally they would use the land at their disposal to increase the holdings below £5 in rateable value before giving land to holdings above that value; but he knew of districts where they would have sufficient land, and why, in such districts, should the Commissioners be forbidden to give an addition to farms which were of £6 or £7 rateable value? He regretted that the Government could not see their way to alter the limit.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word, 'a,' and insert the word, 'that.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 6, to leave out the words, 'five hundred,' and insert the words, 'one thousand.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'five hundred' stand part of the Bill."

MR. DILLON

said he wished to take the opportunity of saying that this was a very generous proposal of the Chief Secretary, and that the right hon. Gentleman had fully and honourably redeemed every promise he had made.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'one thousand' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, to leave out lines 7 to 12, inclusive, and insert the words 'Provided that the limitation in this Sub-section may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 29, alter the word 'vendor,' to insert the words 'or (in the case of an estate purchased from the Land Judge) to the former owner of the estate or a person nominated by the Land Commission as his representative."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 30, to leave out the words 'to the vendor.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 34, at end, to add the words '(3) In entering into agreements for the resale of any land to the vendor of an estate the Land Commission shall have regard to the amount of land available for the enlargement of holdings where they consider such enlargement necessary. (4) Where an advance is made in pursuance of this section the Judicial Commissioner may, if he thinks it equitable, on the application of any person who, at the date of the sale of the land to the Land Commission, was entitled to any estate in remainder or reversion in that land order, upon such terms and conditions as he may think reasonable, that the land so resold shall devolve in accordance with the terms of the settlement which at the date of the sale to the Laud Commission affected it."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

said he felt bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment carried out fully and satisfactorily the undertaking he gave in Committee. It certainly made the power of the Estate Commissioners as complete as one could reasonably desire. He believed that the generous treatment of the evicted tenants would be, to a large extent, the touchstone by which the administration of this Act would be judged in Ireland. It was as much in the interest of the landlords as the tenants that this question should be settled in a generous way with no list of prescriptions, and that seemed to him to be the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the current tenants would be excluded under this Amendment.

Proposed Amendment amended— In line 5, by leaving out the words 'an advance is made,' and inserting the words 'any land is resold to the vendor.'"—(Colonel Wyndham-Quin.)

Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that when the Bill was in Committee the Member for Cambridge joined with him in pointing out the difficulties that might arise from shadowy claims to the foreshore. It was desirable that on the sale of an estate with the strand, the whole of the tenants on the estate should not be shut out from the use of the sand, gravel, or seaweed which they had long enjoyed by what he admitted was a shadowy right. He moved.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 39, after the word 'pasturage,' to insert the words "acquiring foreshore or land for raising sand, gravel, or seaweed, or for the construction of piers."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

said he hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept this Amendment, because it would stop a great deal of litigation and quarrelling, and place the right to the foreshore in the hands of a body of trustees who could settle all disputes as to the raising of sand and gravel and gathering of sea-weed.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth as they stood, but he would agree to the following words, "the raising of sand or gravel, the cutting or gathering of sea-weed."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would take anything he could get and be thankful.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 39 after the word 'pasturage,' to insert the words 'the raising of sand or gravel, the cutting or gathering of seaweed.'"—(Mr. Wyndham)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

said that this was one of the Amendments which, he was glad to say, obliterated every distinction between one class of tenants and another; and it would make most decidedly for the peace of the country and the success of the Bill. The Amendment was simple and clear.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that his object was to make the matter clear. He had also other Amendments by which he meant to put the direct sales on the same level as the sales through the Land Commission.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, line 9, to leave out the words 'the estate,' and insert the word 'estates.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, line 9, at end to insert the words 'purchased or proposed to be purchased under this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 8, line 34, at beginning, to insert the words 'In the case of the sale of an estate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 8, line 36, to leave out the word 'an,' and insert the word 'the.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 8, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words, 'purchased by them or by the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said that this was an Amendment in the direction of an Amendment he himself had proposed, and it appeared to him satisfactory.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that he had entertained great doubts of doing as much in the case of direct purchase as he had contemplated in the case of purchase by the Land Commission. He had been working at the problem during the last week, and he was satisfied that his proposed Amendment would work satisfactorily.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 9, line 3, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words, 'by all persons interested.'"—(Sir John Golomb.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said bethought this Amendment went further than was necessary. He quite agreed that an opportunity should be given for coming to an agreement, but he would prefer the words "between the owner of the estate and the owner of the intervening interest."

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

accepted the suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 9, line 3, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words 'between the owner of the estate and the owner of the intervening interest.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 11, line 39, to leave out from the word 'of,' to the word 'by,' in line 41, and insert 'section four of.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 12, line 14, after the word 'cutting' to insert the words 'or making.' In page 12, line 21, to leave out the words 'or making.'"—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'and shall hold office during pleasure.' In page 13, line 13, at end to insert the words (4) 'The Estates Commissioners shall hold office during pleasure, but any Estates Commissioner shall only be removed from his office by an Order in Council, and any such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void.' In page 13, line, 14, at end, to insert the words 'nominated or.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said this Amendment might seem a small matter, but it was an important one, because it affected the whole administration of the Act. He was not quite sure that they had gained anything by inserting the Lord Lieutenant instead of the Judicial Commissioner. It was of the greatest importance that the new Estates Commission should not be packed by the creatures of any one. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 29, after the word, 'may' to insert the words 'after consultation with the Land Commission and.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

MR. WYNDHAM

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 29, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'such,' in line 30, and to insert the word 'nominate.' In page 13, line 30, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'land.'" "In page 13, line 30, at end to insert the words 'with the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

On Sub-section 9— Sales of estates to the Estate Commissioners and sales by those Commissioners to tenants and others may be negotiated and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners at a fixed price or percentage, according to a scale to be settled by the Estates Commissioners with the assent of the Treasury, and such price or percentage shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission.

SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

moved to leave out the words "and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners," and to insert "by any agents or solicitors nominated with the approval of the Estates Commissioners by the vendors, or, in the absence of such nomination, by persons approved by the Commission."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 38, to leave out the words 'and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons,' and insert the words 'by any land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and.'"—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said it seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was merely to call attention to the fact that the land agents were in many cases the proper persons to be employed. He should accept the Amendment because he believed the agents were probably the best persons, having full knowledge, to be employed; but the Government must reserve the right not to select them if necessary.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he had no objection to the land agents being compensated, provided that they were not to get anything out of the tenants' pockets. He should vote against anything of the kind. But the agents did not stand alone; there were the land clerks, and similar results would follow in their case, because they would be thrown out of employment as well as the agents.

MR. DILLON

said if they could be quite assured that this compensation to the agents would conclude the whole business, he, for one, would not raise any objection, but certainly not out of the funds of the Bill. No doubt many of these agents had lost considerably by the Act, some of them having in the past received as much as 5 per cent. on rents of thousands a year. He did not think that if the agents were reappointed in connection with the settlement of the estate that would be any great advantage, as there were other persons equally qualified to effect the sales. He did not think that people who had been receiving such large incomes would be anxious to hasten the sales of land. Of course he did not blame the agents for that, and he made no charge against them, but it was only human nature that they should feel the seriousness of the change in their position. He hoped that this would be the last proposal of the kind, and that if the House agreed to this Amendment it ought to be regarded as a settlement so far as land agents were concerned.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said he did not intend to propose the other Amendment upon this subject.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that with regard to the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for Last Mayo respecting the agents, he might say that there was no intention to extend the matter of compensation after this. It was not for the Government to effect it, but, having ascertained that it was agreed to by all parties, the Government had no objection to the Amendment, and on the ground that it would terminate the matter, he had accepted it.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

had no desire to say anything with regard to the landlords or the agents on that occasion, but he certainly thought that the landlords would be wanting in gratitude if they did not compensate men who had served them so well and zealously and had undertaken duties which were very trying and, he could not avoid adding, unpleasant. Indeed he considered that the land agents were more in trouble in Ireland than the landlords themselves, and he hoped if the Amendment were to be accepted it would bring to an end all further obligations in the same direction. He might say that in common justice the landlords ought to do something for their agents who had worked for them in defiance of all laws—human and divine. But he would only assent to it on the condition that it could not come out of any of the money for the free grant and sale.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St, Patrick)

said he would like to say something on behalf of the clerks who had worked and assisted the land agents in this matter.

*THE SPEAKER

ruled that that point was not then before the House.

*MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

did not think that they should re-endow the agents, and he for one should not support the Amendment if any compensation were to be given out of the bonus or out of the funds required for purchasing the land. This was really a private matter. The agents had been paid their salaries and commissions for their work in connection with the collection of rent, and have been paid by and for the job for many years, and he saw no reason for any compensation being given to them nor to their clerks.

*SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester)

agreed with the Member for South Tyrone that the land clerks should be compensated, and he was glad to say that the land agents had already agreed to do this. Land agents had in their time to perform many difficult and delicate duties. The landlords of Ireland lived in every part of the world. The agents had performed the duties of the landlords—who were only occasionally resident in Ireland—on the Bench and on the Councils they had performed their duties satisfactorily. They had assisted in establishing creameries and light railways. He therefore supported the Amendment, and hoped that the land agents might receive some consideration in the final settlement, as they most of all could speed the happy and rapid progress which it was desired the policy of the Measure should make.

MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)

said the agents had caused much of the trouble in Ireland, and in the County of Galway some of the agents were at that moment serving notices upon the tenants so as to lead up to their eviction.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that was a matter which had nothing to do with the Amendment before the House. They could not discuss the mode of conducting the business of every landed proprietor on that question.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

said there was one thing he should like to discuss—namely, the position of the agents' clerks.

*MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise now.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill. In page 14, line 2, after the word 'Lieutenant,' to insert the words, 'and after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.' In page 14, line 14, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'those reports and all rules under the last preceding sub-section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 15, line 6, at end, to insert the words, 'In this sub-section the expression "the annual income," shall include the annual amount payable in respect of the premiums on any policy of insurance where those premiums are charged upon land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR LEWIS MCIVER (Edinburgh, W.)

in the same clause proposed to insert the words—"Where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting the same and." He noticed that the Chief Secretary had an Amendment dealing with the same point by merely proposing to insert the words "for his own use," but he ventured to think that his own proposal would make the matter more clear. They both had the same object in view—i.e., to prevent the owner of an insolvent estate running away with the arrears.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 15, line 17, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting the same and.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was of opinion that his own words covered the object of the hon. Member. Of course, if he found they did not do so adequately, he would, in another place, adopt his suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 15, line 22, after the word "arrears" to insert the words 'for his own use.'"—Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

in line 27, proposed to substitute "may" for "shall." He wished to leave it optional with the Land Commission to make investigation through their own officers.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 15, line 27, to leave out the word 'shall' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

opposed, and urged it was most desirable that the direction to the Commission to do certain things, without charge to the person entitled to the purchase money, should be obligatory.

