Commons Sitting of 24 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords]; Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Barry Railway Bill [Lords]; Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]; Fife Electrical Power Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time to-morrow.
Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [by Order]. Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. "To amend the Alexandra Park and Palace (Public Purposes) Act, 1900; and to confer powers on the Alexandra Park
370
Trustees to make charges for admission on bank holidays." Read the first time; to be read a second time.
Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]. Report [23rd June] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
Public Petitions Committee. Sixth Report brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Order? (No. 8) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Selkirk, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL, AND LICENSING LAW (COM PENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Stonehouse (two); and Devonport (two); to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Denny and Dunipace, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Mailing; Addington; and Southwark; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Annbank; and Wakefield; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Richmond (Surrey), against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE RETIREMENT AT 65).
  Return [presented 23rd June] to be printed. [No. 220.]

  ARMY PROMOTIONS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 25th May—Major Evans-Gordon]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]

  Name of Borough.

  Outstanding loans other than by means of overdrafts on bankers.

  Amount of overdrafts (if any) on bankers.

  Total of loans outstanding and overdrafts. (5)

  Amount standing on the 31st day of March 1903 to the credit of sinking funds towards the repayment of outstanding loans. (6)

  Amount remaining due to the Council on the 31st day of March 1903 in respect of loans (if any) raised to advance to other local authorities. (7)

  Estimated value of undertakings in Column (1) and other corporate property. (8)

  Assessable value of Borough on the 1st day of April, 1903.

  Remarks.

  In respect of water works, gas works, electric light undertakings, tramways, markets, harbours, piers, and docks, baths, and burial grounds. (1)

  In respect of other works and purposes. (2)

  On capital account. (3)

  On revenue account. (4)

  For purposes of the Borough Rate. (9)

  For purposes of the General District Rate. (10)

  —(Mr. John Ellis.)

  TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA, AND GERMANY.
  Return ordered, "showing (a) Statistics for the years 1890–1902 of (1) trade between Germany and Canada, (2) trade between Germany and the United Kingdom, (3) trade between the United Kingdom and Canada; (b) Import duties levied (1) in Germany on the principal imports from Canada and the United Kingdom, (2) in Canada on the principal imports from the United Kingdom and Germany, and (3) in the United Kingdom

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Return ordered, "showing particulars with respect to advances for the purchase of holdings and repayments to Land Commission under Clauses 1 and 40"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]

  COUNCIL OF BOROUGHS IN ENGLAND AND WALES (INDEBTEDNESS).
  Return ordered, "showing the Total Indebtedness of the Councils of Boroughs, other than Metropolitan Boroughs, in England and Wales on the 31st day of March 1903, in the following form:—
  on the principal imports from Germany and Canada."—(Mr. Loder.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Phthisis in Workhouse Infirmaries.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he receives reports from the Poor Law inspectors as to the number of cases of phthisis in the infirmary wards of the

  373
  workhouses of England and Wales; and, it so, whether such reports state whether the patients are isolated and receive special treatment; has his attention been drawn to cases in which such patients have been placed in the same ward as other patients; and whether, seeing the danger of infection caused thereby, will he consider the advisability of providing fresh regulations for the isolation and treatment of all cases of phthisis in the workhouses of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The ordinary reports made by the inspectors would not necessarily specify the number of cases of phthisis in the infirmary wards of the workhouses, but in particular instances the reports refer to the manner in which these cases are dealt with by the guardians. Where it appears that patients suffering from this disease are in wards with other patients I urge the guardians to take steps to secure their isolation. The number of workhouses where special provision is made by the guardians for phthisical patients is steadily increasing, and I do not propose at present to issue regulations on the subject.

  British Trade with the Colonies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount of imports into the United Kingdom from British Colonies in 1846 and 1902, and the amount of the exports from Great Britain and Ireland to British Colonies in those years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The published Returns of 1846 do not give the values of the imports from each country and possession. But the declared value of the exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures to British possessions, including India and the Channel Islands, was £16,277,589, an amount which is somewhat in excess, as the Return includes the whole of our exports to West Africa, no distinction being made between our possessions and the possessions of other countries or native territories. According to the latest Returns of Trade and Navigation the value of our imports from British
  374
  possessions in 1902, including Protectorates, was £106,793,033. Our exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom were in the same year to British possessions, including Protectorates, £109,028,611.

  Regulation of Metropolitan Street Traffic—Excavation of the Streets.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the difficulties imposed upon the Metropolitan Police in the regulation of traffic by the action of the County Council and borough authorities, as well as the telegraph, telephone, gas, water, and hydraulic power engineers, in taking up the most frequented streets at this time of the year, he can provide that the work shall be done at night, as in Paris, Berlin, and New York.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have no power to adopt this suggestion, and I can only repeat that the matter is one which the Royal Commission on London Traffic will, no doubt, take into consideration.

  Return of Licences Refused Renewal.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Return of Licences Refused Renewal, given in the Parliamentary Paper, No. 141 of the present session, includes licences surrendered or agreed to be surrendered by brewers and others in consequence of intentions expressed by licensing magistrates to reduce the number of licences; and, if not, whether he will order a Return of surrendered licences.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and I do not think that it would be practicable to obtain a Return giving the information indicated.

  Officers' Chargers in India.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the increased cost of horses in the markets in India, whether for Australians or country-breds, the European officers of the Indian cavalry will be allowed similar privileges as to

  375
  chargers as those recently conferred upon cavalry officers of the British Army.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The matter is engaging the attention of the Government of India.

  Accommodation for Parish Medical Officers in Scotland.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the inconvenience which arises in parishes in the congested districts of Scotland from the difficulty of obtaining suitable accommodation for parish medical officers, he will take steps to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act so as to permit parish councils to provide suitable accommodation and to give them powers to borrow money for this purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Secretary for Scotland can give no undertaking as to the introduction of a Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act in the sense desired by the hon. Member, but the matter referred to by him will receive due consideration.

  Belfast and Portadown Post Offices—Religious Belief of Members of Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General the number of officials employed in Belfast and Portadown Post Offices respectively, and the number of Protestants and Roman Catholics there are in each.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The numbers of the staff employed at the two offices in question are as stated in the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1904, viz.: Belfast, 513; Portadown, 28. I have no information as to the religious belief of members of the Post Office staff, and I have repeatedly declined to make any inquiry on the subject.

  Salaries of Customs Watchers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many Customs watchers who joined the service since August, 1896, received an increase of salary in 1900; and whether he will
  376
  take steps to amend the General Order so that the concession may be extended to these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) No watchers who joined the service since August, 1896, received an increase of salary in 1900. Such increase is granted to a watcher for combined length of service and special merit. All the watchers in question are potentially within the scope of the concession, and most of them may be expected in time to benefit by it. No amendment of the General Order is required.

  Commercial Treaties—Most-favoured-Nation Treatment.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state, with regard to those countries where we do not enjoy, de jure or de facto, most-favourednation treatment, the character and amount of the advantages granted to other countries; and if he will lay a statement giving the figures.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have no objection to giving this information in the form of a Return if my hon. friend will move for one.

  High Voltage Currents on Bare Wires on Public Roads.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade will he say what are the present regulations restricting the use of high voltage currents carried on bare wires over or on public roads; and whether, seeing that currents of 10,000 to 40,000 volts are carried by overhead bare wires on the Continent and in America to the advantage of the industrial community, he will consider whether a pressure of 10,000 volts could now be permitted, provided that efficient cradles or guards of a type approved by him be employed to protect such wires; whether he has any information showing that high tension bare wires carrying high voltage current have ever caused any injury or loss of life to the public in America and on the Continent when used only for

  377
  transmitting power to sub-stations; and that the dangers to the public, if any, are not greater where bare wins transmit current direct to tram motors than in the case where the line is never in contact with a moving collector.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have not yet made any regulations relating to the transmission of electricity at high voltage by bare overhead wires. I have no information as to injury or loss of life to the public caused by bare wires carrying high voltage supply in America or on the Continent, or as to the relative dangers to the public from wires used for tramways (where constructed under Board of Trade regulations) and from those used for other purposes. Two schemes have recently been submitted and are now before the Board's electrical adviser, who has been instructed that the promoters may proceed with their works step by step under his supervision. The Board propose to give their best consideration to applications for the use of high voltage, dealing with each case on its merits.

  Report on Tariff Wars between Foreign Countries.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can obtain from His Majesty's representatives abroad reports on recent tariff wars between foreign countries, their origin, duration, and result.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) If my hon. friend will be good enough to give me a little more detail as to the information he requires I will do my best to obtain it for him.

  Bathing Shed at the Serpentine.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL TUFNELL: To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he would have erected by the Serpentine a lock-up shed for the use of the bathers in the morning, and place it in charge of an attendant.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The First Commissioner having made inquiry into this matter regrets that he
  378
  is unable to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend; it would not be possible to provide adequate accommodation of the kind proposed for bathers without putting up buildings which would greatly disfigure the banks of the Serpentine.

  Elementary Education in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Irish child has not equal facilities for education in the national schools with the children of England and Scotland, and that an additional grant has been given to England and Scotland for education, he will take steps to secure that the balance of the Equivalent Grant due to Ireland should be devoted to elementary education solely.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not at present in a position to make any announcement in reference to the allocation of this grant.

  Town of Frankford—Change of Name.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the County Council of King's County have decided, in compliance with the wishes of the inhabitants, to restore the ancient name of the town of Kilcormac instead of the modern one of Frankford; whether there is any enactment preventing them from so doing; and, if so, will he intimate to the Local Government Board and the Commissioner of Valuation the propriety of not interfering with the desire of the County Council in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The County Council, at a recent meeting, adopted a resolution changing the name of the town of Frankford to that of Kilcormac. There is no authority, statutory or otherwise, enabling the council to make the proposed change, and the council has been so informed by the Local Government Board.

  Interference of Police with a Public Meeting at Tallow.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received

  379
  a copy of a resolution of the Lismore Board of Guardians, protesting against the action of the police officers who prevented the legally convened public meeting announced to be held in Tallow on the 7th June taking place by threats of physical force; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter; and whether the Irish Government has advised the King to abandon his proposed visit to Lismore Castle.
  (Anwered by Mr. Wyndham.) The promoters of the proposed meeting were warned two days beforehand that it would not be permitted to be held. An attempt was made to hold it, but was frustrated by the police, who dispersed the crowd without, however, using batons or unnecessary force. A meeting was held one and a-half miles distant without interference. No further action in the matter is called for.

  Army Schoolmasters—Promotions to Inspectorships.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many Army schoolmasters have, during the last twenty-five years, been gazetted to a commission as inspector or sub-inspector of Army schools before attaining the age of forty years, and upon what date was the last appointment made under these conditions; have any instructions been given, with a view to extending the area from which selections are made from the corps of Army schoolmasters to fill the appointment of Inspector of Army Schools, in order that a proportion of such inspectors will be commissioned before attaining the age' of forty, and not continue to be debarred from the advantages held out by the recent Army Order regulating their promotion to the honorary rank of major.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) In reply to the first part of the Question no such promotion has been made under the age of forty. As regards the second part of the Question there is no intention of altering the present system of careful selection, which works well. The cases arising under the Army Order mentioned can only be very exceptional, and the promotion to the honorary rank of major was only intended for such exceptional cases.

  Re-employment of Retired Officers—Report of Committee.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the cases of retired officers re-employed during the late war will be promulgated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. and gallant friend is under a misapprehension, as the Committee to which he evidently alludes has been considering the question of the re-employment of retired officers in any future war. The Report is not yet made.

  Imprisonment for Contempt of Court—Case of Mr. Lewis.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the imprisonment of Mr. Webb, London County Councillor, for contempt of Court in connection with certain alterations of premises held in Oxford Street; and, if so, whether he will have the matter inquired into with a view to future legislation dealing with the power of Judges to commit for contempt of Court, and the power of ground landlords to insert penal clauses in terminable leases.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I understand the hon. Member to refer to the case of Mr. Lewis. I am advised that the facts are that Mr. Lewis deliberately broke the conditions of his lease, and that he defied the order of the Court requiring him to keep those conditions. He was accordingly imprisoned for contempt of Court. This seems hardly to be a case on which to found a proposal for altering the existing law.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Cape "Ragging" Case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the recent Court-martial at Wellington Barracks and the circumstances attending it, he will give an early day for the discussion of the salary of the Secretary for War.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not see the relevance of the beginning of the Question to the end. Of course, a convenient day will be found for the further debates on the Army Estimates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I suggest to the First Lord that he should postpone the Land Bill for ever in order that this "ragging" question may be gone into?

  Destruction of Unsound Army Rations at Pretoria.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War with reference to the 1,700,000 Army rations destroyed near Pretoria during April last, will he state the total value so destroyed, the respective quantities of soldered and non-soldered tins, and also the names of the firms who respectively supplied them, together with the dates on which they were supplied; is he aware of the fact that good meat properly preserved and tinned practically never deteriorates; and, if so, is he prepared to call to account those persons who supplied these rations; and will he lay upon the Table of the House the Report called for from the General Officer Commanding South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The value was approximately about £80,000. The numbers of soldered and unsoldered tins were roughly 1,120,000 and 548,000 respectively. The names of the firms who supplied them are as follows:—Aberdeen Preserving Company, W. Bruce, John Davidson, Duhamel and Company, London Canning Company, Maconochie Brothers, Milne and Sons, Moir and Wilson, John Moir and Son, Poulton and Noel, Sturton Brothers. Twenty-two thousand of the rations were supplied at the end of 1900, and the rest between April and June, 1902. Good meat properly preserved and tinned and properly stored should keep for at least two years without deterioration; these rations, however, also contained vegetables, And the tins had been subjected to considerable variations of climate. The whole question is being investigated. The Report can be laid.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What form is the investigation taking, and will there be a regular and searching inquiry?
  MR. BRODRICK: The War Office is investigating what steps are necessary. The inquiry will take the usual form.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will any claim for compensation be made against those persons who supplied the rations?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say; I shall have to make inquiry. It is impossible without knowing exactly to what the tins have been subjected during the early part of the time they were in South Africa to say whether any blame attaches to the contractors or not.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has not the right hon. Gentleman just admitted that a large proportion of these rations only arrived in Africa last year?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

  Co-operative Unions—Free Advertisement in Army Regulations.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in the forthcoming Army Regulations it is proposed to give free advertisement to Co-operative Unions; and if so, whether he would give those in the trade whose businesses may suffer from such competition an opportunity of making representations before he finally decides to embody this measure in the Army Regulations.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. There is no such intention. Perhaps my hon. friend will kindly refer to an answer I gave on Monday last.†

  Woolwich Arsenal Hospital.
  *MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will request the Board of Inquiry now sitting at Woolwich to report as to the desirability of providing a hospital nearer the danger zone than the present one,
  † See page 59.

  383
  having regard to the fact that it took twenty minutes to remove the injured men to the present one, on the occasion of the recent explosion, owing to the distance.
  MR. BRODRICK: This point has already been thoroughly considered and it is not thought advisable to provide a new hospital. The existing hospital is close to the machine shops, where the majority of accidents occur, while a fully equipped hospital train is always ready near the danger buildings to transport men to the hospital. Ample provision of first-aid requisites is made throughout the Arsenal, and men qualified to render first-aid are organised so as to be always readily available. The time taken in the removal of these men to the hospital is not considered excessive, and it must be remembered that first-aid had already been rendered before removal.
  *MR. CROOKS: Has the War Office ever considered for a moment the rider of the jury on the occasion of the last explosion, that greater facilities should be afforded for rendering aid to the injured? I know all about the first-aid but, honestly, this hospital is a very long way from the point where it is most needed.
  MR. BRODRICK: All such recommendations are carefully considered; but I think the hon. Member must realise that, considering the Arsenal, although containing a great number of workmen, is not of unlimited size, the provision of hospitals at various points, when already there are ample means of communication, would be putting the authorities to great additional expense and trouble.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What is expense to men's lives?
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a great many lives might be saved in twenty minutes?
  *MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Inspector-General of the Arsenal upon this point? It is
  384
  a matter of burning importance. There are 16,000 men there.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The matter is one, no doubt, of great importance, but the hon. Member cannot debate it now.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Pay in the Danger Zone.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will refer to the Committee of Inquiry into the explosion at Woolwich Arsenal, now being held at Woolwich on behalf of his Department, the question whether the system of payment partly by piece work and partly by day work rate is a source of danger, owing to the desire to obtain extra pay over the day rate of wages; and whether it would be advantageous to the service and to the safety of all employees within the danger zone to fix such a rate of wages as to obviate the necessity of men working at the present high tension.
  MR. BRODRICK: This Committee has been appointed to investigate the circumstances of the explosion and has not been asked to consider general questions of this nature. The question of amending the present method of payment will be carefully considered.

  The Naval Works Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Naval Works Bill will soon be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am told by my naval colleagues that the Naval Works Bill is very nearly ready, but it is impossible for me as yet to fix a date for its introduction.

  Germany and Canadian Tariffs.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway City I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been made to His Majesty's Government by the Canadian Government in regard to the difficulty with Germany over tariff regulations; when were such representations made; and

  385
  has the Canadian Government sought the intervention of His Majesty's Government in the dispute.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The High Commissioner for Canada made representations on behalf of the Government of the Dominion on this subject in 1898 and 1899 which were brought before the German Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, and in 1901 when these representations had been fruitless, the Government of the Dominion discussed the matter informally with the German Consul-General at Ottawa. No formal communications have passed with I the Government of Canada on the subject since 1901.

  Germany and Canada.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government has taken, or is taking, to induce Germany to cease differentiation against Canada other than inviting discussion in this country upon retaliatory duties; and in particular whether the attention of Germany has in this connection been directed to the hospitality she enjoys at our coaling stations.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): In reply to the first Question, I have to state that Papers showing what has passed will shortly be laid on the Table, to which I would direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman. The answer to the second Question is in the negative.

  Trinidad Riots Inquiry.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Report of the Commissioners sent to Trinidad to inquire into the water riot; when will it be laid before Parliament; and whether there will be an opportunity of discussing it this session.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report has not yet been received, and I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.
  MR. LOUGH: Will it be before the end of the session?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to make any statement.

  British Guiana—Cost of Coolie Immigration.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an active agitation has sprung up in British Guiana against the burden thrown on the taxpayers by the cost of coolie immigration; whether he has received any memorial on the subject; and whether it will be open to that colony to bring this matter before the Permanent Commission under the Brussels Sugar Convention on the grounds that it is of the nature of a bounty to the sugar producers; and if he can see his way to relieve the general taxpayers of the West Indies of any further obligations in the matter.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the memorial to which he refers has not yet been received. In reply to the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I returned to the recent Question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the same subject, 22nd June, 1903.†

  South African Dynamite Industry.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that on 13th January, 1899, in a despatch to the High Commissioner, he stated that His Majesty's Government were advised that a dynamite monopoly in the South African Republic was not necessarily inconsistent with Article XIV. of the London Convention, provided such a concession was to benefit the State generally and not simply to favour a concessionaire, he will say why now for many months past he has permitted, in face of the protests of British dynamite manufacturers, the creation of a new dynamite monopoly in South Africa, from which the Transvaal Government derives no revenue whatever: and whether this new monopoly is in direct conflict with the views His Majesty's Government held
  † See page 55.

