HC Deb 24 June 1903 vol 124 cc460-87

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. ROCHE (Galway, E.)

who 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 ROBERTSON

said 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 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 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 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'BRIEN

said 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 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 COLOMB

said 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 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 REDMOND

said 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. WYNDHAM

said 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 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 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; 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'BRIEN

said 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'CONNOR

moved 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 COLOMB

pointed 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 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. RUSSELL

said 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 (Galway, N.)

Oh, yes, there are. There are two close by my place.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

doubted 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. RUSSELL

was 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. DILLON

said 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. 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. ATKINSON

said he thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would, on consideration, see that it was scarcely workable.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said that he offered to modify the Amendment if its principle were accepted.

MR. ATKINSON

said 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 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. ASHTON (Bedfordshire, Luton)

said 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. ASHTON

said that in that case he would reserve his remarks.

*MR. BUTCHER

said 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 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'CONNOR

said that if the discretion were made quite clear he would be perfectly satisfied.

*MR. BUTCHER

said 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'CONNOR

said 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 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. WYNDHAM

said 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 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'CONNOR

said as he saw no chance of convincing the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER

said 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. WYNDHAM

thought 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. 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 ROBERTSON

understood 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. WYNDHAM

pointed 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. BUTCHER

said 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. TULLY

moved 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 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. WYNDHAM

said 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 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. HEALY

said 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'CONNOR

said 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 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. TULLY

was 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. WYNDHAM

was 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 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. DILLON

agreed 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. HEALY

admitted 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 REDMOND

said 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 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. WYNDHAM

said 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. TULLY

said 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'CONNOR

said 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. TULLY

hoped 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. DILLON

suggested 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, 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. HEALY

said 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. WYNDHAM

said 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 COLOMB

hoped 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 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. WYNDHAM

said 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 ROBERTSON

moved— 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. WYNDHAM

said 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. HERBERTROBERTSON

thought 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 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. HEALY

said 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. ASHTON

moved 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 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 REDMOND

hoped 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. HEALY

said 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. CHANNING

said that while fully recognising the spirit of the hon. Member 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 REDMOND

said, 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.