MR. ATKINSON

pointed out that "may" was more in harmony with the substance of the provision.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'may' be there inserted in the Bill" put, and agreed to.

MR. BUTCHER

, in moving a proviso to Sub-section 2, said his object was to provide that where there had been no default or delay on the part of the encumbrancer or other person in establishing his title he should not come under the provision of Sub-section 2. Delay might be caused, for instance, by pressure of business in the Land Commission, and, as it would be due to no default on the part of the encumbrancer, there was no reason why he should be subjected to the penalty provided by the sub-section. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 16, line 31, after the word 'advances,' to insert the words, 'provided that this sub-section shall not apply in any case where the Land Commission are satisfied that it is not owing to any act or default of such person that his title is not established, and the amount of his claim invested us aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that while he had no particular objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member, he was rather nervous about it. If the money was not distributed quickly it would prevent purchase.

MR. ATKINSON

said that nothing could be more injurious than the Amendment.

MR. BUTCHER

I moved it simply in the interests of fair play.

MR. ATKINSON

said he would show how it would work. Generally speaking, encumbrancers in Ireland secured interest at the rate of 4½ or 5 per cent. They were absolutely interested in interposing every possible delay in the winding up of an estate, because their money was secure and they were receiving a higher rate of interest than they could possibly derive from any other investment. The object of this provision was to fix a date beyond which an encumbrancer would not get more than a certain rate of interest, so that it would be to the interest of everybody to expedite the winding up of the estate. If instead of having the rigid limit of twelve months the House inserted an elastic arrangement by which the high rate of interest should continue to accrue, unless the person interested was guilty of default, he really did not know when the winding up of an estate would be completed. In the meantime, the encumbrancer would be eating into the residue, because when the purchase money was invested it would bring in at most 3½ per cent., whereas interest would be running all that time at 4½ per cent.

SIR LEWIS MCIVER

said the hon. and learned Member had not met the question in the least. The Amendment was designed to meet the case of a man who had not been guilty of dilatory action, and who was not in default, but the hon. and learned Member had dealt only with the case of a man in default. Where the delay was not the fault of the encumbrancer himself there was no reason why he should be robbed of the interest to which he was entitled under his deed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER

moved to omit Subsection 3. He had no objection to an encumbrancer being deprived of his interest if he was guilty of delay, but generally the encumbrancer had a covenant with the landlord for the payment of his interest, and he desired to know whether the sub-section would deprive him of that? If he still had the right to enforce his claim against the landlord the provision would be ineffective. The Chief Secretary should ensure that the mortgagee, if guilty of default, would lose his interest both out of the purchase money and also under his covenant, otherwise he would have no incentive to take steps to prove his title at all.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 16, line 34, to leave out Subsection (3)."—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

did not think there was much danger in the sense pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, but he was afraid that if these penalties were enforced landlords would at once withdraw their estates from sale. As far as he could see there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done. That was a very real danger; the hopes of a large body of tenants might be disappointed, and he put it to the Chief Secretary that there was some necessity for providing in some part of the Bill that a landlord having once put his estate into the process of purchase contemplated by the Act should be unable to withdraw it.

MR. ATKINSON

pointed out that the possibility of these penalties being imposed arose only after the sale. He agreed that if an encumbrancer was guilty of delay he should lose his interest both out of the purchase money and also under his covenant, and if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment he would consider the matter, and, if necessary, have an Amendment inserted in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR LEWIS MCIVER

said the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to make it clear that in future the word "agreement" would include proposals made to the Land Judge and accepted by him. That was the case under the Act of 1896, and he thought it should be so in the present Bill.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 17, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'shall in the case of agreements entered into,' and insert the word 'sanctioned.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver,)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

did not think there was any substance in the point.

MR. ATKINSON

said that no advances could be made until an agreement had been entered into between landlord and tenant, and Section 40 of the Act of 1896, to which the hon. Member referred, provided that an offer of the Land Judge to the tenant should be an agreement in order that the machinery of the Land Purchase Acts might apply. Where the hon. Member made a mistake was in supposing that this Bill enabled the Land Judge to sell directly where he could not sell before. It did nothing of the kind. All it did was to enable the Land Judge to sell an estate in his Court to the Land Commission, not to the tenants.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he thought the Bill covered the point the hon. Member had in mind, but, if the hon. Member would see him in the course of the next few days and explain the matter more fully, if it was not met by the Bill he would see that it was dealt with in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 18, line 41, after the word 'cent.' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, line 31, to leave out the word 'interest,' and insert the word 'dividends.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, line 38, after the word 'advances,' to insert the words 'to them.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, line 39, to leave out the word 'interest,' and insert the word 'dividends.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 38.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

moved the omission of the clause. He said he desired to elicit information, and also to object to the source from which this grant was drawn. When the Irish Development Bill was introduced constitutional objections were raised, but many Members, believing the Chief Secretary had great objects in view, were willing to sacrifice their opinions on the matter. He was bound to say, however, that the Chief Secretary had placed in the hands of those who objected to this method of procedure a most tremendous weapon. He had demonstrated that the Fund would provide Dublin Castle with a purse for the perpetration of every job the Irish Government chose to allow, and the very first use made of it—this grant of £5,000 to Trinity College as hush money—was a job of the first magnitude. If Trinity College chose to make herself a pensioner of the British Government there was nothing more to be said from that standpoint. Trinity College had a great history, and he wished her to have a great future, but that future would not be secured by proceedings of this kind. He wished to know how the money was to be applied, and what it would do for either middlemen or tenants. In County Armagh Trinity College held the superior interest in an estate, the landlord was the middleman, and there were a considerable number of tenants.

