IRISH LAND BILL.

HC Deb 29 June 1903 vol 124 cc816-68

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 4—

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

moved to insert after "purchase" the words "by any County or District Council or." This clause, he said, raised very important questions—viz., turbary, pasturage, afforestry, and allotments, and the object of the Amendment was to introduce some element of popular control into the dealing of the Land Commission with these subjects. It was of supreme importance that something should be done in an organised way to provide for tree planting. He had known cases in which landlords, before selling their estates to the tenants, had cut down all the timber in order to get ready cash, and in other cases tenants, immediately on buying their holdings, had cut down all the ornamental trees. The question of tree planting was of vital importance, especially on the western sea-board. In 1885 a very important Committee of that House inquired into the subject of the denudation of Irish forests and plantations, and the failure to take any steps to replace the trees that were cut down. Very important evidence was given as to the effect produced by trees on climatic conditions, and the cases of other countries were cited to show that afforestry prevented the wasting of fertile soil. It was pointed out how, in the Basque provinces of France, large and absolutely valueless tracts of country had, thanks to tree-planting inspired by the first Napoleon, been made most prosperous; climatic conditions had been altered, and new industries introduced. Why could not Ireland profit by that example? His suggestion was that the County or District Councils should take this matter in hand. The right hon. Gentleman might suggest that those bodies already had quite enough work on their hands. If so, there were plenty of other means by which the work could be undertaken. Their experience was that when officials were appointed by Dublin Castle, their sole object was to draw their salaries, and they feared that if the Land Commission were appointed the trustees they would not do the work efficiently. Hence the desire to secure the appointment of someone in whom the public had confidence. With regard to the question of turbary, it was a well-known fact that there were large quantities of peat in Ireland which were practically valueless because they were not scientifically worked. There should be some means of eliciting the views of the people with regard to dealing with the large blocks of peat bogs which, under the operation of this Act, were bound to come into the hands of the Land Commission. The trustees would probably be discarded receivers who hung on in the landed interest. With regard to the pastures it must be remembered that many of the pasturage farms were an economic necessity; some even if cut up would not be suitable for tillage purposes, especially those on limestone soils, and if these pasturage farms were cut up into small holdings the small farmers would have nowhere to send their young stock. He suggested that those pasturage farms which were not suitable for tillage should be held by the farmers of the district on the co-operative principle, each farmer having a share of the land equal to the number of cows he possessed. If that were done the objections of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would be got over. This clause also gave power to trustees to acquire land for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. He would give that power to the County or the District Councils. They should have a right to go into the public market and purchase land to be devoted to that purpose. He begged to move.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

asked on a point of order that only a certain portion of the words should be put; so much of the words as "or any county" because the other words did not appear to be put in the proper place.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the proper course would be to move, to strike out "District Councils."

MR. CLANCY

said that would not suit his purpose because he believed in these powers being given to the District Councils.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he still thought the proper course for the hon. Member for Dublin County was to move to strike out those words if he thought they ought not to come in there, and move to insert them at a later stage. He was bound to put the Amendment as moved.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 28, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'by any County or District Council, or.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

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

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

said he was far from saying that the suggestions of the hon. Member were not worthy of consideration. His answer was that they had been fully considered, and after full consideration it was felt that, owing to the financial difficulty intervening, the Government could not bring District Councils into this Bill. The very fact that one hon. Member desired to amend the Amendment showed how hard it would be to engraft on to the Land Purchase Bill a new departure in local government for Ireland. This clause dealt with advances to be made for the purchase of parcels of land. If those advances were to be made to County Councils and District Councils then, of course, in another part of the Bill a clause would have to be inserted giving these public bodies power to borrow. "Trustees" would be sufficient for many of the objects the hon. Gentleman had put before the Committee as laudable, and trustees coming forward would naturally be persons who had the confidence of the district as being proper persons to deal with this matter. One hundred tenants might elect to be represented by six or seven men, and, in that case, the financial difficulty would not arise. Those six or seven men might or might not be members of the District Council but if the District Council was put in by name the financial difficulty would arise.

MR. CLANCY

said that under the circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind on this subject it would only be a waste of time to move his Amendment, or the consequential Amendments on the Amendment. At the same time he might say he was not impressed very much by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He did not see where the financial difficulty arose. At present the Rural District Councils administered the Labourers Acts and the Amendment, so far as that point was concerned, had only the effect of giving them power to purchase land for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. Now, instead of the Rural District Councils, who had the administration of the Labourers Acts, getting property for the purpose of housing labourers, somebody else who did not represent them at all would acquire it and thus they would have two bodies administering the same Acts. He did not understand how that was to be worked out. All that it was desired to do by the Amendment was to give these Rural District Councils power to buy land with the aid of public money. He urged on the Chief Secretary the desirability of considering this question.

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

suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman made "trustees" to include any local authority this difficulty would be got over. He pointed out that this was also a clause for the purchase of a parcel of land for the planting of trees. Who was to plant them, and where was the money to come from? There was no advance to be made for that purpose but only to buy the land to plant the trees on. If the trustees did not plant the trees would it not be sufficient answer for them to say they had no money, and there was no fund from which they could obtain money with which to plant trees. And if there was to be tree planting, they must contemplate the time when there would be tree cutting, and the question was a serious one. The clause, though it mentioned the planting of trees, was really a nullity. Who was to have a property in the trees when planted? It must be in the gentleman who had the advance for the purpose of buying the land. He suggested the insertion, after "Land Commission," of the words "including any local authority." The clause would not then shut out any local authority.

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

thought there ought to be a representative of the local authority on any board of trustees.

MR. WYNDHAM

said there was nothing to prevent that. No sensible body would neglect public opinion in such a matter. It was impossible to provide against every point that might arise in the administration of an Act of the nature and size of the measure under discussion. The objection to inserting the Amendment was that it would mean that these local bodies were to be lent money by the State and to repay it by rate. The Government were not prepared to entertain such a proposal. It was no doubt a suggestion for which a great deal might be said, but it would lead to larger questions. He believed the preservation of trees could be effected without any of the difficulties suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. The trustees would be persons holding the confidence of the district, and they could get the money to plant the trees by entering into an arrangement with the Congested Districts Board or the Board of Agriculture. On that basis, if money was forthcoming from private sources, the County Council might find it within its power to supplement the fund. If not, let there be an Amendment of the Local Government Act later on, giving wider latitude in the matter of the objects for which money could be spent; but he was not prepared to enter upon so large a new province at the present stage of the Bill under discussion.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

suggested that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that money for the planting of trees might be advanced by the Board of Agriculture, the words "from the Board of Agriculture" should be inserted.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the new Department would be a Department of the Irish Government, and they would work in harmony in the endeavour to effect desirable objects, including the planting of trees, turbary, and so forth. All this clause did was to enable the land on which the trees might be planted to be acquired by an advance under the Act in the name of trustees. That gave a platform from which to commence operations.

MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)

pointed out that the words of the Amendment practically embraced the intentions of the Government as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The insertion of the words would not fetter the discretion of the Commission.

MR. WYNDHAM

said there was nothing to prevent the trustees being the District or County Council.

MR. CLANCY

asked whether one body of trustees for the whole of Ireland, or for each county, was contemplated.