  387
  before the war and which they repeatedly pressed on the late Transvaal Government.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no intention of constituting or continuing any dynamite monopoly. The duty proposed for revenue purposes is 1½d. per lb., and I have already told the hon. Member several times that the question of an equivalent excise on the local manufacture is under consideration. The manufacture in the Cape Colony is dealt with under the provisions of the Convention, but this has not yet been ratified by the Cape Government. Under the law of the late Republic all dynamite from outside the State was prohibited, and the price was accordingly at one time from thirty to forty shillings per case higher than it is now.
  MR. MARKHAMwas understood to ask if the duties were not 75 per cent. higher than before the war?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given all the information I have.

  Kimberley Diamond Mines.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing under the special laws to protect the Kimberley mines against theft of diamonds, detectives are permitted to offer diamonds for sale to persons whom they suspect of illicit diamond buying, and that convictions have resulted from such action, he will say on whose representation this law has been introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council, in view of the public feeling in South Africa against this special law enjoyed by the De Beers Company.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The draft ordinance to regulate trading in diamonds is being introduced by the Government. I have not received any correspondence on the subject.

  South Africa—Precious Stones Bill.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered last Thursday by Sir R. Solomon, Attorney-General of the Transvaal Government, on the Second Reading of the Precious Stones Bill, in which he
  388
  stated that the recent diamond discoveries were larger and richer than any others in South Africa, and that it was necessary the mine should be as much as possible under the control of one person; and, if so, will he say whether, when he was in South Africa, this policy of placing the diamond mines in the hands of monopolists was sanctioned and approved by him.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I imagine that the policy will depend on the merits of each case. The subject was not discussed by me during my visit to South Africa.

  Barmaids in Bengal and Burmah.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Act recently passed by the Bengal Legislative Council, forbidding the employment of women as barmaids or in any other capacity in any of the licensed premises in that province; and whether it is intended to enact similar legislation in the other provinces of India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): It is intended to undertake similar legislation in Burmah. This is the only other province in which the question has arisen, so far as I am aware.

  Greek Currant Monopoly.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has expressed any protest to the Greek Government, under the provisions of the Treaty of 1890, against the proposal to establish a monopoly for the sale of Greek currants; and, if not, whether, with a view to preventing interference with the consumption of currants as well as with their retail distribution, he will make representations to obviate the dislocation of this trade.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Minister at Athens has informed the Hellenic Government that His Majesty's Government will reserve the right of denouncing the Commercial Agreement of 1890 in the event of the monopoly being sanctioned.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has any reply been received to that communication?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I must ask for notice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What is the date of the communication?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Quite recent.

  Morocco—Cape Juby Expedition.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the conditions upon which the British factory at Cape Juby was sold to the Government of the Sultan of Morocco; and whether, in view of the stipulation inserted with the intention of preventing the territory from being alienated by the Moorish Government, he can state what view is taken by the Spanish Government, having rights in the neighbourhood, as to the private French armed expedition supported by private ships now operating in the neighbourhood; and whether inquiries will be made as to whether the Foreign Enlistment Act is being violated by enlistment in the United Kingdom of persons for that expedition.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The Agreement signed on March 13th, 1895, between the British and Moorish Governments respecting the purchase by Morocco of the property of the North-West Africa Company at Cape Juby is published in the State Papers, Vol. 87, p. 972, and in Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty. The inquiries made by His Majesty's Government lead to the belief that the reports as to the so-called French expedition have little foundation in fact—and the Spanish Government are fully aware that they have been greatly exaggerated. I am not quite sure which provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act the right hon. Baronet has in view, but upon the facts so far as we are aware of them I am inclined to think that the Act does not apply.

  South African Field Post—Missing Registered Letters.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a registered letter
  390
  addressed to Private Thomas Edens, 7,059 B Company, 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Field Force, South Africa, was despatched from the Army Post Office, Middleburg, Transvaal, on the 21st July, 1901, to the Officer Commanding, Benson's Column, and that the registered letter list was returned signed I. Hardmarsh, Lance Corporal; if so, will he state whether the Officer Commanding 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, has been able to obtain any satisfactory information as to the disposal of the registered letter after delivery to the military authorities; and, if not, will the person who registered the letter be compensated.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am aware of the facts mentioned, and it is the case that, according to the information supplied by the Army Post Office, the Officer Commanding the 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was unable to obtain any satisfactory information as to the disposal of the registered letter in question after its delivery to the regiment. The registered letter passed out of the custody of the Postmaster-General on its reaching South Africa. It is consequently impossible that I should give compensation from Post Office funds.
  MR. SLOAN: But who is responsible for seeing that registered letters reach their destination?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The letter passed out of the control of the Post Office when it reached South Africa, and was taken charge of by the Army Post Office, over which I have no control whatever. The letter was delivered to the unit to which the regiment was attached, but as to what became of it subsequently the officer in command has been unable to get any satisfactory account.
  MR. SLOAN: Then I may take it, it is immaterial whether a letter is registered or not.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has not a receipt to be signed for it?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Speaking of this case from memory I believe the registered letters were duly delivered to the corporal acting as the Postal Orderly of the unit, who signed the receipt for them. It was a general receipt and the Commanding Officer is unable to trace this particular letter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there to be no responsibility whatever on the part of the Post Office?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The responsibility rests with the Military Post Office in South Africa, over which I have no control. Any further Questions should be addressed on the subject to the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have you no jurisdiction?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see any reason for further communication with my Department.

  Navigation off the Icelandic Coast.
  MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the loss that has been sustained by vessels and crews off the coast of Iceland, and to the dangerous condition of several points on the western coast of the island, he will consider the advisability of representing the matter to the Danish Government with a view of influencing them to place lights on the most prominent headlands.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I am advised that out of some fifty-two casualties which have been reported to the Board of Trade as having occurred to British vessels off the coast of Iceland since 1887, not more than five or six could be considered as possibly due to want of lights on the most prominent headlands. Only one or two of these were off the west coast. In these circumstances I am afraid that a representation may not be successful, but I shall have pleasure in consulting my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to whether such a representation can advantageously be made.

  Nottingham Smallpox Hospital.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the inquiry promised by him on the 25th May as to the smallpox hospital recently erected by the town council of Nottingham has been made, and with what results, in respect of the proximity of population thereto, both resident and working; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any further steps in the matter for the protection of those affected by the erection of this hospital.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): One of the medical inspectors of my Department has visited this hospital, and has made a Report on the subject. It appears that although the population actually resident in the neighbourhood does not exceed the number which I should regard as permissible if it was proposed to raise a loan in connection with the hospital, yet a considerable number of workmen are daily employed within half-a-mile of the site. I have written to the town council pointing out the objections to the site, and urging them to endeavour to obtain another.

  Regulation of Motor-Car Traffic.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the present state of things as regards motorcars, and to the public demand for such action as will ensure the safe and reasonable enjoyment of public highways by all, he will introduce without delay and press forward legislation on the subject.
  MR. WALTEE LONG: I hope to arrange for the introduction of a Bill on this subject in another place very shortly.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: And press it forward?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.

  Irish Land Courts—Jurisdiction in England and Scotland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, seeing that until last year it was always

  393
  assumed that the Irish Land Commission and the Land Judges Court had jurisdiction to compel parties resident in England or Scotland to obey orders made in Ireland, and that it has now been decided in England and the decision followed by the Irish Courts that such jurisdiction does not exist, with the result that where the title deeds of a property for sale in Ireland are in custody of an English mortgagee or solicitor or deposited with a bank in England, the party having custody of the documents can obstruct the proceeding for sale, and the Irish Courts are powerless to compel the lodgment of the deeds, and that if any person instituted proceedings in Ireland to sell an estate any person in Ireland having custody of the deeds can now block the sale by sending them to England, a Clause will be inserted in the Purchase Bill giving both the Land Judge and the Land Commission power to have their orders exemplified and sent over to the English Courts to be enforced by an English or Scotch Judge when necessary.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have read and considered the authority referred to in the Question. It does not, in my opinion, establish that the machinery set up by the 41 Geo., c. 90., s. 6 and 21 and 22 Vic, c. 72, s. 36, is ineffectual if properly availed of. It was the omission to observe the requirements of the first-named statute which caused the difficulty in the case mentioned. The matter, however, is still under consideration.

  Dingle Railway.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what has been done with regard to the Dingle Railway; and whether an attempt will be made to relieve the ratepayers this year of the burden which this line is to them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Negotiations are in progress with respect
  394
  to this railway. For the present, therefore, I am unable to give a more definite reply to the Question.

  Gun Licences in County Tipperary.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state why the application of Mr. James Coffey of Doonane, Newport, County Tipperary, for a gun licence, or the transfer of the licence of his father, was refused, in view of the character of this man and of the fact that he has to look over the farm of his father of 500 acres, and that his father is now too old to use a gun, and that James Coffey used to hold an Excise licence to carry and use a gun.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Resident Magistrate that no such application has been received by him.

  Crime in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Judge Carton received white gloves at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; and whether in view of the peaceable state of the county Clare, the proclamation of certain districts under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will now be withdrawn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am prepared to consider this question so soon as I find an opportunity for consideration.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will repeat the Question next week, as I hope that by then the first clause of the Land Bill will have been passed.

  Irish School Teachers' Remuneration.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the promise of the Resident Commissioner that no teacher would lose a penny by the new system of payments, the principal teacher of school, Roll Number 15,020, District 11, has lost

  395
  over £60 in the last three years, while the teacher of a similar school with the same attendance, the same service and qualifications, but whose average during the three standard years was normal, would receive over £800 more in salaries before being pensioned than the teacher of this school, supposing them to be equal and to get all available increments; and will he state how many similiar cases there are in Ireland, and to what cause are they due; and will he make inquiries with a view of removing the alleged grievance.
  MR WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of National Education report on this Question as follows: No such unqualified promise was given by the Resident Commissioner. The Commissioners do not admit the supposed loss of income alleged by this teacher. In fixing Mr. Kyle's income under the present system he was allowed not merely his average earnings during the preceding three years, but was specially granted the highest amount earned by him in any of those years. This was allowed irrespectively of the triennial increments and possible promotions provided for deserving teachers under the rules. The Commissioners could not enter into a discussion on or consider the hypothetical circumstances put forward in the latter part of this Question.

  Irish Prison Matrons.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the scale of salaries and dietary, applying to assistant matrons in English prisons, apply to those employed in a similar capacity in Ireland; and, if not, will he say in what essential particulars the scales differ.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Assistant matrons in Irish convict prisons are paid salaries of £49, rising by £2 triennially to £55. In local prisons the scale is £35, by £1 a year to £45. They are all provided with furnished apartments, fuel, light and uniform, and a number of them receive extra allowances of from £5 to £15 a year for special duties. There are no scales of dietary, and no allowances in lieu of rations. I must
  396
  refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for information as to the corresponding scales in the English Prison Service.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the omission of the one-eighth perpetual rent-charge from the Irish Land Bill will be met by an increase of one-seventh in the annual purchase instalments, or by an extension of one seventh in the length of the purchase term.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am laying on the Table of the House this afternoon a Return which will illustrate the effects of the abolition of the perpetual rent-charge. I would ask the hon. Member to await this Return.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put down the consequential Amendments?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As soon as the first clause has been disposed of I hope to be in a position to put down many of the Amendments which are, in the view of the Government, necessary.

  Land Purchase Returns.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Return, under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts [C. 6925, 1893], has been continued in the same form to the present date; and, if not, whether he will direct a Return in that form for the last five years to be prepared and laid upon the Table at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; the Return has not since been continued. It was expressly limited to transactions under the Acts of 1885, 1887, and 1888, and operations under these Acts ceased shortly after the preparation of the Return. With respect to sales under the Act of 1891, a Return has been annually presented to Parliament, giving detailed information concerning every advance made. Five of these Returns,

  397
  which are very voluminous, have been laid on the Table, and to tabulate the entries in the manner suggested would, I am afraid, occupy a large portion of the staff of the Land Commission for a very considerable period. I cannot say whether I could properly impose this additional labour on the Land Commission, but I will make further inquiry into the matter.

  South African Garrison—India's Burden.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the promised announcement as to the retention of troops in South Africa, His Majesty's Government have had under consideration any proposal for charging India with a proportion of the cost of these troops; and whether an opportunity will be given of considering Indian opinion on the subject before any decision is arrived at.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it would be desirable to wait till the announcement of which he speaks is made before we consider any of the collateral issues connected with it.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that the Government really consider the propriety of putting on the poor taxpayers of India the cost of this first step towards the retrenchment of our Army at home?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is not to understand that. He is to understand the answer which I gave, and which I hope is clear.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Is it likely that this announcement will be made before the House rises for the recess?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any definite statement on that subject, but I should think it probable.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are we to understand that things were less advanced than the right hon. Gentleman led us to suppose earlier in the session when he said that the matter could be discussed on the War Office Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to doubt that it can be discussed on the War Office Vote.
  MR. PIRIE: When will the War Office Vote be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.

  India and the New Fiscal Policy.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the capacity of India's grain productiveness and the labour awaiting industrial employment there, he contemplates the inclusion of India's commercial and fiscal relations with the United Kingdom and the rest of the Empire in the scheme of inquiry now being undertaken by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it will be impossible to exclude India, and it never has been excluded, from any consideration of the fiscal policy of this country and its effects. My hon. friend, I think, will feel that the general policy is not likely to be departed from by the Government.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government of India will be consulted as to the effects upon Indian trade of any change which may be suggested.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If any change in this country affects India, India will be consulted upon it. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a Secretary of State for India who is always a member of the Cabinet, and it is quite impossible that the Cabinet should do anything in which the Indian Government were concerned as to which that Government would not be fully informed.

  Colonial Governments and the Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have invited or contemplate to invite the Colonial Cabinets and Crown Colony and Dependency Legislative Councils to undertake an inquiry into

  399
  the effect of the Colonial Secretary's proposals as to our fiscal system on the same lines as is now being conducted by the Imperial Cabinet?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this question is premature.
  MR. BLACK: Is it not the scheme of the Colonial Secretary that is premature?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Shipping Agreements.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he now lay on the Table of this House the formal document embodying the agreement which had been come to by His Majesty's Government on 30th September, 1902, with the American International Mercantile Marine Association, and which was in course of execution on 18th May last; will he afford this House an opportunity of discussing that agreement, and also that with the Cunard Company, before their final execution; in what form does His Majesty's Government propose that these agreements shall be discussed, and if by Resolution, can he undertake that the Motion for a Resolution approving them shall be set down as First Order at an afternoon sitting; and, in view of the delay that has occurred, can he now undertake that the discussion on this matter shall be taken within some definite fixed time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The agreements are not yet signed, and I do not think it would be possible or proper to lay them on the Table of the House until they are signed. When the arrangements are finally concluded they will be placed on the Table, and I will do my best to secure a suitable opportunity for their discussion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have asked repeated Questions on this point. Considering there has been eight months' delay, can the right hon. Gentleman name some definite time for the discussion, especially in view of the serious rumours published in the Press in regard to the American combine?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be desirable to attempt to name a date, which must turn on the course of Parliamentary business. I conceive it improbable, almost impossible, that a day should not be found before the close of the present session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will there be an adequate opportunity for discussing the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have always said there should be "a fitting opportunity."

  Irish Gold Ornaments.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of Mr. Justice Farwell's declaration that the Celtic ornaments in the British Museum are the property of the Crown, arrangements will now be made to have them placed in the Dublin Museum?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already promised a colleague of the hon. Member † to answer this Question a few days hence.

  Scottish Education Vote.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction through out Scotland with the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, dated 28th May, 1903, providing for the distribution of the general aid grant, and to the fact that this Minute will become operative on 28th June; and whether, in these circumstances, he can see his way to grant facilities this week for the discussion of the Motion upon the Paper for disapproval of the Minute?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the request of my hon. and learned friend is a little unreasonable. The Minute to which he refers was, I understand, explained at very great length the other night, and discussed on the Education Vote by many hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. and learned Member himself. It does, therefore, seem rather unreasonable to ask for a further opportunity of debating it.
  † See page 38.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Seeing that the debate was not concluded, cannot some opportunity be afforded of further debating the Education Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman the question of the relative amount of time that should be given to the various Scotch Votes, but I do think eight hours is quite enough for a discussion on this subject; and that Scottish Members would desire to debate other matters.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Committee was ready to take a Vote on the question the Lord Advocate himself talked it out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not in the House at the time, but I understood that the Committee had gone away from this Minute in order to discuss another topic.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  The Select Committee on workmen's trains was nominated of—Mr. Bigwood, Mr. Bonar Law, Colonel Bowles, Mr. Harris, Mr. Levy, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lough, Mr. Nannetti, Captain Norton, Mr. Peel, Mr. Matthew Ridley, Mr. Harry Samuel, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Ure, and Sir Thomas Wrightson.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Another Amendment proposed—
  In page 1, line 28, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the words "twenty-five."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he desired to continue the discussion in no unfriendly spirit, for he had no desire to add any additional element of difficulty to an already difficult situation—a situation sufficiently difficult for men of all parties to deal with. In discussing this question hon. Members should remember that they were now settling or unsettling the fate of the Irish landlords for many generations to come. Whatever might be the merits of the zone system, the zone system in respect of the first-term tenants was not being framed upon the same scale as the zone system which had been framed in reference to the second-term tenants. The Government were making a hostile discrimination against a class of tenants, who were 250,000 strong, and who for many years—most of them—never received any benefit whatever under the Land Act of 1881. If the land compromise of which hon. Gentlemen spoke with so much enthusiasm when it suited their purpose, and which when it did not suit their purpose they ignored—was to be judged at all, it ought to be judged in its entirety. According to the compromise come to at the Conference, the average bargain for second-term tenants would have been a reduction of 20 per cent., and the fair equivalent of that, at all events, according to the view of the representatives of the Irish Party at the Conference, was a reduction of at least 40 per cent. for first-term tenants. They did not attempt to define exactly what the fair equivalent should be. There were only two ways of ascertaining it: either the whole of the 250,000 should be allowed to go into Court individually—a course which no one would dream of proposing—or the second-term rents should be fixed automatically as the judicial rents were reduced under the Act of 1887. The Government adhered to the average reduction of 20 per cent. in regard to second-term rents, on the ground that they were carrying out the Conference scale, and it was unfair not to advance, at all events, as far as 40 per cent. in the case of first-term tenants. In common justice the right hon. Gentleman was bound to level up in this matter. If the Amendment of his hon.