Under the Bill the middleman would undoubtedly be able to sell. What would happen? The middleman would claim to exercise his right to sell, and the superior interests of Trinity College would have to be dealt with. So far as he understood the Bill they would have to be dealt with in one of two ways either the middleman and the College must come together and agree, or the Land Commission must arbitrate and decide the value of the superior interests. Why was it to be assumed that Trinity College would lose by that transaction any more than the holder of any other superior interest? Trinity College was able to make its own bargain and defend its own rights. If the owner of the superior interest could not agree the matter could be arbitrated and decided like any other head-rent. Why should Trinity College be differentiated? The answer would be that Trinity College was a great national institution and ought not to be hampered in its work by any legislation for which the Government was responsible. What had been the course of procedure in regard to the redemption of head-rents in the past? Up to twenty-five years purchase had been paid for those head-rents. Was it asserted that if Trinity College got twenty-five years purchase it would be the loser? If so, it could only be the loser by the fact that those rents were unconscionable rents, which had never been touched by the Land Courts. If Trinity College lost it could only be by the fact that she had gained over and above all other landlords in Ireland. Who was to benefit by this £5,000 and how was it to be applied? Did the Government know of any arrangement by which the grant of this £5,000 was to be taken into account in fixing the rights of the middlemen? He wanted to know whether any of this £5,000 was to go towards enabling the middlemen to sell. How could they know that this £5,000 was not going to be locked up until it reached £50,000, and then a raid might be made upon it for some other object. He repeated his objection to the source from which this money was to be taken. When this question was discussed in Committee he said that if Trinity College lost by this Bill she ought to be recouped in an educational settlement that would take all creeds into consideration. With the national schools all over the country in an insanitary state—with earthen floors, windows out, and no sanitary requirements to many of them, it was a very tall order to take £5,000 out of the development grant at two days notice, every single shilling of which could have been used for a good purpose. It was a very large order to give this sum of money to the richest educational institution in the country, which, instead of helping the Government to settle this educational difficulty, had done everything in its power to retard it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would let in a little more light upon this "job" in favour of the richest educational institution in the country. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 35, to leave out Clause 38."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 38 to the word 'the,' in line 36, stand part of the Bill."

MR. DILLON

said that while it was perfectly true that the Irish Members were willing to agree that a portion of that grant should be taken to aid a land purchase scheme, they had no notion of it being devoted to such purposes as this. The protest raised by the hon. Member for Louth and the chairman of the Party against this money being allocated for any purpose except promoting Irish land purchase, was for the very reason that it might not be used for a purpose like this. He thought it was most irregular, and improper, and out of order to take a portion of this money, not yet appropriated by Parliament, by a clause in this Bill, and apply it to the purpose now proposed. He did not wish to prolong this debate because he recognised that it was idle for them to stop this "job." It was a most scandalous "job." There were only two points in connection with it upon which he felt bound to state his view. The only reason given in justification for this extraordinary proposal by the Chief Secretary was that it was for the benefit and advan of the 10,000 holders who were tenants under the middlemen of Trinity College, and that it would enable them to purchase. It would have no effect whatever in enabling them to purchase, because Trinity College had no power to fix the price of its own head-rents. Therefore, the middlemen would not be in a bit better position to sell, and they would not be encouraged to sell by this grant. It that were so, then this money was being obtained under false pretences, because it had been asked for in order to help the tenants to buy, and it would not help them in the least degree. It the right hon. Gentleman would put into the clause a prohibition, directing the Estates Commissioners to take into consideration this £5,000 when estimating the rents of Trinity College, that would remove a great deal of his opposition to this proposal, ft was merely a pretext to use the middleman as a means of obtaining £5,000, which would probably be devoted to a totally different purpose, and would not have an atom of effect in relieving the middlemen. This, in reality, was a pure and simple grab to get a grant to indemnify the College against a supposed loss. This grant was recommended by the Chief Secretary and by the hon. Member for Trinity College when they spoke of this College as a great national institution, which enjoyed the respect of all Irishmen and of which all Irishmen were proud. He absolutely denied that. It was not a national institution, and it did not enjoy the respect of the masses of the Irish people and they were not proud of it. It was an institution which had confined its great advantages to a narrow and limited section of the population, and which, throughout its long career, had been associated with ascendancy in Ireland. It was really a fortress of bigotry, and, to its disgrace be it said, that to this hour it was the chief barrier which stood between the Irish people and the advantages to be obtained by education. They sought to deny to the mass of the people of Ireland those advantages which they offered to a small section. How could they respect an institution of that kind and call it national. He agreed that it had produced a great many distinguished men, but not long ago it sent an hon. Member to this House pledged to resign his seat rather than grant a Catholic University to Ireland. Therefore he was not proud of Trinity College, and, if it persisted in this policy of narrow bigotry, he trusted the day was not far distant when the walls of bigotry erected round this institution would be torn down, and its revenues devoted to the national benefit.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that time did not permit him to develop the argument he put before the Committee upon this question if they were to get through the Report stage that afternoon. They could not devote much time to this question although some little time was due to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The speech which they had just listened to seemed to raise two main points. The first was why they differentiated at all in respect of Trinity College, and the second was supposing they were right in differentiating, why did they take the money out of the Irish development grant. They differentiated in favour of Trinity College because in the first place it: held a statutory position in the past and in consequence had not been a, free agent in managing its own financial affairs. There was another point which he would pass over merely by saying that his opinion as to the position held by Trinity College did not coincide with the opinion which had just been given by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He would pass by that point because he wished to avoid controversy. As to preferential treatment they had to consider the peculiarity of tenure under Trinity College, and three or four years hence they might discover impediments to purchase which would have to be dealt with. He thought that such a precaution by way of an insurance fund would conduce to purchase and help the 9,000 or 10,000 holders under Trinity College. Although in his opinion it might not be proper to say that they must take into account this money he did think the fact that Trinity would not lose in consequence of any decision was likely materially to accelerate these proceedings and carry them through successfully. He held quite distinctly that the addition of this grant would assist the purchase of their holdings by these 9,000 or 10,000 holders of the soil who were at the bottom of this complicated system of tenure. Now he came to the second branch of his argument, namely, why had they had recourse to the Irish development grant? If he could have had recourse to money voted by Parliament he should have preferred it, but he could not. The financial arrangements of this Bill must be taken as one. He would submit to the hon. Member in the first place chat originally they all hoped and believed that the equivalent grant to Ireland would be £150,000, and it was only by making many representations that the Treasury granted £185,000. In the second place it was urged by some of the critics sitting for English constituencies that if they were to have land purchase this education equivalent should go into the land purchase account. He had got this equivalent grant, but he admitted that he had not been uniformly successful. It was not, however, in his power to stand out against those representations. That being so he had no other course but to take the money from the Irish development grant.