MR. WYNDHAM

Oh, no! You might have a body of trustees for one bunch of trees.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

said that powers somewhat cognate to those here involved were carried out in England by public bodies. What had moved the right hon. Gentleman was probably the abuse of turbary in some parts of Ireland, and the disappearance of forests to the prejudice, not of individuals, but of the public at large. It seemed to him that these were quasi public duties, which might properly be discharged by public officials. He presumed that the trustees were not to be paid; that being so, surely the most effective people for the duty were the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the district.

MR. TULLY

pointed out that, inasmuch as the District Councils had power to spend money for the purposes of the Labourers Act, and the County Council were able to spend money on re-afforestation, the objections of the Chief Secretary on those points fell to the ground. He hoped the Chief Secretary would make a graceful concession in this matter.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

said the Amendment he desired to move raised the whole question of the necessity of the provision of labourers' allotments in Ireland. As far back as 1884 a Resolution, contending that facilities for securing allotments similar to those existing in England should obtain in Ireland, was supported by representatives of all parties and unanimously carried. Nothing had been done to give effect to that Resolution. As to the present Bill, in the course of the discussion on the Second Reading, leading members of the Liberal Party had declared it would be unwise to pass the measure without some effort being made to meet the wishes of the labouring classes in this respect. The question was a large one, of which the Amendment, inasmuch as it dealt only with untenanted land, touched but the fringe. In many districts, if the demand for allotments was to be fairly met, provision would have to be made for dealing with tenanted land also. In England the Local Government Act of 1894 gave parish councils power to provide allotments up to four acres, and the reason the power had not been largely availed of was that in England there were many other industries besides agriculture. In Ireland, where the only industry was agriculture, and, practically, all the young men were trained in that industry only, no facilities existed for allotments except under the Labourers Acts. The provisions of those Acts as regarded the labourers in villages and towns had not been largely availed of, and the reason for this was the form of procedure which had to be adopted, which was very costly, tedious and wearisome. In connection with this provision for allotments at the same time as the house was provided, up to the present only 15,000 houses had been erected under the Labourers Acts. The result of the operation of the Labourers Acts meant a charge on the local rate. In every case of a house and an allotment provided there was a charge of about £5 upon the ratepayers of the district, and although they could point with pride to the fact that throughout Leinster and Munster the ratepayers had generously and liberally taxed themselves to provide houses and allotments for the labourers, still their powers were necessarily restricted by the fact that each additional cottage meant a taxation of the ratepayers of their district to the extent of £5 per house. It was unreasonable to hope that the Labourers Acts would enable the labourers of Ireland generally, who desired allotments and who might have fairly decent and comfortable houses, to obtain them in view of the costly method of procedure that had to be followed, and the heavy charge on the local rates which the operation of these Acts entailed. Under these circumstances they could not expect that many District Councils would go much further than they had done in the direction of providing allotments. He had gone through the census returns for 1901, which divided those engaged in agriculture into three heads—viz., the number of agricultural labourers, indoor farm servants, and general labourers, the majority of the latter being assumed to be agricultural labourers although not returned as such. Taking these three classes together the total number of males engaged in agriculture in Munster was 87,375. To show the importance of the problem he would compare the numbers of this class with the number of farmers engaged in agricultural work. The number of farmers and their sons and relatives in Munster numbered 127,000. Therefore the proportion was about three farmers to two agricultural labourers. The clause under discussion did not propose in any way to deal with the demand of this vast body of persons engaged in agricultural work, or provide them with any means of getting a portion of the land.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not think it was necessary to discuss the whole of the Labourers Acts upon this clause.

MR. O'SHEE

said if this demand could be met under the Labourers Acts he would not, of course, be justified in bringing forward this Amendment. His argument was that this demand could not be met under the Labourers Acts, and he desired to insert a new provision extending the same facilities as now existed in England to Ireland. Without such a provision they could not hope for any great extension of the operations of these Acts in Ireland, because the ratepayers had already taxed themselves very heavily indeed for the benefit of the labourers. In order to justify his claim that further allotments should be provided he had to show that under the Labourers Acts they could not at present provide sufficient allotments. In Munster the labourers were eagerly looking forward to getting their share of the untenanted lands. The figures he had quoted showed the impossibility of hoping that at any time the District Councils would be able to provide for all those persons under the Labourers Acts because the cost would be so enormous that local taxation could not possibly bear it. He did not suggest that in providing these allotments any charge was to be made on the locality, because in England the policy had been to get from the tenant such an amount of rent as would repay to the parochial authorities the entire cost, and if these untenanted lands were to be vested in trustees to provide allotments for the labourers, there was no reason whatever why the labourers should not pay a rent sufficient to recompense the trustees for the capital cost. The figures he would quote were very remarkable. He had taken out the figures for five counties—viz., Londonderry, Antrim, Monaghan, Cavan and Down. In Londonderry the labourers numbered 9,427 and the farmers 16,064. In Antrim the labourers totalled 14,000 as against 20,000; in Monaghan there were 4,400 labourers and 15,000 farmers; and, taking the five counties together, the labourers totalled 50,901 and the farmers 94,000. In five counties in Leinster persons of the labouring classes numbered 37,742, while persons of the farming classes were 47,823. Speaking generally, the Returns indicated that persons of the labouring classes were as two against three of the farming classes. In Ulster the proportion was about 55 per cent. The figures showed that the question of allotments was a large one, which, if it was to be met, would require extensive provisions which would operate widely. He did not mean to suggest that all the persons included in these numbers would require an allotment of land, but assuming that one out of four demanded an allotment the question would be a very large one. In this matter Irish public opinion was unanimous. The experience of England, with reference to the allotments system, was one to which they could point as justifying the contention that the giving of an allotment of land to a labourer always meant increased comfort to him. It meant an incentive to thrift which he otherwise had not. There were several reasons why, at the present time, it was desirable that the demand of the labourers of Ireland for allotments should be satisfied. They had looked forward anxiously to this Bill which was to settle the farmers of Ireland as owners of the land they occupied. They had also looked forward to it as a means of obtaining for themselves some aid in seasons when they could not obtain work and were unable to earn wages. In the County of Cork the figures were very remarkable. The number of persons in the labouring classes was 31,000, and in the farming classes 38,000. In Waterford the figures were even more remarkable. There the number in the labouring classes was 7,437, and in the farming classes 7,443. In Wexford the numbers were, labouring classes 11,700, and farming classes 12,700. In the County of Waterford the persons included in the labouring classes engaged in agriculture under thirty years of age were according, to the last census returns, 3,500 out of a total of 7,743. Unless some adequate provision was made whereby they might be retained in the country a great majority of those 3,500 would have to go and seek a livelihood in America or elsewhere. The diminution in the area of cultivated land in Ireland during the last ten years was close upon 200,000 acres, and while the process of diminution had been going on the population of Ireland had been dwindling year by year. During the same ten years 400,000 persons, in round numbers, had left Ireland and gone to other countries to seek a means of subsistence.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

rose to a point of order, and asked whether these figures were relevant to the Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said they seemed to him to be a great deal beyond the scope of the Amendment, which was limited in character. The hon. Member seemed to think that he could build some elaborate superstructure upon these figures which would be relevant. He thought the hon. Member might compress into a short space that part which was really relevant to this Amendment.