  403
  and learned friend erred at all it erred on the side of moderation. All through the proceedings there had been a desire to arrive at a fair compromise, and he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that in resisting this claim he was really in contradiction not only with the Land Conference, but with himself, because if they were to admit that the scale for the second-term tenants was a fair one, then it would follow that the scale for the first-term tenants was unfair, and, what was more, the unfairness was practised against a category of tenantry who were at least three times as numerous as the others and who had never until very lately received any relief at all under the Land Act of 1881. He was convinced that already every sensible landlord had made up his mind to make sensible and moderate terms, irrespective of this impossible average of twenty-five years purchase. He would be only too happy to come to business. The acceptance of the Amendment, therefore, would hurt nobody. On the other hand an obstinate resistance counted for a great deal in helping to create that feeling of distrust which it was desirable to avoid if the Bill was to work smoothly.
  With regard to the new bogey—the incumbrancers and mortgagees—which had been introduced, he thought it was pretty plain that the wrongs of the mortgagees were the invention of those subtle gentlemen the Irish lawyers. It was really hard enough to bring about an agreement between tenants and landlords, but now the tenants were faced with a new army of enemies and were being called upon to secure not only the landlord's rents but his debts. The tenants of Ireland had already suffered sufficiently in the shape of extortionate rents without being called upon not only to satisfy the landlords as to the landlord's interest, but to secure the landlord's creditors against any possible dishonesty on the landlord's own part. It was an intolerable burden to place on the tenants' shoulders, and all he could say was that if there was any danger as to incumbrances, the landlord might be allowed to repurchase his own domain, which would be ample security for the creditors. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not prove
  404
  adamantine on this point. Let him give up his legal fiction as to the dangers to incumbrancers and give the tenant the very slight modicum of additional relief proposed by the Amendment. On these benches, at any rate, they had shown that they were not disposed to unnecessarily increase the difficulties of the Chief Secretary, and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman in return would meet them in that matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that his simple reason for rising was to recognise the spirit of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Cork, who used words which were gratifying to him—though by no means unexpected—that they ought, all of them, to try, if they could, to arrive at a common ground of agreement upon the issue raised by this Bill. But if the hon. Member would bear with him, as this was a matter of major importance, he would ask what would be the effect of the Amendment if it were carried? It would not prevent certain bargains being made. On the contrary the bargains would be made under the new clause which he had already put upon the Paper, and the only effect, in practice, would be not to prohibit those bargains but to deny to any tenant who wished to enter into such a bargain the advantages of doing so in the most expeditious and cheapest way. The hon. Member went on to say that the general trend of the discussion had been towards giving, where that might be necessary, a greater latitude at the opposite end of the scale. The hon. Member said that if the Amendment were accepted nobody would be hurt; but he maintained that it might hurt a limited class of persons—viz., the large farmers who had enjoyed comparatively low rents, perhaps agreed upon between them and the landlords as first-term rents, and who might desire to buy and to pay a fair price, but which would represent a higher annual instalment than 25 per cent. He could not prevent them making such a bargain, and why should he say that they should not take advantage of the simplest and cheapest method of procedure? His opinion was that that would be a mistake; and that it was unnecessary to make the procedure cumbrous and expensive. Why not allow them to work up to the limit

  405
  allowed them and make their bargains in the cheapest and most expeditious manner? That was his reason for adhering to the attitude he had taken up.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not make an advance on the point under discussion. He admitted that the situation was to some extent changed by the new Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman which appeared on the Paper, but hon. Members would understand that that did not alter their opinion that this Amendment ought to be accepted. He did not think, however, that anything was to be gained by longer discussion, as most Members were anxious to come to the consideration of the new clause, which really dealt with what was the crux of the situation.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the situation had been altered by the new Amendment put down on the Paper to-day by the Chief Secretary, the effect of which would be to meet the objection that they must do something to allow people, in proper cases, to go outside the strict limit of the zone imposed. In the absence of such an Amendment it might conceivably have been proper to accept a 25 per cent. instead of a 20 per cent. reduction. He did not think that that view could properly be urged now in view of the new Amendment proposed. The only effect of accepting the Amendment of Mr. Redmond's would be that a bargain on the footing of a 20 per cent. reduction could not be carried out without delay and expense, whereas if the Amendment were rejected the bargain of the 20 per cent. reduction would be carried through without reference to the Land Commission. Might he remind the Committee that in a very considerable number of cases first-term rents were as low as they would be if they were second-term rents determined in the Courts.
  MR. DILLON: A great many are the other way.
  *MR. BUTCHER, continuing, said that with the exception of flax and wool there had been a rise in the price of all produce in Ireland since the year 1887,
  406
  and therefore, so far as they were concerned, there was no occasion for reducing first-term rents. But there were other cases of first term rents, the class of cases where, by agreement between the landlord and tenant, the rents were so fair and reasonable that it was not worth while going into the Courts again. If he were right so far he thought he had established the view that there were a great number of first-term rents which were as low as second-term rents.
  AN HON. MEMBERon the Irish benches:—No.
  *MR. BUTCHERdid not deny that there were some first-term rents which ought to be reduced, but that would be done within the scope of the limits between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. There was ample scope within the limits laid down by the Bill for the landlord and tenant to bargain together and fix upon a price and to allow the sale to go through at once. But in view of the new situation created by the Chief Secretary putting down his Amendment, there was really no need to press the present Amendment, for if it were carried it would operate to the prejudice of both landlord and tenant.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he quite understood that on many of these questions hon. Members holding strong views desired to go into the division lobby to emphasise their views; but if they were to divide on every question they would extend the discussion on the Bill to the end of the session. They should go on to the more important topic which everybody wished to discuss, and this question could be decided by a simple "Aye" or "no."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had made what he regarded as a very considerable concession in the Amendment on the Paper, he had had no desire to prolong the proceedings. Of course the right hon. Gentleman would understand that it was rather difficult for some of his friends to abstain from going into the lobby, but in view of the fact that their views had been emphasised in the discussion and by the division on the previous Amendment, and

  407
  that it would be somewhat churlish to refuse the right hon. Gentleman's request, decision he was agreeable to accepting a of the question on the voices.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. DUKEsaid that if it was the will of the Committee that he should not move his Amendment, but should await the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, he would gladly fall in with that arrangement. [Cries of "Hear, hear."] He gathered it was the desire of the Committee to proceed as quickly as possible to the consideration of his right hon. friend's Amendment. Under those circumstances he would not move.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it might be for the convenience of the Committee if he defined the attitude of the Government on his hon. and learned friend's Amendment, unless it were understood that his hon. and learned friend the Member for York would also not move his Amendment. It was the intention of the Government to take on itself responsibility in the matter, and to give guidance and advice to the Committee regarding it.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be permitted to move his Amendment at once. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for York to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid as it was the obvious wish of the Committee that the Chief Secretary should move his Amendment he would gladly assent to that arrangement.
  MR. WYNDHAMformally moved to omit in Clause 1, page 2, lines 1 to 7 inclusive.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 7 inclusive."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question put, "That lines 1 to 7 inclusive be there omitted," and agreed to.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that his hon. friend the Member for East Down would not move the next Amendment standing in his name, but he
  408
  reserved his right to deal with the matter on the Report stage.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the very fact that the hon. Members for Plymouth and York had waived their rights increased his obligation to explain very fully the attitude of the Government. But it must not be said that the Government were making concessions in order to meet the combined wishes of the Irish landlords and tenants to the prejudice of the general taxpayer. That object did not come in. What was the attitude of the Government? They had taken the unusual course of putting the Land Bill down for an afternoon sitting in the middle of the week because it was their desire to make progress, and they felt that there was the greatest danger in delay. It was self-evident that a Bill of this magnitude created a great number of questions of importance and a still larger number of questions of interest, upon any one of which most of those knowing anything of Irish affairs would wish to record their views. The work could not be carried on satisfactorily, however, unless they concentrated their attention on the main questions and avoided discussing matters of minor importance. The Amendments of his hon. friends showed that Members of that House who had constituted themselves, more or less, the representatives of the landlords were agreed, either on the merits of the principle, or else, if they had some doubts as to the advantages that would accrue by accepting the principle underlying the Amendments, that they should make some advances towards the position occupied by the representatives of the tenants. That was a very weighty matter which the Government had properly to consider. There might be landlords who doubted whether the Amendments would prove to be of any intrinsic value either to themselves or to the tenants, but who were willing to accept them in order to bring everyone into line. That fact was of great importance in determining the attitude of the Government. If the representatives of the landlords came forward to arrive at some basis of agreement in respect of the first clause, was the Government, when the interests of the general taxpayer were not concerned, to be the one party to decline to put its pride in its pocket and obstinately adhere to their own view that a great value was

  409
  attached to the expeditious and cheap automatic process. The Government considered that to be a benefit to both landlord and tenant, and it had proved to be so in the past. But if the two parties, who he had to allow had much better opportunities of knowing their own interests, thought that in some cases the additional delay was a greater fault, their opinions were worthy of consideration. On the merit of the case there might be two opinions, but if the landlords and tenants were agreed that some such Amendment should be accepted, and no wrong was done to the taxpayers, general opinions became perfectly irrelevant. Therefore in accepting the principle underlying the two Amendments he intended to accept it in no grudging manner.
  The Government provided by loans for security to the taxpayer, and they also provided protection for the interests in Irish land of all persons other than the landlords. They were bound in some way or another to give those two protection. Hon. Members naturally approached the subject in a spirit of advocates, and were not concerned with the interests of the other parties. The duty of protecting those interests rested on the Government, and he maintained that the admitted difficulty of passing such a measure was increased by the duty of the Government to safeguard them. As he had accepted this great change he hoped that hon. Members would do him the credit of believing that all through he had recognised the burden of responsibility that rested on the Government because this was a revolutionary measure which not only enabled but induced persons to sell a great deal of property which did not belong to them. No one knew exactly the capital value of the other interests in Irish land, but it was a commonplace to say that at least two-thirds or three-quarters of the estates in Ireland were either settled or heavily mortgaged; and taking the value of those mortgages and the prospective value of the settlement, it would not be surprising to learn that out of the £100,000,000 with which they were dealing, the capital value of the property which belonged to other people was greater than the capital value of the owners. Could any Radical or Socialistic Government sell £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 of other
  410
  people's property without giving protection in the right of being heard and having full justice done to everybody. The Government therefore had to protect these interests in the Bill and to constitute themselves the guardians and trustees of posterity. They said that looking at the prospect of agriculture in Ireland and the effect of past legislation upon that agricultural prospect, ample protection was afforded if none of this property passed for less than twenty-one years purchase in the case of second-term rents. They were bound to adhere to the bargain in certain cases between the landlord and tenant upon terms suitable to both, but some alternative method to protect other parties had to be devised. It was clear that those interests must be in no degree prejudiced by the passing of this Bill, and they must not be bereft of any protection they now enjoyed. It was equally clear to him that if they substituted some form of protection other than the automatic protection of the zone they could not avoid greater cost and greater delay; for greater cost and greater delay were inherent in any method of protection other than an automatic method. Even under the automatic process it would be possible for a great English corporate body, knowing nothing of Irish affairs except that they had £1,000,000 invested in Irish lands, to obtain the services of the ablest lawyers in the land to see whether the bargains which were being concluded sufficiently protected their interests. But so long as the bargain was a statutory bargain, and, on the whole, was fair, they would lose their case, and nobody else would attempt a like procedure. If they opened the door to bargains of any character, there must be proper protection; and the last thing he desired to do was to penalise persons who chose to avail themselves of this Act. But certain penalties must inevitably attach to persons who availed themselves of the procedure under this Amendment. It would take them longer to get their business through, and it would cost them more to get their business through; and he believed that in a great many cases landlords and tenants would find it to their mutual advantage to adopt the short and cheap automatic process.

  411
  He thought that hon. Gentlemen who had studied the Amendments on the Paper would admit that the phraseology upon which he had hit, with the assistance of his legal advisers, was so simple that all persons concerned could at a glance understand what would happen if they adopted this alternative course. They would understand that all persons interested were to have an opportunity of being heard. Of course, "opportunity" meant due warning and notice, and so forth; but he held that the first clause was not the proper clause in which to indicate the extent of such warning. If need be, Clause 21 could be amended; or it might turn out to be preferable to deal with this matter in the rules which must in any case be drawn up if this Act was to be operative. But there was another difficulty. They would have to have another form of procedure. In his opinion they would have to make some alteration in this case in the allocation of the bonus. As the Bill was drafted, if a landlord agreed with his tenantry inside the zone it was assumed that other interests had been adequately safeguarded and posterity was not injured; and, according to the Bill and the Government's intention, the landlord became possessed of the bonus without any trouble in the matter. Where the landlord and tenant decided to take advantage of the alternative course, he thought that procedure could not be properly followed, and the bonus must be put in the pool of the purchase money. Of course the landlord would receive it in the long run if all the claims were satisfied, but he could not have it immediately. The proposals in the Bill were of a very revolutionary character, because, with the protection of the zone, he was prepared to say that there was sufficient protection for other interests, and therefore that the vendor could have the bonus. That was a great inducement, perhaps an undue inducement. It was, perhaps, an incentive to the landlord to be done with the matter on almost any terms and to take the bonus, but he adopted that course because he was anxious that purchase should proceed expeditiously in Ireland. He could not adopt that course where a certain number of bargains
  412
  were made outside the zone, but the landlord would not be worse off than he was under the existing law. In these cases he thought the bonus must go into the purchase money.
  He saw no grave difficulty in retaining the expeditious method where such bargains did not involve any great amount of purchase money. Supposing a landlord agreed with the great bulk of his tenants inside the zone, ant made bargains with ten, fifteen or twenty persons outside the zone, the best course would be to pay the cash difference up to the zone limitation, and then the whole matter could go through in a day, as it would do under the automatic process. In cases where a landlord sold the whole of his property outside the zone, would any hon. Member from Ireland contend that the landlord should take the bonus and leave the other parties interested to struggle for the purchase money. It could not be sustained. It could not be permitted, for a moment, and he did not think it put any penalty on the alternative course which hon. Members had suggested. They would minimise delay and seek to make the procedure as cheap as they could, but it would take a little longer and cost a little more. In cases where it was largely employed, and the landlord was not prepared to waive a very small percentage of his bonus for a short time only, probably two or three months, the bonus ought to go into the whole purchase money of the estate. This was a matter of so important a nature and so complicated that he thought it would be better not to proceed at greater length now, but to hear what hon. Members had to say. If they saw any difficulty with the procedure, perhaps before opposing it they would ask for further elucidation, in order to gauge whether one system would be unduly handicapped as against the other. In his opinion it would not be. The Government had gone a long way to meet what he understood to be the view held in common by the representatives of landlords and of tenants in Ireland. They were prepared to sanction this revised concordat between the parties mainly interested. They hailed it as a new testimony to the fact that all classes throughout Ireland desired a settlement of the land question. The danger of united Ireland resolving

  413
  herself into constituent atoms had, he hoped, been avoided. There was one other danger—that of delay; he hoped that also would be avoided. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 15, to leave out the words 'shall not sanction the advance,' and insert the words 'may, subject to the limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, sanction the advance if they are satisfied with the security, and if, after giving all persons interested in the estate an opportunity of being heard, they consider the agreed price to be equitable, having regard to the interests of all such persons as aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid there were two preliminary observations he desired to make. The first was as to a probable oversight. He thought it would be necessary to insert the words "as amended by this Act" after the words "Land Purchase Act," in order to secure the increased limit of the amount of the advance agreed to the other night. The other was that he found it difficult to enter into a discussion at present on the somewhat complicated machinery with reference to the bonus, as sketched by the right hon. Gentleman. That matter would have to come up as a definite Amendment on Clause 14, and the right hon. Gentleman must not take him as agreeing on behalf of his hon. friends to the exact proposal he had made on this point. Their only object in the matter was that in the class of cases referred to the incentive to sell should not be taken away from the landlord. The fear that occurred to his mind was that by dealing with the bonus as the right hon. Gentleman suggested that incentive might be taken away. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to abolish the bonus, but simply that it should be "hung up" pending an investigation of the claims of encumbrancers and so forth. Even that limitation might interfere with the incentive to sell. It was not necessary to discuss the point now; he would simply safeguard himself by saying that when they came to discuss the machinery they
  414
  would approach the question with an open mind. Both sides had the same object in view, and he hoped they would be able to come to an agreement by which that object would be achieved.
  Then as to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Under the clause as originally drawn, free bargains between landlord and tenant were absolutely forbidden, as no bargain would be sanctioned unless the tenant paid a certain minimum price. The position of the Irish Party in reference to that provision was that it was monstrous, illogical, and oppressive; consequently, they did all they could, by speech, and by vote, to get the provision taken from the Bill. When, on the matter being discussed, the Chief Secretary adopted what seemed to be an absolute non possumus attitude, he took a very serious view of the situation. He honestly conceived that if the Government had said their last word on the question the passage of the Bill was seriously imperilled, and he did not shrink from the responsibility of plainly saying so in the Committee. At the same time, he expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman had not said the last word on the question, and he was glad to find that that hope had been justified. The right hon. Gentleman had made concessions which fundamentally altered the clause, and largely removed the objections which the Nationalist Party entertained to it. Under the clause as it would now stand a number of tenants, who he calculated at about half the tenantry of Ireland, would be excluded from the operation of the zone, the only tenants to whom the zone would apply being the judicial tenants, and its relation to them would be fundamentally altered by the present Amendment. The judicial tenants would now be free to make any bargain they liked with their landlord. If the bargain fell within the zone, the purchase would take place without delay or inquiry; if it fell outside the zone, the bargain would be sanctioned just as bargains were sanctioned under the existing Land Purchase Acts — after due inquiry into the security for the loan on the one side, and into the equities of the case on the other. The right hon. Gentleman, for reasons which could be appreciated, had emphasised the question of the inquiry into the equities of the case, but the inquiry would be no more severe, full,

  415
  costly or prolonged than the inquiry in every case of purchase under the existing law. He and his friends recognised that in cases of this sort there must be inquiry into the equities of the case and the security for the loan; and they were not at all frightened by the provision. He heartily congratulated the Chief Secretary on the concession he had made, and he also congratulated Irish Members on both sides on having succeeded by argument in inducing the right hon. Gentle man to make the concession. The fact that the Amendment had been pressed by the representatives of both landlords and tenants was a most important consideration. The idea underlying the clause was originally suggested by Lord Dunraven; it had been supported all through by the "Conference" landlords, and he was exceedingly glad that it now had the support of all sections of Irish landlords. He hoped one result of the agreement would be that in the remaining portions of the Bill, where, as far as he knew, there were no vital points upon which differences of opinion or interest arose between landlords and tenants, the same united front would be observed in pressing necessary Amendments upon the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman. The present Amendment would enormously shorten the discussion on Clause 1, and remove any danger of acrimonious discussion. Of course, the Amendment did not satisfy in full the demand that had been made. The Chief Secretary had met their protest against the existence of this zone, and they were now perfectly free to say that the Government had come half way to meet them, and although the proposed settlement was not absolutely satisfactory to them, it certainly went a considerable distance to meet their wishes. By making this concession he believed the right hon. Gentleman had smoothed the passage of this Bill, and they would reserve for the later clauses a full discussion of the machinery he had suggested.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to join with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down in congratulating the Chief Secretary upon having, in a statesmanlike manner, found a way out of a very serious difficulty. It was always very difficult to reconcile the diverse interests
  416
  of landlord and tenants, and while on certain points it might be anticipated that there would be acute differences, he thought the spirit shown by the right hon. Gentleman would enable them to feel confident that when those points arose he would recognise the views of both sides, and, looking to the responsibilities which rested upon him, would be able to find an equally satisfactory way out of the difficulty.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not wish to mar the happy family arrangement which had been come to by suggesting anything against the Amendment put before the Chief Secretary by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. That suggestion, in his judgment, would be a fatal Amendment in many cases, because, by inserting the words "as amended by this Act," they would at once import into the Land Purchase Code the whole of the exclusions which the right hon. Gentleman himself had imposed in the previous portion of the clause. This Amendment might be fairly described as Ashbourne Acts cum bonus. Under the Ashbourne Acts they might sell a house or other property, but under this Act such bargains and sales would be impossible. He thought some other means must be taken of meeting a point which naturally, on the spur of the moment, did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman. In adding his humble congratulations he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he would be wise in involving the Committee in the discussion of a long series of enactments to safeguard the rights of the remainder men and mortgagees on the question of bonus. No doubt the Chief Secretary had correctly stated the view which would be taken of the trust deeds as to the disposition of the bonus, but he wished to point out that his Amendment would fully protect all those people by the addition of a very few words, because what would happen would be that the mortgagees and remainder men would not allow a sale to take place unless they were satisfied and got their share of the swag. The mortgagees and the remainder men would at once say to the tenant for life, "We won't allow you to sell this at all unless you make arrangements with us." He suggested the addition of the words