MR. T. M. HEALY

claimed that in this matter they ought to have the support of Scotch Members. While his opinions had undergone no change he was very sorry that time did not allow him to put on the paper an Amendment which he had drawn, and without which provision this clause would have no effect and not one shilling would ever go into the pockets of Trinity College. The conditions were so complicated, and the middlemen would be so reluctant, that they would infinitely prefer the present conditions. He asked the Government to inquire into the matter during the autumn, and he suggested that after some two years or so the Government might issue a Commission to inquire and report as to the best means of investing the lands in the occupying tenants.

MR. WYNDHAM

I shall be very glad to consider that suggestion.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

pointed nut that special circumstances were created by this Act of Parliament which had been defended upon different grounds. It was said that this proposal was necessary to enable these tenants to obtain the benefits of land purchase, but unless in fixing the value of the superior interests this grant was taken into account those benefits would not accrue. In granting this £5,000 a year it should be made clear that in determining the value this grant should be taken into account and it should not be left to probabilities or conjectures. The object for which the money was claimed by the Chief Secretary should be secured in the Bill itself. It was important that this grant should be secured for Irish purposes for all time, and it was not right or proper that the disposition of it should be left to the Government of the day or that it should be disposed of in any other way than in a satisfactory constitutional manner. The form had to be altered because the grant was to be made perpetual, but the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and himself had insisted that the substance should be retained in the same form, and that only after debate in the House should the money be applied.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

thought the Government ought to give some answer to the points which had been raised. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had the same object in view as they had. He had a strong objection to Trinity College being placed in a different position to other institutions. The Chief Secretary said that Trinity College was not going to make a penny by this proposal, and that it was only intended to secure Trinity College from loss. Would the right hon. Gentleman make good his own words and insert a proviso that the money should be devoted only to facilitating land purchase in Ireland in order to give these 10,000 tenants the advantage of it? The only difference between them was that they did not think the words of the Clause fulfilled that intention.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 20, line 35, at beginning, to insert the words, 'Subject to the provision of the last preceding section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 21, line 19, to leave out the words 'of seventy thousand pounds mentioned in,' and insert the words 'payable under.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 21, line 23, after the word 'grant' to insert the words 'substituted for the grant.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 22, line 30, after the words 'per cent.,' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 22, line 31, after the words 'per cent.,' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 23, line 7, at end, to insert the words '(2) The purchase annuity shall be paid until the whole of the advance in respect of which it is payable is ascertained in manner prescribed by the Treasury to have been repaid."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. DILLON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the rules for carrying out the Amendment would be laid before Parliament. On a previous occasion they had great difficulty in getting an account of what the Treasury based its proceedings on.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could give that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 23, line 19, at end, to add, the words '(3) Any rules under this section shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before both Houses of Parliament."'—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. BUTCHER

moved as an Amendment to Clause 47 that the vendor of an estate should pay out of the bonus money an amount not exceeding 3 per cent. of the purchase money in discharge of the costs incidental to the sale. In common with some others he on a former occasion in connection with the matter of the bonus used the term "bribe," which was not grateful to the ears of the Chief Secretary. He suggested that most Courts would regard money given to a vendor to induce him to sell as a bribe. He did not intend to repeat the speech which he made formerly. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER "Hear, hear."] He was glad this statement received the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he hoped they would show their gratitude by supporting the Amendment, which was a most reasonable one. He said at once that he recognised that there were objections to taking the whole of the bonus and putting it into the purchase money, and, therefore, he did not intend to move the second part of the Amendment standing in his name, which proposed that the balance of the bonus ought to be treated as part of the purchase money. He intended to confine himself entirely to the first part of the Amendment which proposed that costs up to a certain point should be paid out of the bonus. In making his proposal he was only carrying out the expressed intentions of the Government themselves. He found those intentions expressed most clearly in the original draft of the bill in Clause 43 Sub-section (1) which was as follows— For the purpose of aiding the sale of estates under this Act, and making contributions towards the expenses incidental to the redemption of superior and intervening interests, the investigation of titles, the distribution of purchase money and other like matters, the Land Commission may, in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time, out of advances by the National Debt Commissioners from the said fund, pay to the vendor of each estate sold a percentage determined according to the scale set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

The hon. Gentleman agreed with my Amendment to leave these words out.