MR. O'SHEE

said he would endeavour to comply with that ruling. He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth had given that amount of attention to the problem of the labourer which it deserved. He contended that the emigration from Ireland during the past ten years was largely due to the diminution in the area of tilled land. Another justification for the Amendment was that farmers throughout the country complained in many places that they could not get labourers at the time when they were wanted, and that those labourers who were in the country were not so well skilled in agriculture as they used to be. The strong and vigorous labourers went away in the stream of emigration, and those who remained in the country were to a large extent men suffering from some physical or mental affliction. The demand now put forward was accepted by the Convention held in Ireland. The assumption of this Bill was that the landlords were to give the untenanted lands to somebody. The landlords, therefore, had no concern in preventing the labourers of Ireland from getting those untenanted lands. This was a vital question for the labourers of Ireland. When an Irish labourer who had a patch of land went to another country to work, he returned with the earnings he had been able to accumulate, but when a young labourer who had no land went away he never came back. It was only reasonable that they should have regard for the interests of the young man, who under present conditions had no tie that bound him to the land of his birth and who went away never to return.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 30, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words, 'for the purpose of providing allotments of land for labourers as defined by the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, or.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)

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

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

said the Amendment was really altogether outside the question. There were certain powers in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land for labourers' allotments. The hon. Member wished, as he understood, to empower trustees to buy land for the provision of allotments which would be larger and of a different kind. There was, however, no statute in existence at present which enabled local authorities to do anything of the kind; and if the Amendment were passed and the Bill retained its present form the provision of the hon. Member would remain perfectly inoperative.

MR. O'SHEE

said that when they were discussing Clause 2 the Chief Secretary referred him to Clause 4.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that he had not indicated that Clause 4 was the proper place for dealing with the question of labourers' allotments. In a Bill of eighty-five clauses dealing with Irish land almost any question could be raised in this way without being out of order. In speaking the other day and referring to Clause 4, he had not intended to indicate that this was the proper or possible place to amend the Irish Agricultural Labourers Acts.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said he supposed that they were to take it from the Chief Secretary that when they came to Part 4 of the Bill, which dealt specifically with the labourers, the question raised by his hon. friend of extending the power of the local authorities to give in certain cases more than one acre to labourers could be discussed. He had a great deal of sympathy with what had been said by his hon. friend, because he believed that the provisions for giving allotments to labourers were altogether inadequate, and he should like to see the subject dealt with in this Bill or in an early Bill.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not give a pledge on that point. When the labourers' portion of the Bill was reached, it would not be possible if this was to be a Land Bill to go in great extent and detail into the Labourers Acts. They might by so doing miss the substance of the Land Bill. It was a matter for consideration whether, when they reached the labourers' portions of the Bill, it would be worth while to go on with them, if hon. Members deemed them inadequate, and if hon. Members thought that it would prejudice the proper consideration of so important a question. He had only put this matter into the Bill in order to help the situation of the labourers in Ireland until the Government could deal more fully with them at another time.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was to understand that if there should not be an opportunity during the passing of the Bill to deal adequately with the labourers question, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to deal with it soon?

MR. WYNDHAM

said that, of course, he could not undertake to carry another Irish Bill this session; but he expressed the opinion that if the Bill was passed substantially as it stood now, the question of dealing with the labourers would arise, and would be a pressing question. If he were Chief Secretary he would try to deal with it soon. What he had tried to do in this Bill was to ease the situation when there was a certain amount of untenanted land available which could be dealt with.

MR. J. S. FARRELL (Longford, N.)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that he would be Chief (Secretary next year, or that the same quantity of land would be available next year, and that the labourers would not be shut out altogether from a share of that land. The right hon. Gentleman had given his hon. friend, or some hon. Member, distinctly to understand that when Clause 4 was reached the question of the labourers might be raised.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to say whether the course which he had proposed was not the most reasonable course. He was prepared to put a clause on the Paper to shorten and simplify the acquisition of land for labourers' allotments, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not prepared to imperil the Bill, in an attempt which he was sure would be defeated, to deal with every point which could be raised on the labourers question.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman's position was reasonable to this extent, that it was not desirable to discuss these labourers questions twice at different parts of the Bill. It would be better to reserve the discussion until it could be effective. He was not expressing any opinion as to the desirability, at this stage, at anyrate, of dropping the labourers question out of the Bill. He thought it would be a great misfortune if it were not possible within the four corners of the Bill to deal with the labourers, and to deal with them in a satisfactory way.

MR. TULLY

said he strongly protested against any attempt to drop the labourers out of the Bill.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that there was a very difficult labourers question in Ulster, although the cottage system did not largely prevail there. He only intervened lest his silence might be misunderstood. He was entirely in favour of the position of the Chief Secretary. What was the use of wasting time on an Amendment which could not be effective? Too much time had already been wasted. He was not prepared to waste another moment when the Chief Secretary said he proposed to introduce another clause.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. It would be a great mistake to contemplate for a moment the possibility of dropping the labourers' case. He did not think time had been wasted in the present discussion, because it was necessary to show that there was great feeling in Ireland as to the necessity of dealing with the labourers' case. The Chief Secretary should put down his proposed new clause on the Paper. They ought to endeavour to arrive at a harmonious settlement, as there was practically no difference of opinion on the question. The representatives of the landlords were as anxious to have the question settled as the representatives of the tenants, and there was no reason why it should require a long, acrimonious discussion. He thought it was extremely likely that a scheme might be agreed upon, which would be unanimously supported, and which would pass through the House after a brief discussion.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

said he wished to associate himself with the protest against the idea that the interests of the labourers should be dropped out of the Bill. He realised, however, that the labourers question could not be well discussed at that stage of the Bill. All the representatives of the labourers were more or less agreed as to the direction which Amendments should take, and if they were put down and discussed on Clause 82 and the subsequent clauses, there need be no waste of time. He felt very strongly that a large section of the agricultural population in Ireland would hear with the very greatest regret even the hint given by the Chief Secretary that the labourers question should be dropped.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not at all accept the interpretation which was being put upon what he had said. He agreed that they ought to do as much as they could in this Bill for the labourers, but it would be impossible to deal incidentally with the question, and, therefore, it might be well to save this Bill and have another Bill devoted to the labourers. He took the view that the Committee could not discuss the labourers question on a clause which had nothing to do with the Labourers Acts. Let them do what was possible in this Bill, and have a second Bill if necessary.

MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)

said as they were about to have a great national settlement in Ireland, he wished that the labourers should get an allotment of land. When Clause 2, with reference to untenanted land was under discussion, the question of the labourers was brought forward and was shelved, the Committee being told that it should be raised on Clause 4; now apparently it was to be shelved again. He wished to point out that they were not looking for another Labourers Act; they were endeavouring to secure that labourers should get a larger allotment of untenanted land than they were able to get under the present Labourers Acts. Every labourer should have at least five acres of untenanted land; and, if the new clause of the Chief Secretary would provide that, he thought it would give very great satisfaction. Any other arrangement would not be regarded as satisfactory.

MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory)

said that one of the greatest difficulties which was experienced in Ireland in the administration of the Labourers Acts was that when allotments were provided near towns or villages, workers in towns entered into competition with agricultural labourers for them. It would facilitate and expedite the work of the Labourers Acts if there were proper provision for allotting land to artisans and labourers in small towns and villages. He spoke in the matter from his experience as chairman of a large District Council.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

said that some hon. Members might be inclined to blame his hon. friend for raising this matter; but, in his opinion, his hon. friend was not only justified but called upon to bring the matter forward, having regard to the interest he displayed on behalf of the labourers. The hon. Member for South Tyrone seemed to look at the discussion as so much time thrown away; but the discussion manifestly impressed the Committee and the Government. He believed that 80 per cent. of emigrants from Ireland belonged to the labouring classes, and something would be done to stop that emigration if land were provided for labourers. As he understood the Amendment, his hon. friend was anxious to earmark some of the land which might be available for that purpose; and if the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind when framing his new clause it would be of the greatest advantage. He could corroborate what had been said by his hon. friend for the Ossory Division with regard to the allotment question. There was no power in Ireland to provide workers in towns with allotments. He asked a few years ago whether the Allotments Act of this country could not be extended to Ireland; and if something were done in that direction it would, to a certain extent lessen the competition which at present existed. He trusted that the clause to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the districts where labourers most needed land were the very districts where the Labourers Acts were inoperative, simply because the ratepayers were almost as poor as the labourers.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he hoped that whatever Amendment was moved by an Irish Member would have some sense and would carry something with it. There was nothing whatever in the Amendment now before the Committee which was not in the Bill; yet an hour had been occupied in discussing a sham Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said that with reference to the suggestion that the labourers should be dropped altogether, he desired to say that the question might and ought to be dealt with to a certain extent in this Bill, but he did not think it was possible to deal wholly with it. It was a question sufficiently large to be dealt with by itself. He thought, however, it was a very important thing in the interests of labourers in Ireland that they had now got from the Chief Secretary a statement—which would not have been got were it not for this discussion—that although to a certain extent something would be done in Part 4 of the Bill to deal with the labourers problem, there would yet remain a great deal to be done for the labourers—so much so that the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that the question should be dealt with in its entirety in a Bill specially introduced for that purpose.

MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.)

said they were all aware that to deal properly with the labourers question would require a complicated and extended Bill. They were led, however, to believe that something would be done in this Bill for the labourers. Hon. Members like himself, who represented labour constituencies, were anxious to be in a position to tell the labourers in their constituencies that their case would be considered on a proper opportunity. If the Chief Secretary, after consultation with the leaders of opinion on both sides of the House, would put down a simple and effective clause dealing with the labourers as far as the present Bill was concerned, that would remove any doubt that might exist in the minds of the labourers.

MR. O'SHEE

said he recognised that it would be inconvenient to have several discussions on the same subject. If the present Amendment were carried, it would, of course, be necessary to have subsequent Amendments in Clause 18 providing that legal operation should be given to it. As he understood that the claim of the labourers to share the untenanted lands of Ireland would not be in any way jeopardised by the withdrawal of the Amendment he would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that an Amendment which had been handed in by the hon. Member for West Kerry with reference to school playgrounds was outside the scope of the present Bill.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

desired to insert, in line 32, after the word "of" "game, fish." His object, he said, was to enable trustees to acquire small portions of land for rearing purposes. The clause would then read "or the preservation of game, fish, woods, or plantations." This was a matter of great importance to both landlords and tenants in Ireland, and the land sought to be acquired would not be either agricultural land or pasturage. He begged to move.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked was it fair, at this stage, to raise this question, when the hon. and gallant Member had the House of Lords to raise it in.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 32, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'game, fish.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

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

Mr. WYNDHAM

said, although it was somewhat difficult to follow the Amendment, he thought he had grasped the desire of the hon. Member. This clause dealt with the purchase of land, and the proposal of the hon. Member was to enable trustees to buy such portions as were necessary for hatcheries and so forth, so that persons might be able to get a rood of land for that purpose. It might be a desirable thing, but it was a matter which he would prefer the Committee to decide. It was not advancing money for the preservation of game or fish, but to purchase land. The whole question of sporting lights came up later.

MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said it appeared to him to be rather like a bull to talk of fish in connection with purchasing land, and he did not think they should expose themselves to ridicule by accepting the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

said the Report of the Committee on Salmon Fisheries in Ireland strongly advocated the creation of hatcheries on every river in Ireland. It was only a very small parcel of land that was required to form a hatchery, and it must be remembered that out of small hatcheries great rivers could be stocked.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said the object of his Amendment was that two-thirds of the tenants on an estate should have the same rights as the landlord. The tenant right in the land was in many instances quite as important as that of the landlord. He thought the tenants should have a right to set in motion the machinery for the sale of an estate. He would not labour the point, because nothing could be gained except by an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. But if it was found that the landlord objected to sell because he was hanging back for a better price, the tenants ought to have a right to have the matter decided. Speaking from an English agricultural point of view, he might say that English agriculturists were anxious that this Bill should have some degree of finality; and speaking as one whose opinions in opposition to this Bill had been greatly modified by the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to carry those concessions a little further and accept this Amendment. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 36, after the word 'makes,' to insert the words 'or not less than two-thirds of the tenants of an estate make.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it was very desirable to enable tenants to make some representation as to the state of their minds with regard to purchase. Although the tenants had no right the Land Judge's Court had always tolerated, under the Land Acts, large bodies of tenants coming forward and making applications, and those applications had a most salutary effect on the landlords and encumbrancers. This Bill gave no such opportunity as was given by the Land Court for tenants generally to stir up owners. In many cases it was to the interest of men interested in the management of the estates of absentee landlords to prevent the sale of an estate. If this actinic process which was suggested by the Amendment were allowed he thought it would have a very salutary effect.

MR. ATKINSON

said it was impossible to accept the Amendment. It would change the whole character of the Bill, and make it a compulsory instead of a voluntary Bill, unless the Land Commissioners embarked in an absolutely useless inquiry. There were two systems of land purchase under the Bill, the first being where the landlord first agreed with his tenants and then came to the Court, and the other system under which he dealt with the Court direct. And it seemed to him to be absolutely useless for the Land Court to-make an inquiry unless they knew the landlord was willing to sell.

MR. TULLY

said he thought the Amendment was a most important one. As the clause stood at present, a landlord could go without his tenants knowing a thing about it, and sell direct to the Land Commission.

MR. ATKINSON

, said if the hon. Gentleman looked at the section he would find that three-fourths of the tenants must agree before the landlord could sell.

MR. TULLY

said that he wished to give the tenants an opportunity to apply for the sale. When the landlords were getting such princely terms it was only right that the tenants should have such an opportunity. Why should all the compulsion be against the tenants? In addition to getting thirty-two years purchase from the tenants, the landlords were to get a bonus, which meant that Lord de Freyne would get a present of £40,000 for holding out against his tenants. Another serious matter was that if a landlord applied to the Land Commission to have his estate sold, his tenants would be deprived of the right of going into Court to have a fair rent fixed.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

hoped hon. Members would have more sense than to embark on an utterly impracticable discussion such as that to which they were now invited. They all had their own views on compulsory purchase, and if it could have been secured many would have preferred it to the present Bill. But anything more unbusinesslike or absurd than to attempt at the present stage to interpose a discussion on the merits of compulsory purchase he could not imagine.