  417
  "and the circumstances of the case." Surely one of the circumstances would be a case where a mortgagee or a remainder man might say if he got £5,000 he would agree to the sale. That would then be a matter taking place in the face of the Court, and there would be no mystery about it, and then the Court could ratify a bargain which had been come to between the parties. Upon this question he was anxious that they should not on the first clause get into a tedious wrangle upon what did not concern them. This was really a matter between the landlords and the owners of the various interests in the estates. Let them settle this matter by some simple words or some provision as to rules, but he hoped they would not lengthen this interminable Bill by further indirect provisions to safeguard interests which he thought could be adequately provided for under the words suggested by the Chief Secretary. In conclusion he wished to say how satisfactory it was to him to have noted the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for Cork had received the undoubted concession made by His Majesty's Government, and he expressed the hope that these proceedings in their future course would be very much condensed and shortened by the very statesmanlike and admirable course taken by the Chief Secretary.
  *MR. DUKEsaid he should like to join in the congratulation which had been expressed to the Chief Secretary for the course he had taken. He did not express that opinion as anybody's advocate, for he was not required by the circumstances of his own constituency to be the advocate of any party in this great land war which was going on. As an English Member he thought he was entitled to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the course he had taken. Some few days ago the hon. and learned Member opposite had x-pressed what was evidently a concluded opinion that this Bill could not work under a cast iron system of zones. It was in that state of the case that his attention was called to the matter by a Member of the landlord class in Ireland, and he was assured that no one would
  418
  dispute that upon certain holdings there ought in some exceptional cases to be larger reductions than the zone permitted. He congratulated the Chief Secretary upon having found a way out of this difficulty, and upon having put an increased motive power behind the Bill with a view to the permanent settlement of the land question. As to the disposal of the bonus he did not think it was essential that when an inquiry had taken place, and it had been found that the interests of the encumbrancers and reversioners were safeguarded, there should be a second inquiry to make sure that the money was dispose of in the right direction. He could not help thinking that once the assent of the encumbrancers and reversioners was obtained there would be an end to the difficulty.
  MR. DILLONsaid he joined with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the great gratification felt on the Nationalist Benches at the course pursued by the Chief Secretary. Although the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to do all that they asked in the earlier discussion of the Bill, he had gone a great part of the way to meet them; and it would not be fair or reasonable if they did not recognise the spirit he had shown in making that concession, and let him see that in handling the Bill in such a spirit its progress would be a great deal more rapid than otherwise. He accepted without reserve his statement that, in making this concession, he made it frankly and fully and without any reservation. He had specifically stated that he had no desire to penalise in any respect the bargains made outside the zones. In pursuance of that declaration he would ask him to consider, before they came to Clause 21, whether there was any necessity for dealing with the bonus in a different way as regarded cases where sales took place outside the zones and those which took place in the zones. There was no ground whatever for distinction. In the case within the zones it must be a heavily-encumbered estate, and there would be no inquiry before the sale was effected from the encumbrancers. The estate could be sold by the landlord or those entitled to act for him without obtaining any leave whatever,

  419
  but the money to be paid would be tied up in Court until the various claims were ascertained. The only distinction that appeared to exist was as to the protection of the mortgagee and the remainder man. In the case of a sale within the zones it was held to be afforded by the limit of the minimum price, and in the case of a sale without the zone it was supposed to be afforded by the legal inquiry. They were both protected by different processes. He only mentioned these considerations now, but he presumed they would have to discuss them more in detail later on. The right hon. Gentleman asked the question—Could anybody maintain that, in the case of a sale under this ssction, without the zone, the landlord should be entitled to walk off with a bonus and leave the rest to be disputed over by others interested in the estate? That was exactly what was allowed to be done in the case of the large class of tenants excluded from the action of the zone, and in the case of the congested estates. He begged to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that it any alteration of the terms on which the bonus would be handed to the landlord was of such a character as to penalise a man making a bargain outside the zone as compared with inside the zone, that would be to take off with one hand the benefit which this clause gave with the other. The last point to which he wished to draw attention was the inquiry which was to take place as to the minimum price and the protection of all charges on the estate. He understood that the inquiry would be the same as existed under the present law. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that it was not to be in any way a more oppressive, extensive, or expensive inquiry, or one calculated to create more delay. If on further examination of the wording of the Amendment any verbal Amendment was found to be necessary, in order to secure that the inquiry should only be such as took place now under the 1896 Act, then they would reserve their right to move that Amendment. Although he had considerable objection to these zones at all, he acknowledged that the action now taken by the right hon. Gentleman revolutionised the opinion
  420
  of men who, like himself, had a strong objection to the clause. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would receive the recompense which ministers who took this course always received in the spirit of reasonableness shown by opponents.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid that he spoke as an Irishman representing an English constituency, and as one who was sincerely desirous to see the Bill passed into law. He joined in congratulating the Chief Secretary on what he had done to meet the wishes of the Irish representatives. He was tempted to say, in the words of the Psalmist, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." He hoped they might go on in the same spirit in the further consideration of the Bill. He listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, when he expressed his conviction, in which he himself might be permitted to share, that now that the difficulties connected with Clause 1 had been surmounted, there was really nothing in the remaining clauses of the Bill which need cause much controversy or delay. For himself he still adhered to the view he originally expressed, that the general principle of Clause 1 as to zones was sound and valuable in the interest of landlord and tenant. It was of enormous importance, to his mind, that landlord and tenant should be allowed to come together within reasonably wide limits, and that when the tenant bought his holding he should be put at once in possession of it. When they came to deal with the case raised by the Chief Secretary's Amendment, he agreed that more difficulty arose. There were many who thought that it would have been better to have left the zones as they stood, but speaking for himself, he could not help saying that there was considerable force in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said that there were exceptional cases which ought to be treated outside the zones, and that provision should be made in the Bill for dealing with them. The Chief Secretary had found a way of doing so. He thought it would be a calamity if this Bill, which was generous to Ireland on the part of the

  421
  British Parliament, were to fall through by reason of any want of fair dealing or spirit of conciliation on the part of either landlords or tenants, or their representatives. He believed that danger had been averted, and certainly he regarded the Amendment to be an important one for the purpose of getting over what was a pressing difficulty. He hoped and believed that the Amendment brought forward by the Chief Secretary would have the effect desired, and that it would enable this Bill to pass into law, and not only to pass, but, what was to his mind most important, to pass with the cordial goodwill and co-operation of all sections in Ireland who were interested in the peace and happiness of that country.
  *MR. HEMPHILLjoined in the congratulations to the Chief Secretary for the manner in which he had met the opposition of his hon. and learned friends below the gangway. He thought the Bill had been considerably improved by the Amendments which were now put forward by the Chief Secretary. He considered these Amendments had been properly described by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth as rolling into one as it were the land purchase system under the Ashbourne Act with this new land purchase system governed by the zones. There was nothing, therefore, if parties did not choose to agree to bring themselves within the zones, to interfere with their present position. They were in exactly the same position as if this Act had not been passed. That was of considerable importance; it would ensure that the taxpayer would not suffer, and it would facilitate very much the support of those English and Scotch Members who did not affect to understand thoroughly the complications of the Irish land system. These Amendments made it clear that the State would be fully indemnified against the possibility of any loss, or any default on the part of the purchaser under this Act, but he must say that he could not altogether agree with his hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth that the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone in regard to farms of the
  422
  value of £3,000 or £5,000 as the case might be, was unnecessary.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was unnecessary now.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid if it was unnecessary his observations fell to the ground. The only observation he wished to add was that he reserved altogether his opinion on the question of the bonus until he saw the Amendment in print which the Chief Secretary meant to propose. He thought it would be quite premature now to say that the bonus should be dealt with in a different way where the tenants agreed to bring themselves within the zone, and where they came within the new amended clause.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he joined heartily in congratulating the Chief Secretary on the proposal he had now made. He concurred with those who thought that the Bill was in great danger, but the right hon. Gentleman had found a way out. Undoubtedly there were counties in Ulster—and he spoke for the province of Ulster—where a majority of the tenants were judicial tenants, and if the Bill had passed as introduced, those tenants would have been remorselessly confined within the zones. He thought that would have been a great calamity, and he was exceedingly glad the Chief Secretary had found a way out of the difficulty. But, at the same time, hon. Members had better keep their heads. This question of the bonus was a very serious one. The Chief Secretary the other night in consenting to introduce a clause affecting the non-judicial tenants stated that he would take care that they were brought within the scope of the Bill—that was in order that the landlords should get a bonus and yet not be outside of the old Ashbourne Acts. He was bound to say that if the bonus was to be seriously tied up in any way—he did not deny that some arrangement would have to be come to—one of the great inducements to the landlord to sell would be taken away. Therefore, he hoped the Chief Secretary would give to this question the serious consideration it deserved.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he wished to say that the statesmanlike and conciliatory disposition exhibited by the right hon. the Chief Secretary had gone a great way to remove any irritation that might have been caused among the representatives for Ireland. He did not think that the hon. Member for South Tyrone need be in the least afraid that they were going to lose their beads about this or any other matter. He must say, for himself, that he was not altogether satisfied with the arrangement, which would still leave the ultimate decision as to the purchase price to the discretion of the Estates Commission, instead of being settled by the parties between themselves. But the Estates Commission would undoubtedly start under more favourable auspices than perhaps any Government Commission had started before in Ireland. Some of them were, however, bound to remember what Government by Board or Commission had been in Ireland in the past. It was only fair to state that it would be the interest and duty of the Estates Commission, as the guardians of the British Exchequer, to exercise a wise discretion as to the bargains which would save the tenants much. They still held that it would have been wiser for the Government and the landlords to have left the bargaining free altogether; but they were all deeply sensible—and in this he was sure he spoke for every Member of the Irish Party—of the kindly and conciliatory spirit the right hon. Gentleman had shown in the enormous concession which he bad made on this matter, the more especially as very considerable concessions had already been made in excluding a vast body of tenants from the zones, and also in regard to the abolition of the perpetual rent-charge. He had been happy to hear the hon. Member for York re-echo what his hon. and learned friend said that evening, that once this clause was disposed of—as he hoped it would be during the afternoon sitting — there would be no longer any question of anything like vital conflict between land lords and tenants in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman only acted—as he was sure he was anxious to do—in the same generous spirit as he had done
  424
  to the judicial tenants, with reference to the evicted tenants, to the tenants in the congested districts, and to the Irish agricultural labourers, there would be no disposition on these benches to discourage him from obtaining the full benefits of the Act for all parts of Ireland.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment which he had introduced. The spirit and the actual wording of that Amendment appeared to him to be very much superior to the original Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Plymouth; and in saying so he did not for one moment wish to forget that he was a representative of an English constituency. The Chief Secretary had said that the English constituencies which were concerned in this matter had agreed to accept the Bill on the understanding that it would work properly. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would tend to make the Bill work properly; and therefore every British representative should agree to it. The desire of the landlords of Ireland, all through the discussion, had been to come to an amicable arrangement with the hon. Gentlemen who represented the tenants, because they felt that unless the Bill worked well and satisfactorily, and to the satisfaction of both landlords and tenants, it would be unacceptable. Undoubtedly there were some landlords in Ireland who would have preferred to have the zones alone, and to have every agreement come within the zones; but he might say, on behalf of all the landlords with whom he came in contact, that they cheerfully accepted this Amendment, and on their behalf he heartily supported the right hon. Gentleman.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid he wished to join in the congratulations to the Chief Secretary on the course he had taken, and to re-assure the hon. Member for South Tyrone that they would not lose their heads over this matter.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. LEAMYsaid that the question to which the Amendment he wished to propose referred had been touched upon the other day, and the right hon. the Chief Secretary seemed to think that he could not advance any further than he had already gone. But it was abundantly clear that Members from all quarters of the House were in favour of extending the benefits of the Act to the large farmers of Ireland. His Amendment was of a very modest character. It was founded on a resolution of the National Convention, and applied to the case of large farms which had been partly used for tillage purposes and partly for grazing or dairying purposes within the last five years. In these cases the limitations should be extended, and the Estates Commission should be empowered to sanction an advance for the purchase of these farms. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment he would find that he would be doing no violence whatever to the promise he had made to the British taxpayer when he introduced the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that of the 80,000 smaller tenants in Ireland who had already purchased their farms there had hardly been a single defaulter; and surely if that were the case in regard to the poor tenants in some of the most wretched parts of Ireland, and that they had paid their money readily and cheerfully, there could be no doubt that the large farmers, who had such a great stake in the country, would not become defaulters. Whenever the Irish tenant farmer got fair play and was honestly dealt with, and was not forced into an unfair bargain, he did his level best to carry out his bargain. The question of the repudiation of these bargains was not worth taking into consideration. The honour of Ireland would be the best guarantee for the maintenance of the bargains. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 21, at end, to insert the words '(4) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in the Purchase of Land Amendment Act, 1888, an advance may be sanctioned under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds or five thousand pounds, as the case may be, to one purchaser where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it is expedient to make any such larger advance
  426
  for the purpose of carrying out the sale of a large farm which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, has been for five years before the passing of this Act mainly used for tillage or dairying purposes.'"—(Mr. Leamy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CAREWsaid that unless the advance to the tenants to enable them to purchase were extended, a number of tenants who could purchase under the existing Acts would be excluded from the operation of this Bill. There was no doubt that the purchasing power of the £3,000 and £5,000, the amounts allowed under the law at present, would, under this Bill, be considerably reduced. He took the case of a tenant purchasing under the existing Acts and compared it with the case of a tenant purchasing under the Bill. He took eighteen years purchase as the average purchase price of first-term rents under the existing Acts. A tenant purchasing at eighteen years secured a reduction of 28 per cent. of his rent. The annuity to repay £3,000 advance was £120. Consequently, at eighteen years purchase an advance of £3,000 would reach all tenants whose rents were £166 a year and under. Similarly, under a £5,000 advance, the annuity to repay it would reach all tenants whose rents were £277 and under. Under the Bill he took 20 per cent. as the average reduction on second-term rents, and 30 per cent. on first-term ones. The annuity to repay £3,000 was £95 12s. 6d. A rent on which this represented a 20 per cent. reduction was £119, and 30 per cent. £136 in round figures. Under the £5,000 advance the annuity to repay it was £159. A rent on which this represented a 20 per cent. reduction was £199, and 30 per cent. reduction £227. It consequently followed on the basis of these figures that, if the limits of advance remained as at present, under the £3,000 advance, all first-term rents between £136 and £166, and all second-term ones between £119 and £150, would be excluded from the benefit of the existing Acts. Under the £5,000 advance, first-term rents between £227 and £277, and second-term rents between £199 and £250, would be excluded. It was only necessary to state

  427
  such an anomaly to have it rectified. This was not merely a tenant's question, but a labourer's one as well. The tenants whom it was the intention to benefit, were the largest employers of labour in their respective districts. The least service the State could do to the country was to help the large farmer, for by so doing it stayed the tide of emigration. As he desired to see the Bill made law, he would only express the hope that the Chief Secretary would see his way to increase the advances so as to put the tenants, if not in a better, certainly in no worse position than under the existing Acts.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. Otherwise, every judicial rent of £200 and upwards would, in his opinion, be excluded. He based his calculation on the average number of years purchase, as he did not suppose that rents of this character would be sold at the minimum price, nor did he imagine the maximum price would he paid, and he calculated that a £200 second occasion rent would be the extreme limit that would be covered by the provisions of the Bill as it stood. It was notorious that many farmers in Leinster and Munster, whose holdings were partly agricultural and partly pastoral, would be excluded if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the present limits. They heard a great deal about Irish emigration, and they heard a great deal from labour representatives about the number of working men in Ireland who were obliged to seek work in England, with the result that they reduced the Standard rate of wages, because they increased competition. But if large farmers in Leinster who employed a considerable amount of labour, and also the dairy far hers in the Golden Vale were excluded from the benefits of the Bill, how could the working classes find employment in the rural districts. The benefits of the Bill should not be confined solely to the tenant farmers and the landlords. One of the great advantages of the Bill would be that it would enable large farmers to give an increased amount of employment. He would therefore impress on the right hon. Gentleman the absolute necessity
  428
  of accepting the Amendment. The British taxpayer ran no risk. The money would be secure whether it was advanced to a large farmer or a small farmer. His hon. friend had rightly confined his Amendment to farms which were substantially tillage or dairy farms, and had not asked for the inclusion of grass farms. Other hon. Gentlemen might be more interested than his hon. friend or himself in keeping Ireland green to the eye at any rate, and would probably move Amendments to include grass farms. He, however, was not particularly interested in grass farms; and the Amendment was confined to a class of farmers who were a benefit to the country in which they lived.
  MR. COGHILLsaid he did not find any fault with hon. Gentlemen opposite in pressing their views on the Government. The Chief Secretary, however, stated the other day that he intended to adhere to the position he had taken up on the Second Reading, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not now increase the liabilities of the British taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Bill was not popular on his side of the House, because hon. Gentlemen now found that they were not getting what they bargained for. A change had undoubtedly taken place. Hon. Gentlemen were willing to give £12,000,000 because they hoped and expected that the Bill would be a permanent settlement of the land question. Now, hon. Gentlemen opposite said that it would not be a final settlement. In those circumstances the liability of the British taxpayer ought not to be increased, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would stand firm.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he regretted the speech of his hon. friend; but if he had studied the question his hon. friend would see that there was no question of increasing the liability of the British taxpayer. He had a right to say that, because he also represented the British taxpayer, whose interests he had to consider. But he would entreat his hon. friend not to intervene before he had looked into the matter. He would not repeat the arguments he had already used in favour of

  429
  the limits being extended. All he would say was that he believed the landlords of Ireland were universally in favour of the principle of the Amendment, while not committing themselves to all the details.
  MR. EDWARD BARRYsaid he rose to support the Amendment. His constituents were in favour of extending the limit to farms which were partly tillage and partly dairy farms. At the same time he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would draw the line at that, because the large dairy farms employed no labour except such as was required in the shape of dairymen.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he desired to intervene at this stage of the Bill for the sake of arriving at a proper definition of these farms. He had consulted his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and in his judgment some extension might possibly be made to secure an advance in such cases. The capital amount involved was insignificant when dealing with a problematical loan of £100,000,000. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself were agreed that some extension was desirable, but he could not agree to an unlimited extension and he thought £7,000 would amply meet the case. The only other observation he had to make was that he did not think they could profitably discuss this matter when a number of hon. Gentlemen who had opinions on the subject had not put their views on the Paper in the form of Amendments. As the matter of limit was important, he would move an Amendment to make it £7,000, and he engaged before the Committee ended to put down a definition of that to which they intended it should apply. He moved to put in after the words?' Purchase Acts" the word "not" and after the words "sum of" to omit "three" and insert "seven," and to omit in the next line" or £5,000, as the case may be," then they could omit "larger" in line 6, so that the clause would read as follows—"(4) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in the Purchase of Land Amendment Act, 1888, an advance may be sanctioned
  430
  under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts not exceeding the sum of £7,000 to one purchaser where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it is expedient to make any such advance for the purpose of carrying out the sale of a large farm which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, has been for five years before the passing of this Act substantially used for tillage or dairying purposes." He would prefer to leave the rest of the clause as it stood to be considered on Report.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment—
  "In line 3, after the word 'Acts' to insert the word 'not,' and after the words 'sum of' to leave out the word 'three' and insert the word 'seven,' and to leave out the words 'or five thousand pounds as the case may be in line 4, the word 'larger' in line 6."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to include the grazing farms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, only the agricultural land.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a very great one, but he would suggest with regard to those lands that were partly tillage and partly grazing land, whether the right hon. Gentleman could not use a word which would be quite plain to the Land Commissioners and call them "mixed farms." Except in the county of Dublin there was no such thing as a pure tillage farm and, according to the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used, a farm of 100 acres in extent, having only thirty acres tilled, would be a tillage farm. He would suggest the right hon Gentleman in defining these farms should find a word not capable of being misunderstood by the Land Commissioners.
  *MR. KENNEDYsupported the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth. According to the Amendment as he now read it one third of a farm at least should be tilled. If