*MR. BUTCHER

said that was not so. The the sub-section expressed the purpose which the Government thought justified the bonus. It was for the purpose of aiding sales, and he desired to give effect to that intention. He fully admitted that under the Bill as originally drafted their intentions might have been frustrated, because the the words of Clause 43 were not sufficiently strong to ear-mark the bonus for the purpose of paying these costs. He proposed to ear-mark it and devote it to the purpose expressed in the Government's own words. He believed that probably ninety-nine out of every 100 hon. Members who read the Bill were under the impression at the time of the Second Reading that the costs would be paid in that manner, and he should say that a very much larger proportion of the outside public were under that belief. He justified this proposal not merely on the ground that it carried out the intention of the Government, but also on the ground that it was fair, desirable, and reasonable in itself. Would not every prudent landlord who sold under the Bill apply a portion of the bonus towards paying the costs? Would not he apply a sum not exceeding 3 per cent. to that purpose, and leave the purchase money for the benefit of the estate? His desire was to make the imprudent landlord do what the prudent landlord would do. They were told that this bonus was a free gift from the State to the landlord, and that they ought not to hamper him with regard to the application of the money. They should remember when they talked of a free gift that the landlord was part owner, and that there were others who ought to benefit by the sale of the estate. He asked hon. Members to deal fairly between all the different persons interested. He thought it would be right to say that 3 per cent. of the bonus should be applied to the payment of costs, leaving the landlord the other 9 per cent. He was speaking in the interest of what he thought was fair on both sides. He was told that unless they gave the tenant for life the whole of the 12 per cent. they did not offer him sufficient inducement to sell. He believed if a landlord got, as hon. Gentlemen opposite desired him to get, a fair price for his land, and if in addition to that he got 9 per cent. of the total bonus money for his own use, that ought to operate very fairly. He asked the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment in the interest of fair play all round. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— in page 24, line 6, at end, to insert the words '(3) The vendor shall, out of the percentage payable to him under this section, pay and discharge such of the costs of and incidental to the sale as would but for this provision be payable out of the purchase money of the estate. Provided that the amount of the costs so payable shall not exceed 3 per cent. on the amount of the purchase money of the estate.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was really unable to accept the Amendment. He had lately endeavoured to convince his hon. and learned friend that this was an Amendment that could not be accepted. He did not like to develop his argument at any length against it now, but he would point out that while many people looked at the bonus from the point of view of the financial position of the landlord, he himself looked at it also from the point of view of the remainder-man. The hon. Member for York said he wished to be fair to all parties. He never knew in which capacity the hon. Member was coming forward — whether in the interest of the landlord, the encumbrancer, or the remainder-man. The bonus was applied where help was most needed, to enable the vendor to sell, and he must maintain his position in this matter.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 24, line 9, to leave out the words 'scale of percentages,' and insert the word 'percentage.' In page 24, line 12, to leave out the word 'scale,' and insert the word 'percentage.' In page 24, line 17, at end, to insert the won is 'or to any estate sold by a mortgagee in possession.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

moved an Amendment that Clause 47, should not apply to any estate as to which an absolute order for sale was made in the Land Judge's Court prior to 1st January, 1901, where such order, after the passing of this Act, had been discharged. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary was cognisant of the fact that the Land Judge's Court could refuse to give any bonus on a sale in the Land Registry Court. The only result of that refusal would be that every sensible man would withdraw his case from the Land Registry Court in order to get the bonus, and unless there was a provision that, on being withdrawn, he would get no bonus, they would have the Registry Court high and dry and all the work thrown on the Estates Commissioners. It seemed to him that to provide that a landlord should get any bonus under these conditions was simply to invite him to take his estate out of the Registry Court. His idea was that he should not be allowed to take out the estate, and that if he did he should get no bonus. There should be no inducement to take an estate out. It appeared to him that, unless some Amendment like this was arrived at, there was extraordinary risk of the land shark and the speculator coming forward again in the Land Judge's Court. He saw nothing to prevent wealthy financiers like Rothschild and Pierpont Morgan entering into transactions by which they would be able to get a bonus of 12 per cent., while at the same time hanging up estates interminably and cheating the tenants out of their rights. He did not know that his Amendment was the most perfect device that could be adopted to prevent this fraud, but something was wanted to prevent the fraud being perpetrated.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 24, line 17, at the end, to insert the words 'nor to any estate as to which an absolute order for sale was made in the Land Judge's Court prior to the 1st of January 1901, where such order after the passing of this Act has been discharged. "Estate" for the purpose of this sub-Section shall include any portion of an estate.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had listened with attention and interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member. This Amendment had only appeared on the Paper this morning, and, owing to the early hour at which the House met, he had not been able to give to it the full consideration which he thought it demanded. He would only make two observations. There would not be many of the cases which the hon. and learned Member contemplated. He could in it suppose that the Judge would permit what was indicated.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the Judge would allow it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. and learned Member had put forward the argument that the intention of the Bill might be defeated by certain financial operations. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied if he said that he would consider the point raised by him. He was quite sure that if the danger referred to existed it ought to be stopped.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do more at present than promise to consider the point, seeing that only a brief period had elapsed since the Amendment was put on the Paper.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