MR. TULLY

said all he proposed to do was to give the tenants an option.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the Committee were approaching Amendments which raised questions of great importance, including that of the evicted tenants. He hoped, therefore, the discussion on other matters would not be prolonged.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. TULLY

, in moving to insert the word "compulsory" before "sale," said he had often heard the hon. Member for Waterford make the rafters ring with his demand for compulsory sale, and he ought not to turn round and say it was absurd and lacking in common-sense to raise the cry now. The members of the Dunraven Conference made a bad bargain for the tenants, one of the worst features being the surrender of the principle of compulsory sale. If the forces outside had been properly organised he believed a compulsory Bill could have been secured. He had no desire to occupy time unnecessarily, and therefore would formally move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 38, after the third word 'the' to insert the word 'compulsory.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'compulsory' be there inserted."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that while he sympathised with his hon. friend he thought it was not in the interests of business that Members should propose Amendments which had no chance of being accepted, or Amendments which were essentially "shams." He had been appalled to see an hon. Member come down, armed with a long manuscript, and move an Amendment which occupied nearly an hour in discussion. Let there be fair play all round. While he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford in the suggestion that they should make progress with the Bill, he would suggest that the hon. Member also should take care that some of his own friends did not occupy time by the hour pressing points which were already in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DILLON

moved to insert after the word "inquiry" the words "as to the prices which tenants are prepared to pay for their holdings and such other matters as they deem necessary." His object in proposing the Amendment was to give the Government an opportunity of explaining to the Committee the nature of the inquiry.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 40, after the word 'inquiry' to insert the words 'as to the prices which tenants are prepared to pay for their holdings, and such other matters as they deem necessary.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said that this clause dealt with the relations between the Estates Commissioners and the would-be vendor, and then went on to deal with their relations with the would-be purchaser. It was enacted that there could be no bargain unless three-fourths of the tenants agreed; it followed that the Estates Commissioners, in approaching the landlord, must be assured that three-fourths of the tenants were willing to buy on certain terms. But whether it would be wise for the Commissioners to carry on the discussion with the landlord up to a certain point and then go to the tenant, or vice versâ, was a matter which must be left to the discretion of the parties concerned. It was certain that no sale could take place unless three fourths of the tenants, without any pressure whatever, were agreed. It was impossible to lay down in an Act of Parliament all the steps de die in diem which the parties to such a transaction were to take and the order in which they were to be taken. All that preliminary reconnoitring must take place under any voluntary Bill, and it would be futile to attempt to foresee the conditions of every landlord and tenant in Ireland. This the Bill, being a voluntary measure, did provide—that the landlord should not be forced to take less than he was prepared to accept, or the tenant to pay more than he was willing to give.

MR. DILLON

said the importance of the Amendment lay in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit not only a portion of Sub-section (1) but the whole of Sub-section (2) which directed the Estates Commissioners, before fixing the price, to make some inquiry as to what the tenants were prepared to give. By omitting Sub-section 2, that power given to the Land Commission was gone. By Sub-section 3 they could not be compelled to buy at the prices mentioned, but by omitting Clause 2, the procedure contemplated was that the Estates Commissioners might fix the price and communicate with the landlord without consulting the tenants. Therefore the tenants might have a price fixed against them by the Land Commissioners. He was aware that the tenants need not buy, but if they did not they would not afterwards have a chance of buying at all, and that would produce a deadlock. He wished to secure that no right which the tenants had under the Bill should be lost, and the Estates Commissioners should have an indication that before fixing the price they must make some inquiry from the tenants. He did not think the words he suggested would impose any unreasonable restriction on the Estates Commissioners.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

thought there was some necessity for a provision like that contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Amendment he had on the Paper would meet the case.

MR. DILLON

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER (York)

said he wished to move an Amendment after the word "estate" in line 40 to insert "including any demesne or other land in the occupation of the owner." As he read Clause 5, there was considerable doubt whether the Land Commission had power to purchase any land in the occupation of the owner.

MR. WYNDHAM

pointed out that the word "estate" meant any land which the Estates Commissioners agreed to regard as a settled estate. How his hon. friend made out that that did not mean the demesne or other land in the occupation of the owner he could not understand.

MR. BUTCHER

said that in the previous clauses of this Bill the word "estate" had been used in connection with tenanted land only, and he thought a clear distinction should be drawn between tenanted land and demesne land. They did not desire to have litigation, and if he was assured that "estate" included "demesne and other lands" he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that was so.

MR. BUTCHER

said under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that Sub-section 2 of this clause provided that in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents had been fixed, the Commissioners were to be guided by the price within the zone. They had to find out what the tenants wished to give, and if the price fell within the zone then that was the price. Clause 2 laid down a number of provisions guiding the sale of additional land, and Sub-section 2 was brought in to see that the Land Commission should not put up the higher competition price upon the assumption that all the untenanted land was sold to one grazier. In fixing the price they must have regard to the conditions of Clause 2. He did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was at all necessary, because in estimating the price they were to be guided by the foregoing provisions of the Act. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 40, to leave out from the word 'estate,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'and in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. DILLON

said this was a very important matter, for it dealt with the first clause which specifically controlled and directed the action of the Land Commission. This was an enormously important portion of the Bill, for it was the clause under which the whole of the machinery would work. As he read the Bill the provisions of Clause 1 made it a sort of covering clause governing all proceedings under the Act with regard to the price. One sub-section applied to cases where a bargain had been made already between the tenant and the landlord. The Amendment was of great importance because it proposed to substitute an entirely new method of estimating the price for the one that now stood in the Bill. The Attorney-General thought he had removed their objections completely by pointing out that Clause 3 provided that the tenants were safeguarded against all risks because before a bargain could be concluded they had to be consenting parties to the price. He contended that that did not safeguard the tenants, and he desired to safeguard them in the process of estimating the cost. Sub-section 3 only came into operation after the price had been estimated and communicated to the landlord. It was a very poor protection to the tenant, after the public department had estimated the price and communicated it to the landlord, to allow the tenant to say that he would not buy. If the tenant did that he would not get a chance of buying at all afterwards. Consequently Sub-section 3 did not meet his objection. What was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment? As the clause originally stood Clause 5 provided that— The Land Commission may, after due inquiry, propose to purchase the estate at a price to be estimated as hereinafter mentioned. Sub-section 2 proceeded to lay down, in his opinion, very vaguely the ground on which the Land Commission were to lay stress in estimating. It provided that— The price of the estate shall be estimated on the assumption that each tenant of a holding thereon will purchase his holding or some other designated parcel of land in lieu thereof, for an amount for which an advance under the Land Purchase Acts can be made. How could they assume that unless they had asked the tenants what they were willing to give? Did the Chief Secretary mean that the words "due inquiry" were to be taken to mean that before the price was estimated and communicated to the landlord inquiry must be made from the tenant?

MR. WYNDHAM

Certainly.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said there was nothing in the Act to indicate it.

MR. ATKINSON

said that the words "shall have regard to the foregoing provision of this Act in respect of advances" covered the object of the hon. Member. "Advances" were sums which might be advanced where the landlord and tenant agreed to purchase.