  431
  that interpretation were correct, outside the county of Dublin there would not be a single farm over 120 acres in extent, which would be admitted to the benefits of this Act. What were the limits of tillage? He was a grazier, but he was not speaking on behalf of the graziers. The £7,000 limit put the graziers out of it altogether. They would buy out no grazier for £7,000. [An IRISH MEMBER: You know nothing about Connaught.] It was very unfortunate that every question which affected Leinster had to be viewed through Connaught spectacles. This question of tillage was not a question of yesterday. Two hundred years ago there was a law in force in Ireland that five acres out of every 100 should be kept under the plough. Would that be regarded as "substantial tillage" within the meaning of this Amendment? Yet it was those farms that employed labour. Who would give employment if they did not? Did the small farmers do it? On those farms there was only employment enough for the family. Did the graziers do it? The men who gave the employment were the large farmers, men who farmed 100 or 200 acres, whose annual rental ran to £200 or £300. It was the farmer who resided on his land and who I kept up a permanent staff, not necessarily engaged in tillage, who employed labour. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the last speech had proved the wisdom of his advice that they should take the Amendment as it stood, and then hon. Members who had views on the subject should put Amendments on the Paper. He had no wish to exclude agricultural holdings, but he appealed to the Committee to bring the discussion to a close. They were all agreed as to the exclusion of grazing farms, and they were in substantial agreement as to finding a proper definition to cover agricultural holdings. That definition, however, could not possibly be framed at once, and it was only waste of time further to discuss it.
  MR. LEAMYwas understood to say that he had been willing that this limit should be increased simply because under the Bill as it stood a large number of his
  432
  constituents would be unable to take full benefit of it, but after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he was quite prepared to wait.
  MR. COGHILLexpressed a desire to have the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Amendment. It would also be an advantage, as there were some questions on which the Cabinet were not altogether united, to have the opinion of the Colonial Secretary.
  MR. CHANNINGthought the announcement of the Chief Secretary entitled him, as a representative of the British taxpayer, to ask two or three questions. The first was, whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any estimate of the addition to the £100,000,000 advance involved in the extension to £7,000. The second was as to the effect of the extension on the bonus. Would it have the effect of diminishing the amount of the bonus which could be assigned to the poorer estates, upon which it was desirable to facilitate purchase to an even greater extent than on the richer estates? The third was whether, supposing the bonus was affected, the right hon. Gentleman intended to increase the total amount of the bonus.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was not intended to increase the bonus. It was impossible to make an estimate of the additional capital involved by this extension; it might possibly be £100,000 or £120,000, but in any case it was infinitesimal in relation to the £100,000,000.
  *THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the most convenient way in which to put the question would be for the Amendment to the Amendment to be withdrawn, and then he would put the Amendment in its amended form.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYexpressed the hope that no loophole would be left to the grazier through the word "dairying." Many graziers were now taking on cows and

  433
  selling the milk to the creameries, and they might come in under the term "dairying."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBmoved the omission of Sub-section (4). He pointed out that since the introduction of the Bill the framework and the principles of Clause 1 had been totally changed, and the state of things to which this subsection was intended to apply no longer existed. He therefore could not see the use of retaining the sub-section.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 22, to leave out Subsection 4."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMthought it would be better to retain the Sub-section, as possibly when the question of the congested estates was discussed some alterations would be made rendering the Sub-section necessary. It had to be borne in mind that these congested estates were not sold indiscriminately to the tenants, but were bought by a State Department; and there was a provision in the Bill authorising expenditure for the improvement of such estates. In the interests of the general taxpayers it was necessary to buy these estates as cheaply as possible, and they could not enact in one part of the Bill that public money should be spent on the improvement of these estates, and in another part put a statutory limitation on the price. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he would withdraw the Amendment in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary, but he hoped that if material Amendments were made on Clause 5 the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLON, in moving to extend Sub-section (4) to holdings on estates purchased by the Congested
  434
  Districts Board, said he had some doubt as to the necessity of the Amendment. The considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred applied equally to these holdings, and he was sure that the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment if it was necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 23, after the word 'Act' to insert 'nor in the case of holdings on estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that there might be congested estates outside a congested district.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLONsaid that, at an earlier stage, he objected to the clause on two main grounds. The first was the illogical and intolerable proposition that a landlord should not be allowed to sell to his tenant at a price on which both might agree. He was glad to say that the Chief Secretary and the representatives of the more rational section of the Irish landlords had agreed to remote that objection, and, in doing so, had met one of the strongest objections to the clause. There remained, however, an objection which he felt bound to mention before the clause was disposed of; for though it had been largely mitigated by the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, it had not been altogether removed. That objection was the retention in the Bill, as regarded the whole body of the judicial tenantry of Ireland, of the two limits. These limits would set up an artificial and totally false standard of the price of land in that country. That standard, in the minds of many, would be, not the minimum price, but, he feared, the mean price of the minimum and the maximum, and that would be twenty-one and a half or twenty-two

  435
  years purchase of the first-term judicial rents, and twenty-five years purchase of the second-term judicial rents. What was the present ascertained value of land in Ireland? The average price in 80,000 sales, extending over the last fifteen years, was between seventeen and eighteen years purchase on the basis of first-term judicial rents. Calculating the land stock at a selling price of ninety-two it represented, reduced to terms of cash, sixteen and a half years purchase of the rent. The average price of all the holdings valued for purposes of sale in Ireland in the Land Judge's Court for the year ending the 31st March, 1902, was 17·9. That fact was of special value, because it was based on the valuation of the Land Commission, and therefore acted as a check upon the bargains he had referred to. The Land Commission had to value the farms, and the price worked out at 17·9 years purchase on the average, but in that was included a year of cash ordered to be added in addition to the price estimated by the Land Commission. Therefore the average price put on was seventeen years purchase, and that had to be valued in depreciated land stock. Consequently, the real price was at the rate of fifteen and a half years purchase on a cash basis of the judicial rents. What he dreaded was that this might put into the minds of the Irish landlords the idea that they were entitled to claim these terms in all future sales. The importance of what the Chief Secretary had said to-day could not be exaggerated. He did not estimate the importance of what had taken place simply on account of the particular concession which had been made. What he valued more than that was that a condition of hostility and bitter animosity between the representatives of the landlords and tenants had been altered and changed in a most marvellous degree by what the Chief Secretary had done. He had been regarded by hon. Members as a hopeless irreconcilable, but now he saw light upon the Irish land question, and if the landlords would approach the tenants in the same spirit which had been shown by Irish representatives in the House, and by the Chief Secretary, and if they would abandon the idea that they were to use this Bill in order to get higher prices; if they would approach the
  436
  working of this Bill in that spirit, in his opinion this measure would bring to an end the Irish land war. The importance of what had taken place, therefore, was by no means to be limited to the great concession which the Chief Secretary had granted. It might have far-reaching results, because if the Irish landlords dealt with the evicted tenants in a generous spirit, and if they were restored to their farms upon generous terms—if they approached the sale of their estates in a spirit similar to that displayed in the consideration of this clause, then he thought the day was near at hand when the question would be settled by the goodwill of the tenants and the landlords alike.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he desired to say at once that as Clause 1 was first introduced it would have been impossible for him to vote for it. He asked the Committee to look at what had been accomplished by three days discussion. They had got a £7,000 limit placed in the Bill instead of £5,000, and that would bring in a considerable number of large farmers, who ought not to be excluded from the Bill. They had also abolished the perpetual rent-charge. He thought that was another advantage. He knew there were differences of opinion upon that point in some quarters, but there were no differences amongst the Irish tenants upon that question. Besides this, they had got one-half of the Irish tenantry of Ireland taken out of the zone altogether. The non-judicial tenants numbered 130,000, and the tenants on the congested districts taken outside the zone would count up to 250,000. The great concession made this afternoon would leave the judicial tenantry free to negotiate their bargains either I within or outside the zone. That was a considerable achievement, and Clause 1 was now in such a shape that Irish representatives could return to Ireland and endeavour to make this Bill a success.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was only right that an "Outlander" of some sort should have a little say in this matter, especially at this most critical period in the history of the Bill. As it originally stood, this

  437
  clause was of such a character that any one disposed to regard it from the point of view of the British taxpayer would have had some difficulty in voting for it. But there had been great transformations. After narrow shaves, and great dangers escaped, the right hon. Gentleman and his Bill had got into smooth waters. That must be a matter for unmitigated congratulation on the part of every one having the interests of Ireland or of the United Kingdom at heart. The attitude which he took up on the Second Reading was one of friendliness to the general purpose of the Bill, with a desire to look critically at the provisions as far as they affected the interests of the tenants; because the interests of the taxpayers were involved in the interests of the tenants. When he spoke of taxpayers he always remembered that there were taxpayers in Ireland, although, of course, the larger portion of the burden would fall upon those on this side of the channel, who were not directly concerned in the negotiations which had taken place. The interest of the taxpayer was wrapped up in the interest of the tenant, because if the conditions imposed on the tenants were in any way burdensome, there was every probability that as years went on difficulties would arise; and if there were not repudiation of a violent character, there might be great hardship, and, therefore, great difficulty in maintaining the financial interests of the Imperial Treasury. An arrangement had been come to after great difficulty, which did secure for the clause the acceptance of those who spoke on behalf of the Irish tenants; and that was a security that, when the Treasury was engaging to spend so large a sum of money, and to risk so large an amount of credit, the desired purpose would be attained—namely, peace, contentment, and prosperity among the different classes in Ireland. It had been quite understood on all hands that here and there landlords and tenants will be found outside the Bill. But that was a small matter compared with the equitable and reasonable relations established between the tenants paying instalments, and the Treasury receiving those instalments. It was satisfactory to those who regarded this matter from his point of view that
  438
  those who were entitled to speak on behalf of the tenant-farmers of Ireland accepted cordially, and as a sufficient solution of the question, the proposal as it now stood. His hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, whose remarks had been more critical in their character than those of some of the hon. Members with whom he acted, had spoken of now seeing daylight in that matter, and expressed the hope that this Bill would put an end to the land war in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: Yes, if the landlords act reasonably.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that was so, of course; but he was bound to say that so far as the landlords in this House were concerned he did not think they had acted or spoken unreasonably in the course of these debates. There had been a corresponding disposition for conciliation not only in the gushing moments of the Conference in Ireland, but throughout the trying tests of these debates on both sides. They must trust that the same spirit would be applied when the Bill became an Act and was put in force. He had said that he and his fellow "Outlanders" had no responsibility in this matter. He was bound to say that they had very little knowledge of what had occurred in the matter, because though they had seen some movements which indicated that there was a shifting of the scenes behind, the curtain had never been lifted. And they did not know at all how, or why, or by whom, the arrangements had been come to, but if the arrangements were satisfactory, although they were not in any way responsible for them, they would join their voices with those of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members from Ireland in expressing the earnest hope that the Bill as amended might bring all the blessings which were expected from it.
  MR WYNUHAMthought it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that he should express his satisfaction at the words which had fallen from his lips The right hon. Gentleman did not search too closely into the

  439
  intricate secrets of Irish land legislation, but was satisfied with the result of their efforts. He was satisfied to this extent, in the first place, that he could continue an attitude of more than friendly neutrality towards the various controversies which sometimes divided them into different classes in Ireland, and that he could in fact give support to the measure so long as the spirit which prevailed this afternoon did still prevail. The right hon. Gentleman expressed satisfaction, in which he himself shared, at the fact that the representatives of the tenants accepted this clause. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, and he re-echoed his remarks, that the attitude of those who represented the landlords had been a remarkable attitude. It was important that both of those classes should continue to be actuated by the spirit which informed the proceedings of the Land Conference with the result to which they had attained. With that result they might not reach finality in the sense the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent attached to the word, but they would avoid a finality of another character which would have been disastrous to Ireland—a finality of any attempt made by the representatives of the tenants and the representatives of the landlords to meet on one common platform for the good of their common country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. TULLY: Moved an amendment to the effect that the limit should be increased from ten to fifty acres. His object was to give a wider area for the selection of tenants who were to be transplanted from their present bog holdings and put on better land. If they were to take the people out of what had been called the "agricultural slums," and move them on to the grazing lands, there must be a wider limit than the Chief Secretary had inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'fifty.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the clause."
  MR. DILLONsaid he had an Amendment to the same Sub-section on the paper to leave out the words "acres in area, and five." He wished to say a word on his own Amendment, because it was affected by that now proposed by the hon. Member for South Leitrim. The limitation under this clause was very important, because for the first time there was inserted in a Bill a definition by the Government of an uneconomic holding. But anyone acquainted with the West of Ireland knew that to put the limit in this case at £5 rateable value was absurd. His Amendment was designed to raise the limit to £10, which he thought a very moderate demand indeed. He objected to a limit of £5 being set up, or to any check being placed on the action of the Commissioners in enlarging holdings valued under £10 a year. He would not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leitrim, but he would urge the Chief Secretary to consider whether he could not make an announcement which would render it unnecessary to move his own.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member had raised a rather large question here, and perhaps he had in his mind also the similar definition in Clause 5 of a congested estate.
  MR. DILLON: They do not necessarily hang together.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they did not necessarily hang together, but when he came to that clause they would be able to discuss the limits involved. He would, warn the hon. Member that the limits in Clause 5 affected the taxpayers, and put a pecuniary obligation upon them, but he was prepared to say that in this clause the definition did not affect the taxpayers. Indeed, he was not sure that by acceptance of the Amendment less money would not have to be paid than would be paid under the definition as the Bill stood. They had now passed from holdings which were occupied, and they were dealing with land which wag unoccupied, and which might be sold to certain classes of people. In drawing up the clause he had had regard to the fact that the amount of untenanted

  441
  or spare land was a limited quantity, and there was not enough to go round. If he accepted the hon. Member's words and left out of account the factor of area, there would be a presumption that this additional land, of which they had not too much, should be given to increase any holding worth £10 or under. But some of these holdings were very good indeed. He did not know that there was enough to go round, and the reason which led the Government to adopt this definition was that they should give the benefit of the untenanted land in the first place to those who needed it most. They thought they ought to have regard to the holdings which were indubitably of an undesirable character, and not include holdings from which the occupiers could gain a fair livelihood. He submitted these considerations as reasons for not hastily abandoning the provision in the Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid what he desired was that tenants whose holdings were under £10 rateable value should get the preference where there was land which they required in the neighbourhood or within reasonable distance. He was perfectly willing to refrain from proceeding with his Amendment for the present to give the right hon. Gentleman time for considering the matter which he desired to see dealt with. He could afterwards move the Amendment in another form.
  MR. BLAKEsaid that the whole difficulty would be solved if a preference were given to the smaller holdings in cases where there was not sufficient land to give extensions all round. What was wanted was a system of leveling up.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he saw the great force of the argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he would gladly consider the matter before the Report.
  MR. TULLYsaid that the clause assumed that the value of the holding would be 10s. an acre. His Amendment assumed that it would be 8s. an acre, because he knew hundreds of cases in
  442
  which the holding consisted of fifty or one hundred acres of bog-land which required to be improved into good grazing land.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that all those who knew Ireland would agree that mere extent of land, even if it were bad, was better than a holding that was too small. The tenants often did wonders with such land. Twenty or twenty-five acres were often reclaimed by the tenant and his whole family working at it, and they could make a living from what was formerly uneconomic land. Their first care should be for those whose acreage was so restricted that, no matter how large the family, they could not turn it into an economic holding. He would consider before Report whether he could accept an Amendment, not going so far as suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo, but in that direction.
  MR. TULLYsaid that after that assurance he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from Subsection (d) the words, "who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of a holding.' If these words were retained they would destroy the effect of the sub-section in the case of unhappy tenants who had been out of their holdings for fifteen or twenty years, and who had got a little cottage and a patch of land from a neighbour. That would be strictly called a holding, and the result would be that the Commissioners, when they came to re-instate them under this sub-section, I would find themselves unable to act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out from the word 'apply' to the word 'Provided' in line 35."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words; proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."—(Mr Herbert Robertson.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he saw the force of what the hon. Member said, that a holding might be a mere patch by the

  443
  roadside, and he was prepared to consider that matter. He was not, however, prepared to say that he would go the whole length of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but he would put down some definition as to what was a holding.
  MR. DILLON: Put some Amendment down.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will put some Amendment down before the Report stage.
  MR. DILLON: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONmoved—
  "In page 2, line 38, after the word 'made' to insert the words, 'to the legal personal representative of the deceased person, if any, or, if none, then. …'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said that the Amendment would be unworkable. The legal personal representative might have other avocations in life, and might be absolutely unable to take up the land.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he wished to move as an Amendment the insertion of a sub-section bringing within the category of persons to whom advances might be made "a labourer as defined by the Labourers (Ireland) Acts 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, and residing upon, or within, three miles of the estate. "He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment, because the labourers were looking forward to getting allotments of untenanted land, and they would be disappointed if they were not enabled to do so, particularly in the South of Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, at end, to insert the words, '(e) A Labourer, as defined in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as
  444
  amended by this Act, and residing upon or within three miles of the estate.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that whatever might be alleged as to the merits of the hon. Member's Amendment, he was quite clear that it could not be properly dealt with until that part of the Bill referring to labourers was reached. He intended when Clause 4, which referred to agricultural labourers, was reached, to put down an Amendment dealing with them.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that in that event he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. HUGH LAWmoved as an Amendment to Clause 2 that an advance might be made to a person who, in the opinion of the Land Commission, would be a suitable occupier for the holding. The Chief Secretary had told them that land was a commodity which was necessarily limited in certain districts. But there were districts in which it might happen that, after persons having prior rights had been satisfied, there was land remaining which was available for the creation of new holdings. Everybody in Ireland was becoming acutely aware of the evils that had been brought on the country by the continuous decrease of the population. It was obvious that while the settlement of the land question in the ordinary acceptance of the term would have important results upon the question of depopulation, inasmuch as it would increase the feeling of security in the country, at the same time it would not directly lead to the creation of more homes. That was the object at which this Amendment was aimed. A great statesman, for whom some of them at any rate had a great admiration, had said that what he was working for was. "more homes." That phrase was not then applied to Ireland, but he could say that was what they also desired to work for. During the last fifty years in Ireland there had been a great many fires put out, and he and his friends desired that the smoke of the turf fire