moved an Amendment of Clause 50 for the purpose of enlarging the powers of trustees as to the investment of purchase money. He said the object of the Amendment was to relax something of the stringency under the provisions in the Bill upon the investment of the very vast sums of money which were going to be invested under the operation of this Act. The subject was so large and so closely bound up with the economic well being of Ireland that it was difficult even to attempt to open it on a day when time pressed so much, and when matters much more closely connected with the main objects of the Bill had to be dealt with. But he wished to point out two facts. His right hon. friend would withdraw from the investment market in Ireland practically the whole of the land of Ireland. It would not be available to investors in the ordinary sense. Further, there would be brought into Ireland from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom some hundred millions of money which ultimately would be repaid to the Exchequer. Those were two facts which could not fail to force any observer to the conclusion that the economic future of Ireland was very much bound tip with the manner in which the provision for the investment of the money received for the sale of land was dealt with by this Bill or some future measure. He did not profess to believe that the little list of investments suggested by him would deal fully with the matter, or make a final settlement. What had been felt in regard to the question of the investments of people who were to be the resident gentry in Ireland was, that the Bill as it stood put these investments under the direction of a judicial body, or a indicial person, whose views respecting investments were so strict as to be entirely separated from the views of ordinary commercial persons. That was regarded by those interested in the matter as something of an alarming prospect. He should be glad if the Chief Secretary could tell the House that this subject would receive consideration, with the view of ascertaining whether it was not necessary, having regard to the wholesale change in the conditions of the life of persons holding capital in Ireland, to reconsider the restrictions which the Bill placed on trust investments. These restrictions were proper enough in a country like England, where, fortunately, trust investments were more plentiful than in Ireland, but in Ireland they were felt, as he was told, to operate with undue stringency. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 24, line 37, after the word 'in,' to insert die words, '(a) bonds, debentures, or mortgages seemed upon rates or taxes levied under the authority of any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order by any municipal corporation or other local authority in the United Kingdom which shall be authorised to borrow on such security; (b) ground rents arising out of hereditaments in the United Kingdom and not exceeding in amount one-fourth part of the annual value at a rack rent of the premises out of which such ground rents issue; (c) debentures or mortgages of railway companies in the United Kingdom incorporated by Act of Parliament; (d) stocks or shares of any tramway or light railway interest upon which is guaranteed from or charged upon rates under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts; (e) bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon any investments in which trustees are authorised by this or any other Act to invest trust funds; (f) debentures or fully paid shares or stocks of any railway of commercial or industrial company in the United Kingdom, provided that the sufficiency of such inve-tment to realise the sum invested therein upon the death of the tenant for life or the termination of the trust shall be secured to the satisfaction of the public trustee under this Act; or (g).'"—(Mr. Duke.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said his hon. and learned friend was really proposing to do what the Government sought to do in another way. In one sense the clause as it stood was wider titan the Amendment. He had gone into this matter very closely, and had conferred with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, taking into account the general law of trusts. Clause 51 represented the clear judgment of the Government on this question, and he did not think that it excluded the investments which his hon. and learned friend would like to see included. He could not hold out any hope that that decision would be amplified on the present occasion. Many of the investments indicated by his hon. and learned friend would be taken in under the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 20, line 28, to leave out the words 'March last before the passing of this Act' and insert the words 'January in the year nineteen hundred and one. In page 27, line 1, after the word 'holding, to insert the words 'or part thereof.'"—[Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendments agreed to.