MR. DILLON

said he did not read it in that way at all. His proposal was to substitute the words "to the price which the tenants on the estate are willing to give for their holdings." He did not think the words proposed by the Chief Secretary gave the Commissioners guidance as to what the tenants were going to pay. The interpretation could be put on the words that the Commissioners, where there was no agreed price, were to be driven back to the zones. The new section gave the Commissioners no guidance because there was no agreed price. He had given careful study to the words, and he believed there was great risk if they stood in the way they were put down on the Paper, that the Commissioners might be forced to the conclusion that the intention was to drive them back to Clause 1, and to the consideration of the zones. This was an important question, because the Amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary substituted a totally new method of estimating the price. He did not see why the words of his Amendment should not be inserted in the clause in order to make the intention of the Government quite clear. What he proposed was to insert the words which would make the Amendment read as follows— And in estimating the price shall have regard to the price which the tenants on the estates are willing to give for their holdings.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 2, to leave out from the word 'foregoing' to the end and to insert the words 'price which the tenants on the estates are willing to give for their holdings.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the words which the hon. Member had moved were really narrower than his own words, and did not carry out what the intention of this clause was. He thought the words proposed by the hon. Member were mere surplusage, and he was not prepared to accept them without rather more careful consideration. What would be the real effect of the words proposed by the hon. Member? Did they mean that the Estates Commissioners were not to form a general view of the value of the land sold under the conditions of Clause 2? It appeared to him that if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member they would impose on three-fourths of the tenants definite terms which were not to be modified. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] But that was the danger. He thought that his own words covered the whole intention of the hon. Member, and covered the cases under Clause 2, while at the same time leaving some latitude which there must be if any business was to be done. The question of turbary would present great difficulty. He did not see that any danger would arise from adopting the words he had proposed. If the hon. Member could find any words that would not give rise to the danger he referred to he would be prepared to consider them.

MR. T. M. HEALY

suggested that the Chief Secretary might consider whether he could alter his Amendment to read as follows— And in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances, and any other conditions that may be prescribed. It was quite impossible to suppose that under the words of the clause as they stood the Commissioners would not have regard to the price. At the same time the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo would no doubt be an additional safeguard. He took it that as a matter of course the Commissioners would inquire into the circumstances of the price the tenant was willing to offer. But it was not unnatural that the hon. Member for East Mayo should endeavour to obtain some other safeguard. At all events this was a matter that might well be considered at some later stage of the Bill.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said it seemed to him that the whole thing was to be conducted on the principle of estimate. He was not a lawyer, but he was trying to imagine what the Estates Commissioners would do if the clause were passed as it stood. It appeared to him that the whole thing might be done without consulting a single tenant on the estate. He believed things would be brought to a deadlock unless the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo were put in.

MR. ATKINSON

said it would be perfectly impossible for the Land Commission to fulfil these conditions unless they did it in a business-like way. The Commission were to make an offer at which they proposed to purchase, and they were at the same time to see that the proposed scheme would involve no loss, because there was the provision in Section 4, whereby if there was a contemplated loss special permission would have to be obtained from the Lord Lieutenant. How was it conceivable that they could do that without having ascertained what the tenants were willing to give?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Why not put in plain words to that effect?

MR. ATKINSON

said that unless the Land Commission ascertained first what the tenants were willing to give, they would be at the mercy of the tenants, and the whole thing would be futile.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that more than once within the last few days the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Committee not to waste time on points on which there was really substantial agreement. Here was an opportunity for him to set a good example. The right hon. Gentleman was apparently in complete agreement with what the hon. Member for East Mayo had in view, but said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was mere surplusage. Surely it was a waste of time to go on opposing what was surplusage.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that although he agreed with all that the hon. Member for East Mayo meant and said that he meant, he was afraid that the words of the Amendment meant more than the hon. Member meant. What he said in his Amendment, quite shortly and simply, was, that in getting a preliminary undertaking from the tenants as to the price they were prepared to pay that was in conformity with Clause 1 as it stood. The Land Commission must find out from the tenants what they were prepared to pay in respect to their different categories of holdings.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said they were all agreed as to what the Amendment should mean, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not prepared to consider words, to be introduced at a later stage, which would carry into effect the object on which all were agreed?

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was quite ready to accept the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, but he was not prepared to accept the hon. Member's words.

MR. HEMPHILL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would bring up the amended Amendment on the Report stage.

MR. WYNDHAM

Yes.

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

said he considered this Amendment vitally important. He urged on the right hon. Gentleman that there was an enormous difference between first consulting the tenants and then, having ascertained their views, fairly offering them the land at the price they were willing to give, and coming to the tenants with a price fixed, because the tenants were then placed in the enormously difficult position of demanding a rebate. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo were adopted the tenants would be masters of the situation; but if the original Amendment were accepted they would be the slaves of the situation. Again, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were adopted the danger was that the Land Commission would be driven back to the zones—and he was sure that the Chief Secretary did not intend that. He strongly urged on the right hon. Gentleman that it was not his good intentions that would regulate the interpretation of this Bill when it became an Act. Neither the intention nor the speeches of Ministers who carried a Bill had any effect on the decision of the gentlemen who would interpret the Act. He did not want to use language approaching controversy; but they had heard of the subtlety of gentlemen who gave judicial interpretations in Ireland, and that if there were means by which the language of an Act of Parliament could be diverted even from the honest purpose of the framers of a Bill, that means would be found. He saw no reason why the Committee should not agree to the words of the hon. Member for East Mayo's Amendment. They could be corrected on the Report stage if the right hon. Gentleman found that they went beyond what he himself meant. The clause, more than any other, left the tenants at the mercy of the Land Commission; and he regarded it as most important that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt some form of words which would dissipate any misapprehension.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would suggest that the end in view might be met by the addition of a few words to his Amendment, so that it would read "and in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances and to the price which tenants and other persons are willing to give for holdings and other portions of land comprised in the estate." He would be prepared to move the Amendment in that form reserving freedom to reconsider the actual words on the Report stage.

MR. DILLON

said he recognised that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was a very liberal one, and also that the right hon. Gentleman reserved the right to consider the matter on Report. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

moved to insert in Clause 5, page 4, line 3, after "thereof" "or in addition thereto" He thought the words were necessary.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 3, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'or in addition to.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he ventured to differ from his hon. and gallant friend. He did not think the words proposed were necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)