  445
  might rise again from as many homesteads as, with due regard to the general economic welfare of the country, might be possible in the future.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, at end to insert the words '(f) A person who in the opinion of the Land Commission would be a suitable occupier of such holding.'"—(Mr. Hugh Law.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would point out that Clause 7 of the Bill, which related to the purchase of untenanted land, fully dealt with the subject raised by the hon. Member. Their efforts would work better if they did not concentrate them on one district. Hitherto they had been hampered by dealing with only one estate or holding. He knew the difficulties that had to be faced, but he did not believe they could carry out his scheme if they included strangers from another county. He believed that on the lines of the Bill a great deal could be done, and practical assistance would not be given by adding to the category those persons who had nothing to do with the estate or locality.
  MR. O'SHEEsupported the Amendment on the ground that the owner of the holding on an adjoining estate might be a useful occupier.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was willing to develop the argument still further. That the son of the holder on an adjoining estate might be a suitable person he was quite willing to admit. He had given close attention to the subject and believed that they must proceed by estates and not work sporadically all over Ireland. It was doubtful whether there would be enough land available for all if the contemplated categories of hon. Members were to be included in the Bill.
  *MR. HUGH LAWsaid he would not press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman found, after full consideration, that he was unable to accept it. What he had in his mind was that the son of a small farmer or for that matter of a
  446
  large farmer should, instead of being under the necessity of emigrating to America, be enabled, as far as possible, to marry and settle down in Ireland, although not necessarily in the neighbourhood of their fathers' holdings. After all, Ireland was not a very big place, and although it was true that schemes of migration of existing occupiers had not been so far successful, it would be a somewhat different matter to deal as he suggested with the young men who, in the natural course of events, would leave the parent nest and make homes for themselves elsewhere. However, if the right hon. Gentleman felt that the object in view would not be attained by the Amendment he would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENmoved an Amendment for the advance to be made to a caretaker of a holding on the estate, or a person who is in occupation of such holding as tenant at will or tenant at sufferance.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, at end, to insert the words, '(e) A caretaker of a holding on the estate or a person who is in occupation of such holding as tenant at will, or tenant at sufferance.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that under this clause they were dealing with the tenant class, and expressly with those who had ceased to be tenants but had been tenants within five years. He was unable to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBmoved to omit Sub-section 2, which limited the advance in respect of any particular farm to £500. He was a little troubled as to the real meaning of the words, but, no doubt in replying to the Amendment, the Chief Secretary would explain them. He thought the whole object of this clause was to give the Land Commission power to deal with a very complicated and difficult question. In such cases it

  447
  was obvious that it was not desirable that the amount should be put so low as £500, and he would consequently like to see either no limit at all or an extension of the sum. His own feeling was to entirely omit the sub-section, but in any event there was a very strong feeling that a higher limit should be allowed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 40, to leave out Sub-section 2.'—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought that perhaps the best plan would be to explain why the Sub-section had been included in the Bill. Clause 2 dealt with persons who had no estate, local or otherwise, on Irish soil, and who had no right under any Land Act, but who would like to become tenant farmers or peasant proprietors under this Bill. There was only a certain amount of land available, and therefore if it were to be handed out in large slices to those who had no right to it, there would not be enough for persons who had a right. Some limitation was necessary, and although it was very difficult to work out the problem successfully, a simple solution was found in limiting to a certain sum the advance to persons having no holdings at all. Assuming the case of a man with a very small holding who wished to increase it from seven to twenty acres, the Government said the new advance should not exceed a certain sum, and in that way they made the land go round further. Whether £500 was a right sum was open to argument, and he thought it would be possible to increase it to £1000.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid the Amendment he now moved was a vital Amendment. Its object was to put the evicted tenants on an equality with the others and not to confine the evicted tenants to an advance of £500 purchase money. As the Committee was aware, as the Clause stood it would shut out the whole of the evicted tenants with a valuation of over £20 a year if the
  448
  advance was limited to £500. Even if the Land Commissioners saw fit to extend the limit to £1,000 it would only admit evicted tenants whose valuation was below £40, and would shut out the rest. He would not labour the point, because everybody who knew Ireland knew that the effect of that would be to leave this delicate and difficult question in a more unsettled and angry condition than it had ever been before. It would inevitably have the appearance of a deliberate policy of vengeance against the very class who naturally had the strongest claims on the sympathy of their brother tenants, because they were the men who had sacrificed their holdings for the sake of their brother tenants. He was quite satisfied neither the Chief Secretary nor the Irish landlords were animated by any such vindictive and stupid motive, and he with confidence commended the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance. He could assure him that if he would accept this Amendment frankly now, he would be sending a message of peace that would give more satisfaction in Ireland than the message he had sent that afternoon.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 40, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'to persons other than those mentioned in Sub-section one (d) hereof."'—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DILLONsaid he attached the utmost importance to this Amendment. After what had occurred he hoped to see the whole of the evicted tenants in Ireland restored to their old holdings. If they desired to affect the imagination of Ireland let the landlords only restore the evicted tenants, and if they would do that they would do more than anything else they could do to assist the passage of this measure. Let them do that and show that there was a general desire on the part of the landlords to close this chapter of war—and open a chapter of peace; and it would affect immediately the imagination of the people of Ireland and do more to make the working of the Act easy than anything else. It was not a question of money; it was a question of

  449
  whether the war was to be prolonged or closed. He therefore desired to see before the Committee ended an intention on the part of Irish landlords to, as far as possible restore the evicted tenants to their old homes. This was a most important Amendment, and he hoped it would be accepted.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONunderstood the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to restore evicted tenants to their old homes, because the distressing circumstance of their eviction was mainly caused by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The landlords had no objection to restore an evicted tenant to his holding if it was not occupied, but they had the strongest objection to displacing a tenant for the purpose of restoring his predecessor who had been evicted.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he took it the hon. and gallant Member was in favour of the Amendment. The Amendment removed the disability which was in the Bill which applied to evicted tenants and not to other classes purchasing land. All they asked was that the condition of the evicted tenants should not be made worse than that of other people. He knew there was not the slightest feeling among Irish landlords against evicted tenants; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee that no distinction would be made.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he appreciated the importance of the point raised, but he could not see how it arose under this clause. He understood that it was desired that as many of these men as possible should return to their homes, and his hon. and gallant friend said that he desired that should be done. His desire would be to facilitate the solution of the question as much as possible, provided that no pressure was used to put in people who were not really farmers. He could accept no Amendment which would have that effect. He had intended to deal with the more important side of this question upon Clause 48, on which he should move at the end of the first subsection to insert the words—"Provided also that this sub-section shall not apply to the case of a former tenant or his
  450
  representative purchasing his former holding." He could not go as far as he was here asked to go. They were dealing with the quantity of land that was available. He was, as he had said, prepared to alter the £500 to £1,000 or £2,000, which would make it possible for an evicted tenant to get an advance to make a start in life. But he could not make any advance to evicted tenants against others.
  MR. KILBRIDEunderstood the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to be that, in the case of the evicted tenants who could not be restored to their former holdings, it would be impossible to give them an equivalent position to that which they had formerly held. The wounded soldiers of the land war must not be prejudiced by anything in this Bill if it was to promote a final settlement. In the case of a man who had had a holding at £100 rental, it would be impossible to put him in a corresponding position. By this limitation, a £100 evicted tenant would be turned into a £50 occupier. The whole case of the evicted tenants would be prejudiced. The main object of the Bill was to put an end to the land war, but if that end was to be achieved the wounded soldiers of the struggle must not be prejudiced by any provision of the Bill. The interest of the average Conservative Member in the Bill was to see the agrarian struggle settled in order that the Imperial interests of England all over the world might be settled. He really could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to give way on this point and leave to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners the amount to be advanced.
  MR. DILLONcontrasted the minuteness of the point as regarded the cost of the amount of land involved with its immense importance, from the point of view of public feeling in Ireland. The Chief Secretary was proposing to say to the few tenants it concerned — and it was only a few tenants, but they were the men who had made the largest sacrifices in the course of the struggle—that if he could not restore them to their old homes he would penalise them, and make it impossible for the Commissioners to give them holdings as good as those from

  451
  which they had been evicted. There were probably only a dozen or fifteen such men who would not come within the terms of the concession which the Chief Secretary had announced, but they were men who had a great hold on public opinion in their districts, and whose punishment would arouse the bitterest possible feeling. But what was it all for? The British taxpayer was not involved. The land was to be sold to somebody, and the British taxpayer would make the advance, no matter to whom it was sold. Moreover, the landlords had no objection. The sole point, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was that he had only a certain quantity of untenanted land, and that it would be a great mistake to give a large portion of that land to one man because he was an evicted tenant. He was influenced, not by the landlord's interest or the interest of the Treasury, but simply by a desire to do good to the Irish people. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be guided in a matter of this kind by local opinion. No doubt this was a matter of sentiment, but he did not suppose there were more than 1,000 or 2,000 acres of land in dispute, and he was confident that the right hon. Gentleman, on consideration, would see that this was a matter vital in importance.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would like to be allowed just to call to the mind of the Committee exactly what the Amendment meant. An overwhelming majority of the evicted tenants in Ireland were men who could be restored to their old holdings. The Chief Secretary had promised an Amendment which would deal satisfactorily with 99–100ths of these men. But there remained the one section of men whose farms had been "grabbed." Even of these cases the great majority would come in under the limitation of the right hon. Gentleman, and so it came to this, that they were now standing out for a limitation which would hit only a handful of men in Ireland. But in order to exclude these few men what were the Government going to do? They were going to leave a sore in Ireland which would not only have an evil effect in the localities where the men resided and where they were known, and where their old farms were, but also inflict
  452
  injury on every part of Ireland, cause irritation all over the country, and militate against the chances of the Bill being satisfactorily received and worked. What were they doing it for? The Irish landlords had no interest in the matter—they were perfectly content that this handful of men should be treated on the same basis as the rest of the evicted tenants. Then in Heaven's name what did the Government mean by it? Why were not these men to be treated on the same basis as the rest of the evicted tenants? There was no substance in the case of the right hon. Gentleman. He could give way on this point and admit these men without injury to his Bill and without imposing any more liabilities on British taxpayers. It would be like losing the ship for a pen'orth of tar if they imperilled the Bill on this point. He could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman would have any difficulty in giving way. He knew he was quite sympathetic on this evicted tenants question. He asked him not to stand on the mere symmetry of the clause; but to make this small concession which would be received, although so small, with even more satisfaction than the large concession given earlier in the evening. It might be a question of sentiment; but they could not leave sentiment out of the settlement of a question of this character, where they were trying to put an end to a social war and to bring classes together. He hoped, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would make the small concession they desired.
  MR. BLAKEsaid the purpose of this Bill was to create a sentiment of concord and conciliation in Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman had declared that for reasons the force of which he quite appreciated he was unable to meet public opinion in this particular matter now at issue. That was extremely unfortunate, but if these people could not be restored to their own homes, they ought so far to be placed in the same position, that no pecuniary limitation should interfere with their getting holdings equivalent to those from which they had been evicted. He hoped these tenants would not be made the worst of their class. He thought it would be the height of

  453
  unwisdom to mar the spirit and sentiment upon which this Bill depended by making thirty or forty martyrs and so many sources of disaffection without any question of the British taxpayer being involved. The least that could be done was to permit the new home to be of the same economic value as the old one. The number of persons affected was small, but the sentiment of the country was solid upon this question, and he implored the Chief Secretary to have regard to that sentiment and not mar the settlement of this question with a condition which one could not appreciate as being anything substantial at all.
  *MR. HEMPHILLappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. If the Committee had a free hand they would almost to a man vote in support of it. This proposal merely gave a discretion to the Land Commission to sell at the limitation price and to sell parcels of land to evicted tenants who could not be reinstated in their old homes. There was a provision to enable evicted tenants whose farms had not been occupied by other tenants to be reinstated. The object of this proposal was to give the Commissioners a discretion in regard to giving this land to men who had been driven out of house and home. There was no reason at all for making that invidious distinction. Under this clause they had authorised the Commissioners to sell to an evicted tenant a farm up to a certain limit, and by a subsequent clause they enabled evicted tenants to be restored to the farms which happened to be vacant. This third class of evicted tenants, who did not amount to more than twenty or thirty in the whole of Ireland, they were dealing with were a class whose farms had been taken by land-grabbers, and who were most anxious to be restored to their position of respectable tenant farmers, but who would be excluded if this Amendment were rejected.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet the view of Irish Members on this matter because it was really a very small question. He had taken the trouble in view of this debate to get a Return of the number of evicted tenants in the
  454
  county he represented, and the number was not very large. He doubted if a single one of those tenants would be affected by the point under discussion. He was equally certain that there were districts where a good deal of bad feeling would be created if a single evicted tenant was not included in the benefits of this Act. It was a very small matter, but it was one which would leave a good deal of trouble behind if it was not dealt with. The question of evicted tenants was one upon which a great amount of attention had been concentrated, and if it was found that any large number of evicted tenants were made to suffer under this Bill, it would have the effect of making other tenants hold off in the hope that they might be able to get better terms for those who had fought their battles. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not make up his mind adversely, and if he was not prepared to accept the Amendment at the present moment, perhaps he would undertake to inquire for himself and see if he could not verify the statements which had been made.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he attached great importance to this question. Otherwise he should not have gone as far as he had done and suggested that the limit should be extended to £2,000, nor should he have drafted an Amendment on Clause 48 which would admit of any man who had lost his holding, returning to it. The question was not as simple as some hon. Members would have them suppose. They had in mind some definite class of men. His Bill dealt with all persons who had lost or surrendered their holdings during the last twenty-five years, and it would be invidious if the Government were to endeavour to select out of those who had lost their holdings for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, during that period, a limited number. His effort had been to draw no distinction—let bygones be bygones—in putting facilities before those who had lost their holdings, to put the same facilities before all, and to give the same facilities to those who had lost their holdings as were given to other persons in Ireland who had farms which were not adequate to support their existence. There was

  455
  nothing vindictive or invidious in that. There was nothing in that which raised up a single memory of the bitter and unhappy past. The hon. Member for Clare had said that it would be regrettable if one evicted tenant were excluded from the benefits of the Bill. His words, perhaps, went somewhat further than his meaning. No evicted tenant was excluded from the Bill. But if they were to go up to a higher value than £2,000 there would be very great danger that some evicted tenants might be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. The amount at the disposal of the Government was limited, the classes to be relieved were many. Their means were small, their needs great, and he could not take the responsibility of asking the Committee to go further than he had indicated—viz., where it was possible to reinstate a tenant in his old holding to allow him to have the benefits which others enjoyed; but where it was not possible let him take his holding on equal terms with all other persons who sought the benefits of the Act, and come in on a scale which was higher than he had originally intended, and which would be dangerously high if he increased it to the exclusion of many who deserved to have their needs attended to, and, he believed, many of the evicted tenants.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he remembered a speech upon this question delivered two or three years ago by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, when he commenced his compulsory sale and purchase agitation. He did not pretend to quote the hon. Member accurately. What he meant was that he did not mean to quote him verbatim, but he intended to give the substance of what he said. The hon. Member stated that the landlord forgot the days when he was responsible for starting the Land Trust Company, and that was the medium through which evicted tenants were enabled to become occupiers. The Chief Secretary spoke about the amount of money being limited, but how much money would it take if he abandoned the £2,000 limit? Was he going to allow twenty of the wounded soldiers in the land war to continue in their present position because they were more active and more in the front of the
  456
  battle than other people? Was he going to continue to make them believe that the landlords of Ireland had succeeded in inducing him to continue to persecute them? That would be the result if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in refusing to accept this Amendment. He was sure that later on, when the right hon. Gentleman came to the section he had indicated his intention to amend, he would have in the meantime changed his mind.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary whether he could see his way to inquire for himself how many evicted tenants there were who could not be restored to old holdings of over £100, and who would be excluded from the benefits of this Act as it stood.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that he had been reproached for not having spoken on this subject. He refrained from speaking first of all because the subject under debate did not very much concern the part of the country he represented, and he therefore left the discussion to those who were likely to be interested He wished to say at once in justice to the Land Conference that he agreed there should be a settlement of this question, and he desired frankly to associate himself with hon. Members opposite in their contention. If he had not spoken it was because he did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill in a matter in which his own constituents and the province of Ulster were not largely concerned. It was perfectly true that in days gone by, when he thought proceedings were going on in Ireland which were not a credit to anybody, and which he thought were illegal, he took a strong line. He did not wish to go back on that. He desired to draw a sponge over those bitter memories. He did not think this was a large question, but he confessed that on the whole the words of the clause gave a chance of opening up a very great question because there was no definition of what an evicted tenant was save that he was a man evicted during the last twenty-five years. That was not the sense in which they understood the evicted tenants question. What they understood was that an evicted tenant was a man

  457
  who had suffered during the prolonged agony of the land war, and tonight he desired to start with a clean slate on the question. He was with his hon. friends opposite, and he trusted that in the interests of peace and good feeling this open sore would not be left to mar the Bill.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid he wished to make an explanation. The Chief Secretary had indicated that he was prepared to accept the principle of the two Amendments he had on the Paper to enlarge the £500 limit to £1,000, and similarly £1,000to £2,000. He wished to explain to his hon. friends from Ireland that he had placed these Amendments on the Paper with the fullest intention of endeavouring from the point of view of an English Member to cover the case of the evicted tenants, the one point to which he attached almost more importance than any other in the Bill. He did not care to propose these Amendments now, as they might act in a restrictive sense. He thought the speech of the hon. Member for Cork and his Amendment did represent what was a fair and just line in dealing with this question. He most warmly supported as an English Liberal the demand that this open sore, which though small was irritating, should not be allowed to fester and create further trouble in the settlement of the Irish land question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he entirely reciprocated the spirit in which the hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke as to the desirability of not mentioning those controversies associated with the past in the land struggle. Really, the reason they were pressing on the Government this apparently small point was the desire that a new chapter in the land question of Ireland should be opened in that spirit. He did not wish to use any language which might appear to be too strong, but at the same time he could not but impress upon the Committee the enormous importance to the future of Ireland of this comparatively small point with which they were dealing. In all wars there was a point of honour, which though
  458
  apparently small itself had really infinitely larger results upon the future of the reconciled foes than many other points of greater magnitude and importance. The question of the evicted tenants was to the people of Ireland something like the exchange of prisoners in a campaign. The people expected the Irish representatives to see that these men were rescued from the position in which their patriotism and their desire for the good of their fellow tenants had landed them. The large holders who were evicted were a class who were entitled to appeal to them more strongly than those who had risked small amounts. Many of the smaller holders were face to face with chronic starvation, and if they risked their holdings they ran a comparatively small risk, but the large farmers in many cases were in a comparatively comfortable position. They were ready to risk, and in many cases to lose, good homes and farms in order to improve the position of their poorer brethren. It would be a shame on their part to desert these men. That was the feeling of the Irish people in regard to this matter. The spirit in which this Bill was received in Ireland would have a large amount to do with its success when it came into operation. The fight they had made on those benches had been inspired by the feeling that unless this Bill had the active co-operation of all forces in Ireland it would not have the great results they all desired it to have. They felt that if this question remained unsettled there would be a feeling of dissatisfaction, and, what was more, a feeling of strong and bitter indignation, which he was sure would have very serious effects indeed upon the future working of the measure.
  That was the question from the sentimental point of view. Now he came down to concrete facts. The Chief Secretary seemed to be under the delusion that this was in point of numbers and money a large question; it was nothing of the kind. He thought he could count on the fingers of his two hands all the men to whom this question would apply. There were a few on