(For Amendments moved by Mr. Wyndham on Clause 52 see Votes.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 9, at end, to add the words '(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any estate as to which a request by the Land Judge issued to the Land Commission under said Section 40 prior to the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would accept this.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 39, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words or sums.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 39, after the word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'in the aggregate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 39, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'amount of the.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 40, after the word 'annuity,' to insert the word 'payable.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 40, after the word 'part,' to insert the words 'upon the making of the advance.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 41, to leave out the word 'for,' and insert the words 'by which the holding is charged with.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 27, line 42, at end, to insert the words 'where part of a holding is mortgaged or charged the Land Commission shall, for the purpose of this enactment, estimate the amount of the purchase annuity payable in respect of that part.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 28, line 1, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'other than a charge under any Public Works Acts.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 28, line 12, after the word 'any' to insert the words 'and any charge under any Public Works Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 28, line 36, to leave out the word 'fails,' and insert the words 'wilfully neglects.'"—(Mr. T. M. Mealy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 28, line 37, to leave out the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'two.'"—Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 28, line 40, at end, to add the words 'and such rules shall provide a scale of remuneration to be paid by the Land Commission to officers furnishing information under Sub-sections two and three of this section.'"—(Mr. T. M. Heady.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 29, line 28, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words 'provided that no arrears shall be recoverable where the tenant has paid a sum equivalent to a year's rent within the year immediately preceding such offer.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the purpose of this Amendment was to provide against the tenant being really responsible for two years rent, the last year's rent and the "hanging-gate" rent.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment or go farther than he had already gone.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 29, line 39, at end, to add the words 'Every such reference for reconsideration shall contain the reasons thereof, and a copy of such reasons shall be forwarded to the Treasury, and shall forthwith be published in the Dublin Gazette. The Land Commission shall include in their annual report to Parliament an explanation of any variation made by them in a report on such reconsideration.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill proposed an alternative plan, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 30, line 10, at end, to add the words '(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a request has been issued by the Land Judge to the Land Commission, an order dismissing the petition for sale shall not be made until the offer in that section mentioned has been made and refused.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would consider this subject before the Bill went to another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 31, line 35, at end, to insert the words '(3) This section shall not apply to any reversion or estate expectant on the determination of an estate tail or a base fee which is vested in the Crown.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 32, line 15, after the word 'determined,' to insert the words 'after hearing the parties.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would consider the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 32, line 15, to leave out the words 'Land Commission,' and insert the words "Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 33, line 9, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'Provided that, in any case where no part of such guarantee deposit has been actually applied, in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts, for five years, after the date that the holding in respect of which the same was retained was vested in the purchaser thereof, the Land Commission shall, on application, pay the same to the person entitled thereto.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that he had investigated this question and had conferred with the Treasury on the matter, and he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 33, line 32, to leave out from beginning to the word 'all,' in line 33."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 33, line 37, to leave out the first words 'Act of,' and insert the words 'Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 33, line 37, to leave out the word 'Land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that the sum and substance of the Solicitor-General's defence of the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald was that he was in good physical condition. He strongly opposed the appointment of that gentleman who was to sit as a Judicial Commissioner with a single assessor, and that assessor appointed by himself, to hear appeals on fair rents. This was a most serious business and he proposed to divide upon it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 37, line 15, to leave out Subsection 3."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

MR T. M. HEALY

said it was very unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should claim a single-handed Division at that hour in the afternoon.

MR. WINDHAM

said that it was impossible on the Report stage to alter the composition of the Commission. He fully defended the constitution of the Court in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that he thought this Amendment he now proposed was reasonable and that the Government ought to accept it. They should not for such work bring in raw hands.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 37, line 35, at end, to add the words 'having not less than live years' experience under the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WYNDHAM

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment, which he could not possibly accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he moved his Amendment in order to elicit some information as to what the position would be. In Committee they were told that the Assessors were to be Court valuers but the Court valuers were now appointed by Mr. Fitzgerald who sent them all over Ireland. They had better let Mr. Fitzgerald do the work alone. Personally he had not a bit of confidence in the way this work had been done in the past by Mr. Fitzgerald, and he knew that fair-rent valuers had been removed to the remotest parts of Ireland simply because they did not come up to the landlords' or the land agents' idea of what a fair rent was. If Mr. Fitzgerald was going to have the appointment of his assessor they had better leave out the assessor altogether. He wanted the assessor to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, in which event the assessor would be an independent man and would not be swayed by Mr. Fitzgerald or anybody else as to his views of a fair rent.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 38, line 5, after the word 'assessor,' to insert the words 'who shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after consultation with the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. DILLON

said that this was an exceptionally difficult portion of the Bill, and he had intended to relieve his soul upon it on Report. But after all what could they do at that hour of the afternoon? He recognised that nothing that they could do or say would get rid of Mr. Fitzgerald and his assessors. For good or evil they were now embodied in the Bill.

MR. T. M. MEALY

said that the understanding with the Government had both its conveniences and its inconveniences. This was one of the inconveniences.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that there was no understanding at all.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked if there was not an understanding to get the Bill through at half-past five o'clock?

MR. WYNDHAM

said he wished to get the Report stage finished that day. In reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone he pointed out that the hon. Member had overlooked Clause 86, which was part of the frame-work of the Bill. He could not possibly accept the Amendment.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that surely these assessors might be appointed by the Government themselves and not be left to Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that so far as he knew there had been no agreement between the Government and these Benches, but there was a desire on the part of himself and his colleagues that the Report stage should be finished that evening.

Question put and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 39, line 2,3, to leave out the word 'wages,' and insert the words 'average wages in the year.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'wages' stand part of the Bill."

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, N.)

moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after the word "year" the words "preceding the lodgment of the representation."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— After the word 'year' to insert the words 'preceding the lodgment of the representation."'—(Mr. O'Shee.)

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, line 15, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words '1883 to 1896.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, line 19, after the ward 'in' to insert the words 'the said Act as amended by.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, to leave out Clause 94."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 40, line 39, after the word 'includes,' to insert, the words 'Pan Three of the Act of 1896.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 41, line 2, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "the Land Law Acts," means the Land Law Acts as defined by the Act of 1896 and part one of that Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 41, line 12, at end, to insert the words. 'The expression "land agent" means and includes receivers under the Courts or receivers under deed.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 43, to leave out Schedule 1."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 43, line 26, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'Sub-sections three, four, five, and six of Section thirty-six.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 43, line 28, at end, to insert the words '54 and 55 Vic. c. 71, The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891, Section three.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 43, line 30, after the word 'five,' to insert the words 'save as regards agreements for purchase made before the passing of this Art.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 43, line 32, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'save as regards agreements for purchase made before the passing of this Act,'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Instead of moving the last Amendment, which stands in my name, I beg to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the genius, skill, and courage which he has shown in the conduct of this Bill.

MR. BUTCHER

asked whether the Chief Secretary would have the Bill as amended reprinted before the Third Reading was taken.

MR. WYNDHAM

Yes, certainly.

Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.