said the Amendment he now proposed to move brought the Committee to the most delicate point in connection with the settlement of the evicted tenants question, namely, how they were to deal with cases in which former holdings of evicted tenants had entered into the possession of new tenants. The Amendment touched the sorest point in connection with the evicted tenants; and for that reason he hoped that every hon. Member who desired tranquillity in Ireland would give the proposal a most careful and sympathetic consideration. He was sure he would not appeal in vain to men who had fought conscientiously on both sides during a long war extending over something like twenty-five years; and he trusted that all language of acrimony would be avoided, as he would endeavour to avoid it himself, and that hon. Members would give all their good sense and good feeling to try if they could to eliminate one of the bitterest of all outstanding difficulties in Irish life at the present moment. The proposal which he would submit dealt really with an excessively small matter; but it was like a very small wound which might develop into a very dangerous one if left to mortify. He need not tell any Member of the Committee who knew Ireland how the Irish heart clung to the notion of the old home; and he quite concurred with his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, that wherever it was possible to restore the evicted tenants to their old homes they would by doing that be doing more than could be accomplished by any other possible means to lay the foundations of peace, goodwill, and contentment in Ireland. He did not propose any hostile action, or any compulsory action whatever against the new occupiers. They accepted the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh the other night, that whatever was to be done was to be done by friendly arrangement and inducement. All that the Amendment purported to do was that wherever an estate was sold, and wherever the Commissioners found that there were feuds of this kind existing, that they should have the power of acting as mediators, and in a friendly way composing without any compulsion or injustice these feuds which, if left unsettled, would keep the entire community in a state of ferment. Clause 11 as it stood gave the Commissioners some such power as he now proposed. But his hon. friends and himself could not afford to have any possible doubt on the subject. Undoubtedly Clause 11 gave very wide powers as to estates vested in the Commissioners; but they knew from bitter experience what the Irish Law Courts could do in the way of whittling down powers of this kind unless they were most expressly laid down. In any case, Clause 11 dealt with land vested in the Estates Commissioners; and even if it did give the necessary power with reference to purchase, it would not provide any remedy whatever in the case of a direct transaction between landlord and tenant. He proposed to give similar power to the Commissioners in the case of an estate sold by direct negotiation between landlord and tenant. He did not prejudge the question as to whether Clause 11, with certain alterations, might not give the necessary powers; but he submitted that no hon. Member ought to have any objection to these powers being fully and definitely given; and no one could have any real interest in keeping this sore open.

He quite understood it was a point of honour with landlords not to abandon the men who enabled them to carry on the war. He could quite sympathise with that feeling. On the other hand, on their own side the notion of any terms or truce with men who were known as grabbers was so hateful, that when they proposed to enter into a friendly bargain with them they were running a considerable risk of unpopularity and misconception. They had run an abundance of risks of that kind already, in order to bring about a settlement which they believed would involve the happiness and contentment of the Irish people; and they had not the least fear that the result would justify them in this matter, as it had justified them in other matters. He went further, and said that they were not prepared to stand upon the exact limits of compensation that were indicated in the Amendment, but were quite willing to leave the Estates Commissioners perfectly free to exercise their own discretion and good sense in any case where they saw an opportunity of delivering the community from this most dangerous of all sources of heartburning and disturbance in Ireland. The Committee would have to deal with two classes of new occupiers in connection with this clause. One class, which was extremely small, was what he might call without offence the political planters on the Plan of Campaign estates. The other class was more numerous, but it would be easy to strike up a bargain with them. There were isolated cases all over the country where derelict farms had been taken for mere temporary accommodation by shopkeepers and others who were not farmers, and who had no intention of becoming farmers. As to the political planters on the Plan of Campaign estates, he did not believe that they numbered more than thirty or forty; and he believed no hon. Gentleman opposite would quarrel with the statement that they were planted more with a view to fighting than to agriculture. Mr. Trench, a famous land agent, used to say that when he went to Ulster to find planters for the Luggacurran Estate he found plenty of men with capital and no courage, and also plenty of men with courage but no capital. He had a great deal of sympathy with fighting men on whatever side they fought; and he recognised that some of these new occupiers had substantial interests in their holdings, and that it was possible that they might elect to remain in them. In such cases there was nothing more to be said; but as to the greater number of the new occupiers he believed that a friendly hint from the landlord and the judicial interposition of the Estates Commissioners would solve the whole difficulty. There were cases in which more than half the holdings were under £10 valuation, and from which the tenants were evicted not for joining any political combination, but because of poverty, of arrears of rent, and the failure of the Land Acts. That was the most numerous class of evicted tenants; and there should be no difficulty in dealing with the new occupiers in such cases. They might safely trust to the new spirit of goodwill, hopefulness, and buoyancy to bring about a friendly settlement in all such cases without any friction or expense whatever. The process would, however, be greatly accelerated if this Amendment were carried; and if the Estates Commissioners had power to intervene in a friendly way whenever they found it desirable.

As to the amount of money that would be involved, it was so insignificant a part of a huge transaction that he did not anticipate that either the Government or any hon. Member would offer any objection to it. The Act would provide the reserve fund which would furnish the Estates Commissioners with ample means to bring about this settlement. The tenants' representatives had not been churlish in dealing with the men who had suffered among the landlords, and he hoped and believed no leader of hon. Gentlemen opposite would raise any objection to this Amendment. The Land Conference unanimously declared that the settlement of this question equitably was indispensable to the success of this Bill, and what more equitable basis could there be than this. The right hon. Gentleman had already shown that he fully realised the importance of this question as a means of getting the goodwill which would have to be the great driving force of this measure. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 18, at the end, to insert the words, '(4) Where the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate under the provisions of this Act, or where the landlord is selling his estate to the tenants or former tenants thereof under the Land Purchase Acts, and there are upon such estate tenants in occupation of holdings from which other tenants were evicted within twenty-five years before the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to arrange for the surrender to them or to the landlord, as the case may be, of such holdings by the tenants in occupation thereof, on such terms as may be agreed upon, including the transfer of such tenants to other holdings or the payment of such sums of money as compensation for such surrenders as they may think fit, not exceeding in any one case twice the amount of the annual rent payable by each such tenant. And, upon such surrender as aforesaid being made, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to reinstate in their holdings the former tenants thereof, and thereupon such former tenants so reinstated shall have the same rights under the Land Purchase Acts as they would have had if they had never been evicted from such holdings.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)

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

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

said the hon. Member for Cork had asked that his Amendment should be considered in a careful and sympathetic spirit. He had considered it carefully, but he could not say sympathetically. The hon. Member for Cork had made very drastic proposals in a very moderate speech, but he had carefully avoided figures. The proposal was about as wide as any he had ever heard proposed in the House. It covered every eviction that had taken place in Ireland in the last twenty-five years. He would like to have heard how many thousand tenants had been evicted for one cause or another in that time. The hon. Member could not seriously propose that the tenants who had been turned out of their farms absolutely, hopelessly impecunious, and unable to work them, should be gathered together from all parts of the world and reinstated, and the tenants who occupied the farms and cultivated them to advantage were to go out. If the Committee desired to create in Ireland the most hopeless confusion the mind of man could conceive, they should accept the Amendment. Hon. Members made very mild speeches in this House, but they went to Ireland and gave advice in a very different tone. What would happen if the Amendment were accepted would be that when the Bill was passed a man who held an evicted farm would be "advised" to give up the farm to his predecessor. He recollected the time of the Plan of Campagin when the advice given had sometimes a very unpleasant effect on the person advised.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