  459
  the Luggacurran Estate, the Massereene estate, and the Clanricarde Estate. The Clanricarde Estate was a synonym for the fiercest aspect of the land war in Ireland during the last twenty years. There were 100 families evicted there, and they were still evicted. But there were just two of these families who would come under the Amendment with which they were now dealing. He took the Clanricarde Estate because there the landlord was most exacting in his demands and cruel in asserting them, and there the tenants made the strongest opposition. The right hon. Gentleman was giving to Ireland a great and revolutionary measure of reform. He was sending to Ireland a mighty message of peace; and was it worth while to deface and destroy to a large extent the kindly feeling and sense of relief with which the Irish people would see the end of this struggle of centuries, by excluding from the benefit of the Act two families on the estate in Ireland which had been the scene of the fiercest and wildest controversy? On the Luggacurran Estate there were six or seven families who were affected by this Amendment. That was the estate of the Marquess of Lansdowne, a member of the Ministry, and one of the men responsible for the introduction of this Bill. He was sure the noble Lord was most desirous that it should pass into law. He was a man of sense, judgment, and tact, and he did not believe that he would for a moment say that these six or seven tenants were to stand between Ireland and a satisfactory settlement of the question. He did not know what the figures were in regard to the Massereene Estate, but he knew that there was great bitterness of feeling on that estate, and he knew also that as long as there were some people not settled that part of the country would remain in a discontented condition.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this Evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 40, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'to persons other than those mentioned in Sub-section one (d) hereof.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. ROCHEwho was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that he supported this Amendment. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent there were 100 families, the whole of which, with the exception of two, would be included in the operation of the Bill. Under the circumstances he appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to leave any source of trouble, but give the Bill every chance of fair play by accepting the Amendment.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid the point that the Committee were now on was of very considerable importance, but was, at the same time, in itself a very small point. He was inclined to think there had been some misunderstanding with regard to the position of the Chief Secretary, who did not wish to sever Class D from Classes A, B and C. He was thoroughly in accord with that; it would be the greatest possible mistake to make a definite distinction between those four classes, each of whom it might be desirable should hold untenanted land in Ireland. But although these four classes ought to be treated as one, there were a good many reasons why, in each of these classes, very much larger holdings might be granted to

  461
  various persons. It was perfectly clear that on some estates there would be very little land available, and it might be inconvenient to have laid down in the Bill anything by which persons got more land than the limits laid down by the Bill. But he could imagine an estate which had a considerable amount of land to dispose of. For instance, they might have the demesne land. A man might want to go out of Ireland altogether, and wish to sell his demesne—he hoped that such a thing would not occur, but it might, and there would then be a considerable amount of land to be disposed of—it would therefore be very convenient if the Land Commissioners or the Estates Commissioners should have power to very considerably exceed the limits laid down by the Bill for advances to tenants of each class. He made no distinction between them, and much disliked such a distinction being made in the Act of Parliament.
  Class D is the one of which hon. Gentleman opposite thought most, and they would consider that the most important part of this Bill was that they should be satisfied. He could imagine a case where they had a very good tenant on the holding, and where they had a considerable amount of land which they were going to cut up into small holdings. The owners of those small holdings would be labourers. No one would suggest for a moment that they would be able to live out of their holdings, and they would have to seek work elsewhere. Labour was a very important item in Irish economy. Now in cutting up these large pieces of land which fell in to the Commissioners, they would create a considerable body of labourers, and it was desirable therefore that there should be persons roundabout who could give employment to them. The only person who could do that was what was called in Ireland the strong farmer, and therefore the wisest discretion that the Estate Commissioners could exercise would be to create in the middles of these tracts two or three good-sized farms, which they could grant to substantial persons, and it might well be that a tenant or a son of a tenant who had a holding on the estate would be one of the best persons to whom the
  462
  Land Commissioners could give a large holding on the estate which had fallen into their hands, which must be allotted to somebody; therefore there were two classes who might easily be made tenants of such large holdings.
  The Class B tenants might also be excellent persons to take a large farm, but on the whole it was not likely that they would be. The tenant in Class C was in the position of a small farmer, and it was possible that he might not be able to take a large farm; but taking the extreme case, he might have a large capital or he might be a man more skilled in his occupation than many holding similar holdings, and in that case it might well be that he would be a proper person to allot a large farm to. Then came Class D itself. The man who was in Class D was a large farmer and not a suitable person to put upon a small farm. Every man in Ireland was a farmer, and everybody knew perfectly well that a man who was accustomed to cultivate a small farm was not a likely person to cultivate equally well a large farm, and in the same way a man who was accustomed to cultivate a large farm was not the best person to put to cultivate a small farm. If they had a considerable amount of land on their hands they were not so careful as they ought to be about their fences, and they were not likely to be as careful when growing large crops as the man who was in the habit of growing small. If this scheme stood exactly as it was upon the Paper, the person who had been a large farmer would only be able to become a comparatively small farmer. The limit of purchase was £2,000, and that was not likely necessarily to place him in anything like the position that he had been in before, and assuming that he had retained his old experience he would not be able to carry on his business in the same style as he had been previously accustomed to carry it on. He did not for a moment overlook the sense of soreness that might exist in these districts of Ireland on the part of those persons who by the Act itself were prevented from being placed in the position they were before, but he was a little surprised to hear that the number of them was so few, and it was exceedingly satisfactory to know that so few would be left out

  463
  of the Bill. But the effect of it would be to leave a soreness in future, and while the point in dispute was small and trivial, it was an item not to be left out of the account. Their object was to prevent any feeling of soreness. The particular Amendment they had under discussion was at the beginning of the second Sub-section of Clause 2, which related to the advances that might be made and to make this exception: "After 'section' to insert 'to persons other than those mentioned in Sub-section 1 here of.'"
  The objection to inserting those direct words was that it made a distinction between Class D and Classes A, B, and C, and to that distinction he objected. In his opinion this Amendment was a mistake. They wanted the Bill to work, and having regard to what he had previously said he thought the Land Commissioners ought to be able to make advances to any extent they thought fit, under exceptional circumstances, to members of any one of these Classes A, B, C, and D. The actual effect of that, so far as the landlords were concerned, would be to increase the number of purchasers. They gave to the landlord another class to whom they could sell, which in itself was a benefit to the landlord. It was, therefore, a direct advantage to the landlord, but the suggestion that he would make to the Chief Secretary was this—he would not at this moment suggest any special words, and it would be unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do so either, but he would suggest that a general power should be given to the Land Commissioners, under exceptional circumstances, to increase the advances throughout the whole of these classes, and that the Amendment should be withdrawn on an undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman that he would, before the Report stage, consider this matter and place upon the Paper an Amendment giving power to the Land Commissioners to travel beyond the limitations laid down in this clause.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid they had heard the speech of the hon. Member with considerable satisfaction. The concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made with regard to this Bill were very great, and extremely little was now
  464
  necessary to make the settlement complete, but he would point out that there was considerable danger of a wide-spread feeling of bitterness and disappointment being created where the right hon. Gentleman, if he chose, could create wide-spread satisfaction. He could not too strongly impress upon the Chief Secretary the fact that this was exactly one of those questions which went to the very root of Irish feeling and which might have a very serious effect indeed on the spirit in which this Bill would be received, and might endanger the result of the conciliatory efforts of the last six months. He would remind the Chief Secretary that the Land Conference came to the unanimous conclusion that an equitable settlement of the evicted tenants question was an indispensable condition of success. The speech to which they had just listened proved conclusively that there was no objection to this Amendment on the part of the landlords; and it would be ten thousand pities if the settlement was marred by a provision which would add insult to injury in the case of these small numbers of evicted tenants. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to find some compromise; and he believed his friends around him would not find much difficulty in closing with the hon. and learned Member's suggestion that the Estate Commissioners should be empowered to make additional advances in special and exceptional circumstances, and in all categories. He was not in the least disposed to be unreasonable. They recognised that the Chief Secretary had realised the importance of this question, and that he had already made important concessions; but he would beg the Chief Secretary to complete a good day's work by deferring to Irish opinion on this matter, remembering how splendidly the Irish people had behaved in reference to the whole of this settlement.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he joined entirely in the spirit which animated the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney. He wished to endorse very much what had been said; and hon. Gentlemen opposite would thoroughly understand that those who represented the landlords' interest had no spirit of violent antagonism. Although this question seemed simple on the surface it was really complicated. They

  465
  had to recognise that if the scope of the Bill was increased to meet the case of men whose holdings had not been occupied that would create a new grievance on the part of those tenants whose holdings were occupied, because they could not take advantage of the Bill. His view was that it would be far better to withdraw the Amendment, if the Chief Secretary was prepared to look into the matter, and see whether it could be dealt with in a spirit of justice and fair play to the men who had exercised their legal rights, and were in occupation of holdings others now wanted to resume.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he appreciated to the full the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, who was really anxious to see justice done all round. The hon. and learned Member for South Hackney had made a suggestion which, if adopted by the Chief Secretary, would enable them to find a way out of the difficulty. He hoped the Chief Secretary would accede to the request made on behalf of the Irish landlords—viz., that there should be given a discretionary power to the Estate Commissioners to exceed the limits in special circumstances.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had been very much impressed by the speeches made on this question, not only by their matter, but also by their tone and tenor, and by the evident desire of everyone to settle the question in such a way as to make it a real settlement. But he would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to realise that, oddly enough, he, who was responsible for the Bill, spoke on each point which arose under certain disabilities—possibly because his attention had been so absorbed by the Bill during the last few months, that there rushed into his mind many points which might be affected by a hasty decision on any one point. He had endeavoured, according to the facilities at his disposal, to deal with this question impartially, and that might have led him to take too rigid, too economic a view when he was asked to dispense so large areas of Irish land. Perhaps the most burning question in Ireland was the increase of holdings which were too small; and when
  466
  other questions were brought before him, there was a tendency on his part to be niggardly in respect of squandering the acreage of Irish land available for that purpose. But a purely practical view was not always the wisest view. The hon. Member for Cork said that this evicted tenants' question was made a cardinal feature in the Conference Report; and the hon. Member for South Hackney, and the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, on behalf of the landlords of Ireland, said: "We admit your difficulty, and as far as we are concerned, we do not wish to stand in the way of a full settlement of the question." They dwelt on the necessity of allowing nothing in the Bill to bring pressure to bear directly or indirectly on men who had taken up holdings which others had left, and to that he agreed. It was with regret that he could not accept the Amendment. But, having said that, might he add that it must be evident to all who had listened to the discussion that it had tended more and more to become a conflict between the point of honour maintained by hon. Members opposite, and the question of principle maintained by himself? Conflicts of that kind were apt to become prolonged and acrimonious, and to swing further and further away from the practical issue. He understood the point of view of hon. Members opposite. It did not affect the taxpayer, or the mortgagee, or the landlord; to that he agreed. But he was entitled to say, also, that it did not affect the tenant who now occupied a farm from which somebody had been evicted. Whom, then, did it affect? It affected all parties in Ireland to whom it would be very expedient and desirable that further accommodation should be granted. That had been present to his mind throughout these debates. He had insisted, and must continue to insist, upon the equal treatment of men in all the categories in Clause 2. If any settlement was to embrace the point of honour and the question of principle, there must be equal treatment meted out to all those who ought to be given, if it could be managed, greater opportunities for carrying on the industry of agriculture in Ireland.
  In dealing with the category of those who once had an occupying tenancy in land, and had lost it, they

  467
  must not stop to inquire for what reason, or under what circumstances they had lost their tenancies. They could not pick out here and there those who were misguided, others who had been fraudulent, and others who had been misled. If they did that they would be raking up the past. They must not look beyond this: that it was desirable, if they could, to give these men another chance. There must be inside the category those who had been evicted from or who had surrendered their holdings in despair and had gone to America, and afterwards come back. There must be equal opportunities given to all, and there should be no line or phrase in the Bill which would give an advantage in the race of life to any set of men over another set of men. If that were so, and that had been the consideration which had determined the Clause as it stood, surely hon. Members from Ireland would agree that the problem was a difficult one, and the hon. Member for Cork would not ask him now, after an hour-and-a-half's debate, to improvise an alternative plan to the one he had constructed in order to meet all the difficult points. He had present to his mind cases other than those dealt with in the Clause in which it might be desirable to enlarge the scheme. Take the case of removing a certain number of small men to untenanted land, and setting them up within reasonable limits with holdings of fifteen or twenty acres. It might be eminently desirable to induce one large farmer to move in order to give employment to the sons of these small men, and it would be a pity, he frankly admitted, if such hard and fast lines were introduced into the Bill as would prevent him holding out a sufficient inducement to the large farmer to move. Again, he would take another case laid before him by his colleagues on the Congested Districts Board. In the far west of Ireland it was not easy to get the poorest men on the worst holdings to undertake the, to them, great adventure of moving into better holdings at higher rents. One might demonstrate to them that another farm on a purchase instalment of £10 or £12 a year would be a much better bargain for them than their present holding at 30s. or £2. They dared not face the risk; they would not move;
  468
  they would sooner give up the battle of life than take his word, or the word of the Congested Districts Board, that it would be wise for them to go into a faraway country among men they had never seen, and undertake an obligation far heavier than any they had before borne. It was therefore better to induce the big men to move, so that the small men around them might have their holdings extended. But it was necessary to offer these big farmers an equivalent elsewhere, and if he adhered to the absolutely rigid limits laid down in the clause, he would be very much hampered in his efforts to cure this disease of congestion. He could not undertake to accept the Amendment, or to announce that night a policy of his own. He would reconsider the matter, and see whether it would not be a wiser manner of carrying out the policy he had at heart to give some discretion to the Estates Commissioners, in certain circumstances, to admit exceptions, when it was for the general good of the community. He did not wish to deceive the Committee by promising more than he could fulfil. To extend the opportunities afforded by the Bill would naturally add to the difficulties of administration; the more people to whom they gave those opportunities the harder it would be to carry on the work rapidly. When he came to deal with the question, he would ask the representatives of all classes in Ireland to bear in mind that the amount of land available for the purpose was not unlimited; and the claims for the equitable distribution of that land among those who stood in need of additional land to enable them to fight the battle of life must receive, and would receive, his most careful consideration.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he was sure that the Irish people would be satisfied with the tone, temper, and spirit of the Chief Secretary's speech. He had not the slightest desire to coerce the right hon. Gentleman to improvise a plan for enlarging the powers of the Estates Commissioners in dealing with the evicted tenants, and, therefore, he had great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," and agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORmoved to insert after "owner," in line 13, the words, "who for five years prior to the passing of this Act has been resident for more than six months of each year in Ireland." His object was to confine the benefits of the clause to resident landlords. This clause enabled a landlord to sell his demesne for hard cash, and to buy it back on credit. That was a very large concession to the landlords, the object being to encourage them to remain resident in Ireland. But at the same time they ought not to enable absentee landlords by a transaction of that kind to make a large sum of money by re-selling his demesne for cash after he had re-purchased it on credit. That would only be a premium on absenteeism. They did not want to put more money into the pockets of those landlords who drew large sums from Ireland, spent the money elsewhere, and never contributed a farthing towards the encouragement of local industries, or for the improvement of the condition of the people. There were landlords drawing £10,000, £15,000 and £20,000 a year from Ireland who had not been in the country for twenty-five or thirty years. Lord Clanricarde, for instance, had not set foot in Ireland since 1873, yet all that time he had been drawing £25,000 yearly from the country, and he had absolutely refused to give one farthing back. He desired that the cases of these men should be separated from the case of genuine resident landlords. He only asked the Committee to accept the principle. He was quite willing to agree to any Amendment to vary the term of six months mentioned in his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 13, after the word 'owner' to insert the words 'who for five years prior to the passing of this Act has been resident for more than six months of each year in Ireland.'"—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBpointed out the difficulty of defining who was a nonresident landlord. The hon. Member, of all men, ought to remember the large number of Irishmen whose brilliant
  470
  careers in the Army, the Navy, the Diplomatic and Consular Service and the Civil Service made it impossible for them to spend half the year in Ireland. Were these men to be penalised because they had not remained idle at home? The Amendment could hardly be seriously intended, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to proceed with the discussion of more important questions.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the principle of the clause ought to be conceded, although the State ought not to lend money to men who did not need it or ask for it. There were not very many of these distinguished soldiers, sailors, and diplomats mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member who had demesnes in Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Oh, yes, there are. There are two close by my place.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLdoubted if there were many of that class who wanted the money. If the principle of the Amendment were approved they ought to modify the provision as to the six months' residence every year.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am quite willing to lessen the period.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas glad to hear that. He was simply contending for the principle, and under the circumstances he would be inclined to suppotr the hon Member's Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid this was a very important Amendment so far as the principle was concerned. The Chief Secretary had dwelt with great force on the scarcity of land which would be at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of enlarging holdings. Now, there were in Ireland a considerable number of derelict estates and demesnes, and it would be deplorable if they were prevented from the possibility of passing into the hands of the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board. What had occurred in the case of the Dillon Estate? Neither Lord Dillon nor his father had ever used the residence on that estate, and he doubted if they visited it more than once in ten years.

  471
  Very wisely, when he had the chance Lord Dillon sold the whole estate, and part of the demesne was used by the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of the surrounding tenants. The next result would be that the poor tenantry would have no chance at all. Was that a reasonable use to put public money to? He considered the concession of allowing the landlords to sell their demesnes for their full cash value and purchase them back again was a very big concession. He, however, did not oppose it in the case of any landlord who could be held to be a resident landlord, or of any man who desired to use a demesne for himself and his family. The right hon. Gentleman talked of distinguished Irish soldiers and civil servants who might wish to return to Ireland. He would not dream of opposing purchase in their case; but there were in Ireland a large number of demesnes which had not been used as residence for many years and which were derelict. It was most desirable that they should pass into the hands of the Commissioners or of the Congested District Board for the purpose of enlarging surrounding small holdings; and it would be deplorable if the Commissioners were to lose all chance of getting possession of demesnes of that kind. He would rather give a special bonus in such cases, in order that the land might be available for the purpose of enlarging small holdings.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would, on consideration, see that it was scarcely workable.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he offered to modify the Amendment if its principle were accepted.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that in addition it was almost impossible to select any form of words which would define rationally what a resident landlord was. Everyone would admit it to be desirable that a landlord who had lived in the country, and who intended to live in the country, should be able to purchase, and also that it was even more desirable to sell to men who hereafter would reside in Ireland. It was said, however, that some persons would buy who did not
  472
  intend to reside. He thought that this was an unsubstantial argument, for why should any man wish to buy who did not intend to reside? [AN HON. MEMBER: To sell.] First of all, such a purchaser could not sublet, and purchasers were not likely to flock from different parts of the world in order to buy property which was surrounded by a number of peasant proprietors. As to buying demesnes as a speculation, he thought that was one of the most visionary notions it was possible to entertain.
  MR. ASHTONsaid he had put down an Amendment to reject the clause. He could not agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the demesne lands should be used for the purpose of putting tenants upon them. When Mr. Gladstone's Bill was brought in in 1886 demesnes were left out altogether. He did not see why the British taxpayer should be asked to advance money for the purchase of demesnes. He could understand the British taxpayer lending money to buy out small tenants in Ireland; but he did not think they ought to be called upon to find money for other purposes. It was proposed that the Land Commission should buy up the landlords' demesnes, and sell them back to the landlords again.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled, on this Amendment, to enter on a general discussion of the clause.
  MR. ASHTONsaid that in that case he would reserve his remarks.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid that as regarded the merits of the clause the Irish Members on both sides were entirely agreed. The general object of the clause, as he understood it, was to enable landlords who desired to reside on their property in Ireland to do so. With that proposal he entirely and cordially agreed, because not only would it enable Irishmen—and after all landlords were Irishmen—to live in their native land and discharge their duties in connection with local affairs, but it would also enable them to spend in Ireland the money they would derive from the sale

  473
  of their land. Then the question was whether it was desirable to impose these restrictions in connection with an object which was admittedly desirable. He submitted that, as a matter of fact, the restrictions proposed were not practically possible. Again, they all knew that in the course of the last few years there were certain Irish landlords who, for reasons on which he would not now enter, were unable to live in Ireland; and it would be most desirable that in the new period of peace and harmony which he trusted would result from the operation of the Bill, that those landlords would be able to return to Ireland and live there. If the Amendment were accepted they would, however, be shut out from the operation of the clause. He sympathised with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division in not desiring to give Lord Clanricarde an opportunity of purchasing his demesne; but, as he understood the clause, it was not compulsory on the Land Commission to purchase the landlord's demesne. The Commissioners would have a certain amount of discretion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if the discretion were made quite clear he would be perfectly satisfied.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid that the words in the Bill were "may purchase." He ventured to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment was not workable; but he hoped it would be made clear that some discretion would be given to the Land Commission in certain cases.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if the discretion of the Land Commission were made perfectly clear he would be satisfied. He did not stand by the exact words of his Amendment. The clause was intended to encourage landlords to reside in Ireland, and absentee landlords should not be allowed to take advantage of it. Connaught was a country of derelict mansions and derelict estates. His hon. friend the Member for East Mayo referred to one case where the residence had not been used, or usable, for a considerable number of years, the demesne being let to graziers. The right hon. Gentleman was quite in accord with the Irish Members in
  474
  the object they had in view in endeavouring to obtain land in order to increase small holdings, and a clause such as that before the Committee would probably defeat their purpose. He was rather surprised at the speech of the Attorney-General. The right hon Gentleman was kind enough to give him a lecture on law the other night. He would return the compliment by giving him a lecture on letters, and telling him that ever since the days of Maria Edge-worth everyone in Ireland knew what was meant by an absentee landlord. If the right hon Gentleman would give them an assurance that he would endeavour to make a distinction between absentee landlords and resident landlords, he would be satisfied.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he fully recognised that the hon. Member did not stand by the exact terms of his Amendment, but would not any attempt to define what a resident landlord was give umbrage to the whole class of landlords? Could they find any term which would not sweep away at one blow the hope, perhaps long cherished by the landlord, to live at home, and would it not be open to landlords to say that the House of Commons had come to a hasty decision on this point? Further, would it not place an obstruction in the very path which the hon. Gentleman wished to follow? Might it not be a point of honour with Irish landlords not to sell, because certain landlords were debarred from entering into their property in full? They were asked by the Land Conference to allow a free deal between landlord and tenant; but if this clause had not been brought in, the landlord who arranged a sale himself would be penalised as against the landlord who sold to the Land Commission. Again, there were cases in which the landlord could not sell to his tenants unless by some such transaction as that which would be governed by this clause. Certain sums of money were liberated; and in those cases the effective operation of the Amendment would be to stop the sale. If they were not to handicap free bargaining as between landlord and tenant, then the clause should stand. The hon. Gentleman said there ought to be some discretion. There was discretion. Under another clause the Commissioners would have power to define

  475
  what an estate was. If a landlord desired to retain, say, 3,000 acres in his own hands, the Commissioners might decide that the bargain was not good enough, and they might make it a condition that they should be given, say, 500 acres more for the purpose of enlarging small holdings.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid as he saw no chance of convincing the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to make it quite clear that the Land Commission had power to purchase demesne land not only in cases where the landlord sold to his tenants, but also in cases where the landlord sold to the Land Commission itself. That power was implied in other clauses of the Bill, but it did not seem to be clear in this case. In Clauses 1 and 3 the word "estate" did not include demesne land, while if it was said that in Clause 5 the Land Commission had power to purchase demesne land from the landlord under the words "purchase the estate" his answer was that the word had a different meaning from that in Clauses 1 and 3. His only object was to make the point quite clear, and he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 13, to leave out from the word, 'has,' to the third 'the,' in line 15, and insert 'agreed to sell the estate under the Lands Purchase Acts to the Land Commission or otherwise.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMthought the hon. and learned Member had placed this Amendment on the Paper under a misconception. The case of the sale of an estate embracing the demesne to the Land Commission was dealt with in Subsection (2) of this clause. Sub-section (1) dealt only with the case of a landlord who had made arrangements with his tenants, and it was inserted in order that the landlord should not suffer by adopting that method of procedure.
  476
  If there was any discrepancy it arose from the fact that he had drafted this sub-section from the Bill of last year to meet the wishes of the Land Conference, and the general desire in Ireland that a man who made his own arrangements with his tenants should not lose the advantage possessed by the man who sold his estate in the ordinary sense of the term to the Land Commission.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONunderstood the point of his hon. and learned friend to be that, whereas Sub-section (2) said—
  "Where a parcel of an estate purchased by the Land Commission is resold to the vendor"
  there was no power in the Bill enabling the Land Commission to purchase.
  MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that it was no use endeavouring to raise questions appertaining to sales to the Land Commission on a sub-section dealing with sales other than to the Land Commission. Sub-section (1) dealt only with cases in which the landlord did not sell to the Land Commission. If there was any doubt as to what happened when he did sell to the Commission, the point should be discussed on Sub-section (2).
  MR. BUTCHERsaid it was mainly a matter of drafting, and if the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the Land Commission had power, without the Amendment, to purchase demesne land, he was quite content.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYmoved an Amendment which, with a subsequent Amendment lower on the Paper, would enable the Land Commission, in the case referred to in the clause, to purchase "land in his (the landlord's) own use within a mile of his residence" instead of "land in his occupation and adjacent to the estate." He explained that the Amendment was directed against the eleven months' system. At present landlords who had grazing land let out on eleven months' tenancies were technically and legally in occupation of that land, so that unless the clause were amended in the manner suggested by the Amendment

  477
  all the professions of the right hon. Gentleman of anxiety to have the available land divided amongst the tenants of the smaller holdings would go for nought. The Bishops of Connaught had considered this question, and at a meeting, over which the Archbishop of Tuam presided, the following resolution was passed:
  "That no landlord should be enabled out of public money practically to purchase from himself any land outside his residential demesne, nor should any persons be allowed to purchase non-residential holdings except on condition of making them residential, and the money granted for this purpose should not in any case exceed £10,000."
  He contended that unless the right hon. Gentleman struck out the word "occupation" and inserted the words he proposed he would not be acting in accordance with public opinion in the West of Ireland. The grazing lands in Roscommon were all in the occupation of the landlords, being let on the eleven months' grazing system, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended that lands of that description should be sold under this clause and the smaller tenants deprived of the chance of securing the land. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to make this further concession.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the word 'occupation,' and insert 'own use.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'occupation' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if he acceded to the request of the hon. Member he would defeat the object of the hon. Member, his own object, and the object of the Bishops of Connaught. The clause provided "the Land Commission may purchase from him any demesne or other land in his occupation." If he accepted the Amendment the Land Commission would not be able to buy anything except the demesne, and the land in the occupation of the landlord would remain unbought. That could not be the hon. Member's intention. The desire was that the Land Commission should secure such land, and then, as the clause went on to provide, re-sell the whole or part of it to the landlord, but it
  478
  was necessary that the Commission should obtain the whole of it if they were to carry out any of the objects of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not pretend wholly to understand the Western question, but it was one thing to say that the Land Commission might purchase lands in a man's occupation, but an entirely different thing to say they might purchase land in a man's use. The word in the clause was "occupation," and that would include the land let out by these Connaught landlords on the eleven months' system. Was that desirable? The object of his hon. friend was to limit the provision to cases where the landlord had attached to his demesne a home park or land of which he was in "effective" occupation. If the land was let for twelve months the landlord would not get the benefit of the clause, but because it was let for eleven months the landlord was to be allowed to have the benefit of State credit to acquire the land into his own hands, and having so acquired it, to become a fresh landlord. He desired to prevent the re-starting of landlordism in connection with these eleven months' lettings. If the landlord was in effective occupation of his demesne and of land adjacent thereto he was welcome to work, use, and enjoy it. But his hon. friend had taken a very acute point which would not have occurred to anybody who was not intimately acquainted with these lettings, and had pointed out that there were many landlords who were not in effective occupation, but who enjoyed rentals out of these "floating" tenancies on the eleven months' system. It seemed to him that his hon. friend, who lived in the heart of the district chiefly concerned, had put down an Amendment which went to the root of the question, and be hoped the right hon. Gentleman, as he had not taken up a definite position on the matter, would give the point his consideration.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid they had no objection to a landlord's getting back his demesne and the land which was in his own use and occupation, but they did object to his getting hold of the land which he let out to graziers. He was not sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's clause did not meet their view, because at the end of the sub-sections

  479
  there came the words "may resell the whole or any portion" to the landlord. Did that mean that the Land Commission had the right to refuse to resell to the landlord land which was not in his demesne, and was not in his own use and occupation, but was let for grazing purposes?
  MR. TULLYwas afraid the Chief Secretary did not know much about the condition of things in Roscommon, Mayo, or the other grazing counties. Lord Dudley was now living in Roscommon, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consult him he would find that this Amendment would remove a very real blot on the Bill. The castle where Lord Dudley was living could, under the terms of the Bill, be sold to the owners of the estate; but they owned also three-fourths of the plains of Boyle, which were let on eleven months' tenancies as grazing lands. Under the provisions of this section, the owners of the estate could buy not only Rockingham demesne but also three-fourths of the plains of Boyle. In that case, where were the small farmers of the district to get any land on which to settle?
  MR. WYNDHAMwas afraid they were somewhat at cross purposes. Whenever he found himself in disagreement with the hon. and learned Member for North Louth on a drafting point he felt the matter required to be looked at. But in any case this Amendment was proposed at a point which dealt with the Land Commission buying land, whereas it should come in the provision relating to the selling of the land, so that by accepting the Amendment he would prevent the Land Commission acquiring land which was necessary for the objects they had at heart. It was clear that the Amendment could not come in at this point because the Commission must have the option of buying the land. Further on they would come to the words "may resell the whole or any portion." The arguments of hon. Members opposite had all been directed to showing there must be a limitation placed on the discretion of the Land Commission in re-selling, not on their power of buying, and when they came to the words he had quoted the matter could be further argued as to the wisdom of fettering the discretion
  480
  of the Land Commission in so intricate a matter. The Commission had many methods for entering into arrangements satisfactory to all parties, but he questioned whether it would be wise to say that they would not sell to the landlord any property of a certain description under any circumstances.
  MR. DILLONagreed with the view as to drafting expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, he thought it would be necessary to put some words into the clause to prevent the grazing lands from being resold without a discretion being given to the Land Commission. He thought it would be better to accept the suggestion of the Chief Secretary to discuss the matter on the question of resale.
  MR. T. M. HEALYadmitted that technically the Chief Secretary might be right, but insisted that the effect of the clause would be that the Land Commission might resell to the landlord, and therefore recreate and reconstitute the exact condition of affairs which was objected to by his hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim. He thought they had made a good point. He did not think land let for eleven months ought to be repurchased by the estate owners and resold to the landlord. That would be a real genuine grievance. Take for example a Connaught landlord with his land let upon the eleven months' system. His land might be repurchased and he might then do as he pleased. He was surprised that his hon. friends did not protest against that proposal, because it was the Connaught land grievance. It seemed to him that every Connaught man in that House ought to rise up and support his hon. friend in protesting against this clause. This clause enabled the Connaught landlord to buy back his eleven months' tenancies and establish eleven months' lettings with the sanction and the money of the British Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it seemed to be assumed by his hon. and learned friend that the Land Commission instead of taking steps to increase holdings in the west of Ireland was about to do the contrary. He did not suppose that anybody imagined that the Land Commission would deliberately resell to

  481
  the landlords considerable lands which ever body admitted should be as far as possible distributed amongst the people in the West of Ireland whose holdings were inadequate. If there was the slightest chance of doing that everybody would be in favour of an Amendment to guard against it. The Chief Secretary had told them that the Land Commission had no such intention, but on the contrary that they acquired those lands not to resell them to the landlords but to increase the number of holdings in the West of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that this was not the propel point at which to deal with the question. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had explained that he had only introduced the Amendment at this stage in order to raise a discussion on the point. Under these circumstances he thought the Amendment might be withdrawn. There was no doubt that the Commissioners would not buy eleven months' grazing land merely to resell it to the landlords except in a certain case which might arise. Supposing they put in a statutory prohibition on the resale of any such land and here was a poor landlord with his estate heavily mortgaged who would not sell unless he would get enough money to pay off his mortgage. By putting in a prohibition of this kind they might prevent the sale of such estates. Although he agreed with the object of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, he thought it would be a mistake to put in a rigid restriction. He felt sure the Commissioners would use their discretion to carry out the object which the hon. and learned Member had in view.
  MR. T. M. HEALY, on the distinct understanding that the matter would be reconsidered, advised his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. TULLYsaid he did not want to have any particular honour or glory for it, and was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment and hand it over to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, after the word "adjacent to," to insert "or in the neighbourhood of."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson,).
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would only formally move his Amendment, because he was convinced from the speech of the Chief Secretary that his proposal was in the wrong place, and would interfere with the power of the Commissioners to buy; his object was only to limit their discretion as to reselling. This might be a Connaught problem, but it was also an Irish problem. There were many cases all over Ireland where landlords had let large portions of their demesne as grazing land, and that was an evil which they would have to press upon the right hon. Gentleman. He formally proposed his Amendment in order to make his position clear. As a Connaught man he did not feel it his duty to prevent the Laud Commission from buying. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would formally consider this question.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'provided that no part of said last-mentioned land has, during the five years prier to the passing of this Act, been let for the purposes of pasture or upon any agreement for agistment or temporary depasturage of same."'—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TULLYhoped it would be clearly understood that eleven months' lands would be outside the power of the landlords to repurchase. Like the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, he had put down his Amendment in the wrong place.
  MR. DILLONsuggested that the case might be met by giving the Commission power to resell the demesne and such portions of the other land as in their judgment was not necessary for the enlargement of the holding or the creation of new holdings. That, he submitted,

  483
  would meet the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman, leaving absolute discretion to the Commission, and giving them an indication of what was the policy of the Government. He mentioned this by way of a suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman might consider between now and the Report stage. It would be a real catastrophe if owners of tens of thousands of acres of rich grazing land were able to buy the land back at a cheap rate under the Bill after selling it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he cordially supported the suggestion of the hon Member for East Mayo, and he had made a suggestion which was well worthy of the consideration of the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his view was that the matter might very well be left to the judgment and discretion of the Estates Commissioners. But he was prepared to consider whether on the Report stage—though he did not pledge himself to it—words might not be introduced such as "having in view the wants and circumstances of the neighbourhood."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBhoped the Chief Secretary would remember the economic value of large grazing lands to small occupiers. This was a serious question affecting the farming industry. Therefore he asked his right hon. friend to be extremely careful in giving what was asked for by hon. Members opposite, and he entreated him to also look into the other side of the question connected with grazing lands. England, Scotland, and Wales got cattle largely from Ireland, and it did not suit these countries to get cattle under two years old. The small occupiers were mostly dairy farmers, and they could not keep the cattle they bred beyond a year. If anyone attended a fair in Kerry, or
  484
  any of the congested districts, tenants would be seen driving to the fair their young cattle. Who were the buyers at those fairs? Why, the Irish graziers and big farmers, who kept the cattle until they were ready for the English and Scotch markets.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he agreed with a great deal that had been said, but he did not think anything that had been said raised the large issue referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONmoved—
  "In page 3, line 19, at end, to insert the words 'and the land so re-sold shall be subject to the same uses and trusts other than uses and trusts in favour of mortgagees and chargees and owners of superior and intervening interests as the land was subject to at the date of the sale to the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment. It appeared to him that the object they had in view would be in a large measure defeated it the Amendment were adopted. He should not himself have asked the House to do what the Amendment proposed—namely to advance public money at 3¼ per cent. in order to buy a man's property and then sell it back to him, thereby increasing the prospective speculative value of the property.
  MR. HERBERTROBERTSONthought this was a very important point. It seemed to him clear that the landlord could not put the proceeds of the sale of the demesne into his own pocket. What he

  485
  suggested was that in addition to the money coming into the settlement, as the Attorney-General had admitted it must do, the property acquired by repurchase should be on behalf of the trust estate.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid this seemed to him to be naturally a point to be dealt with by the House of Lords. The Irish Party wanted the Government to get this clause passed to-night. This was the House of Commons—the people's House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. ASHTONmoved an Amendment of which Mr. Channing had given notice to leave out Sub-section 2. He could not but think that English Members did not thoroughly recognise the extraordinary character of the subsection. It proposed to allow the Land Commission to buy demesne land and then sell it back to the landowner, subject to repayments of the price by instalments extending over sixty-eight and a half years, at the end of which period he would become absolute owner. What would happen in the meantime? At the date of the purchase by the Land Commission the landowner would receive payment of the price. With that money the landowner would be able to make an investment at 3½ per cent., and supposing that the price obtained was £20,000, he would pay £650 a year, But if he invested the money at 3½ per cent., as he would probably be able to do, he would receive £700 a year, and there-by make a profit of £50 a year at the expense of the British nation. If he could invest the money at 4 per cent., he would receive £800, representing a profit
  486
  of £150 a year, and at the end of 68½ years have the land as well as the capital. It seemed to him that that was a very remarkable proposal. He thought any British landowner would be very glad to deal with his land on the same terms. He could not see why Irish landowners should be treated on a different footing from English landowners. They were giving an absolutely needless bonus to the Irish landlords. It was said it was necessary to do this in order to free them from the mortgage debts. But there were English landowners who had mortgages on their estates, and if Irish landowners were to be freed, why should not English landowners be freed also?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 20, to leave out Subsection (2)."
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the clause."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped the hon. Member, who was known to be a friend of Ireland, would not stand in the way of this clause passing as it stood. It was unanimously adopted in substance at the Conference in Dublin, and was regarded by the landlords as one of the most important portions of the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Nationalist Members had fought the landlords for a great number of years, and they wished them to get something out of the settlement. They wished them to live in peace on their demesne, and to become more Irish than the Irish themselves.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid that while fully recognising the spirit of the hon. Member

  487
  which afforded some indication of hope for future peace in Ireland, he protested on the ordinary grounds of common sense against the proposal in the clause. The Bill practically proposed to hand back to the landlords of Ireland the whole of the rents which the Land Courts had declared to be unjust, amounting to £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. In addition there was this preposterous clause, which enabled the Estates Commissioners under the Bill to still further endow the landlords by a process which no sane man would think of applying to embarrassed estates in this country. It was legislation gone mad, but in view of his position in the House, he believed it would be absolutely useless to press the Amendment to a division.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. TULLY, who had an Amendment on the Paper, said Clause 4 was an important one, and he did not think they should proceed with the discussion tonight. They had got through a good deal of business, and he suggested that they should now report Progress.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, as his hon. friend desired to raise the point dealt with in his Amendment, it would be impossible to discuss it fully to-night.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CALDWELLasked that some explanation of it should be given. What was the necessity for the
  488
  extension of the premises? What was to be the cost of the land and the buildings? And had plans been prepared?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,)said that owing to the increase of business the space at the disposal of the Patent Office had been found to be insufficient. It would be necessary to house something like 200 more people. He was informed that the land would cost about £70,000, and the buildings £40,000. No more was being done than was necessary to enable the greatly increased business to be overtaken.
  Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, "That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Elliot.)

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.