That is all old history.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

It was true it was old history, but it was history he did not wish to see repeated. A leopard could not change his spots so easily. (Ironical NATIONALIST cheers). He was glad hon. Members agreed with him. Hon. Members wished these things to be forgotten, and he was willing to forget them, but the acceptance of this Amendment would bring to light these things they wished to forget. He hoped the Government would reject the clause.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he would not allow himself to be drawn by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite into indulging in any kind of recriminations. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who could hardly be expected to make a speech on this question without giving utterance to irritating remarks, had restrained himself fairly well, but he had made one mistake—viz., that when speaking of what had happened during the last twenty five years, and the strong speeches that had been made, he had forgotten that whereas then they were trying to make war they were now endeavouring to make peace. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be the man to stand in the way of a sincere effort to remove, as far as it could be done, all traces of the bitter conflict of the past. He wished he could impress upon the Chief Secretary an adequate idea of the importance attached to this matter in Ireland. In extent the question was a very small one. The picture which had been drawn of all the evicted tenants of the last twenty-five years rushing from the ends of the earth to regain their old homes was absurd. The real object of the Amendment was to enable tenants to be restored to their homes in cases where the new tenants were willing to give up the farms and make other arrangements, and that power for that purpose should be placed in the hands of the Commission. There was no intention to put into the Bill any provision by which pressure, direct or indirect, could be brought to bear upon existing tenants. The number of these new tenants who were real bonâ fide agriculturists, working their farms as ordinary farmers, was comparatively few; and if they desired to continue in their holdings he would not give his sanction to any attempt compulsorily to get them out. That was as things were now. In the last twenty-five years they had tried compulsion, and failed in these cases. But this Amendment was proposed to deal not with these cases but with the others, which for the most part concerned men who were not agriculturists at all, but who had been put into the farms to carry on the war on the part of the landlords, and had probably never been happy or comfortable in their surroundings. The Amendment asked that in these cases the Estates Commissioners should have power to bring out the existing tenants for the purpose of putting others in their places. Was that a revolutionary or improper provision? It would be an absolutely voluntary proceeding, as nothing could be done without the consent of the tenant; and if it was true, as he understood it was, that the Congested Districts Board already possessed a similar power, it would be ridiculous to deny it to this new Commission. The Amendment asked also that the Estates Commissioners should have power in these cases, as they had in the case of all new tenants under the Bill, to spend money for the purpose of rebuilding, restocking, and giving the men a fresh start in life. The necessary money was already in the Bill, as it was provided that what was called the "reserve fund," amounting to £240,000 or £250,000, should be placed at the disposal of the Commissioners for this very work. Could it be contended that the unfortunate evicted tenants were to be excluded from that provision? They must be dealt with in the same way as other tenants, and he would be greatly astonished if the Chief Secretary was not forced to take that view. If the right hon. Gentleman went so far, all that remained was that the Estates Commissioners should have the power to buy out existing tenants in order to put in others, and as it was purely a matter of voluntary agreement, but one upon which so much depended for the promotion of the good feeling which all desired in Ireland, he hoped the Chief Secretary would favourably consider the proposal.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh had suggested that the Nationalist Members were playing a part in this matter, their real object being to return to Ireland and rekindle the land war if possible That was an unworthy suspicion. Any intelligent man who had noted their acts and words for months past must know that it was impossible for them to cherish any such design, unless, indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his followers drove them into adopting that course. He entertained no such suspicion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. He frankly admitted that the present position would have been utterly impossible had it not been for the conciliatory and generous spirit shown by men like Lord Dunraven and others. The least the Nationalist Members could claim was that they should be given credit for equal sincerity. It was in the interests of peace, and of peace alone, they pressed this Amendment, which he hoped the Chief Secretary would deal with in a spirit very different from that of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

sincerely wished this question had been left untouched, but the matter having been raised he was anxious not to impart any heat or rancour into the discussion. He credited hon. Gentlemen opposite with all sincerity, but while they were doubtless anxious that there should be no further land war they could not be regarded as absolutely controlling the Irish people. They had rivals in every constituency, and they might not be able to carry their wishes into effect. The hon. Member for Waterford had used words which seemed to imply that if a man was a good agriculturist he was all right.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said his argument was that there were certain classes of these men who would be most anxious to give up their holdings, while others would not. Why should those who were willing to give them up be prevented from doing so?

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

said that hon. Members opposite claimed the evicted tenants as the wounded in the war because they took a certain line politically. Those tenants allowed themselves to be evicted not because their rents were unfair but because they thought it was good for the national cause. He was not going to be drawn into saying anything that would produce heat, but he claimed that if compensation was given to the wounded it should be given to the wounded on both sides. What about the shopkeepers and other people who had been ruined in this land war, and who were neither landlords nor tenants? He thought the best course to pursue would be to consider this war closed and let each side bury its own dead and cure its own wounded. The proposition which had been put forward was one which the Government ought not to accept. It had been said that the British taxpayer had nothing to do with this question, but it appeared to him that he had a great deal to do with it. They must remember the broad fact that the British taxpayer was practically going to be the landlord in the future, and the British taxpayers would ask why these extra facilities should be given to put on to farms the men who, for political purposes, had allowed themselves to be evicted. There was a body of opinion in the House of Commons which regarded this Bill with apprehension.

At this point, Mr. WYNDHAM moved to the end of the Treasury bench and whispered an observation to Sir John Colomb.

SIR JOHN COLOMB

, resuming his remarks, said the Chief Secretary did not agree with him, but that was his view, and he had felt it his duty to state it. He had restrained himself in dealing with this question and had tried to deal with a great and a really grave subject with moderation, with reason, and with quietness. He should listen with great interest to what the Chief Secretary had to say.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that perhaps he ought to intervene in the debate at this moment. He should like from the first to take the whole Committee into his confidence as to what was the bearing of the observation he had ventured to make to his hon. and gallant friend Otherwise they might be mystified, and the hon. Member for South Molton might go so far as to say that it was not far to restrain his hon. and gallant friend from showing, what the British taxpayer might not be aware of, what was a real danger to him. The reason why he interrupted his hon. and gallant friend was this, that any money used under Clause 11, whether for this or for any other purpose, was not only Irish money, but, to the extent of £250,000, was money which had been earned by land purchase in Ireland in excess of all that was required to pay interest on the Sinking Fund. Therefore the hon. Member for South Molton should not begrudge them this nest egg, which belonged to Ireland. What they were to do with it, and whether they could use it beneficially without breaking it or spilling its contents on the floor, was another matter; but that it belonged to Ireland and to land purchase in Ireland was beyond dispute. His hon. and gallant friend had said that he had exercised great restraint in speaking on this subject. He thought he had, and he himself rose with trepidation. It was almost impossible to discuss the question of the evicted tenants without finding surging memories rising up in one's mind. Upon this subject they were carried back to the Act of 1891. It might be remembered that in the year 1891, just after the Plan of Campaign, when his right hon. friend the Leader of the House had been throwing a good deal of spirit and enterprise into his Irish Government, this House by a large majority put a clause into the Land Bill which opened the door for a period of six months, so that there could be no objection now to the principle of 1891 in regard to a temporary chance of a settlement. Since 1891 a certain number of men had occupied those holdings, and, therefore, although the occasion was a more favourable one now owing to the lapse of time and to the efforts of both sides signing the Conference Report, there were now persons occupying those farms from which others had been evicted. The hon. and learned member for Waterford had said more than once that he and his party had no intention of touching again that part of the question themselves or, so far as they could, of permitting it to be touched by compulsion, direct or indirect, that illegitimately—there could be no legitimate pressure—by any form of pressure at all, no man who owned a holding in Ireland which was once occupied by another was to be led to leave that holding if he desired to remain on it. That was what the hon. and learned Member said, and he accepted his word.

It might be said that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford could not govern the future, but how high had he put up the standard at this moment? How high was it put up in 1894? In the year 1894 his right hon. friend the Prime Minister and himself were resisting a Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs dealing with this question, and they resisted it to the best of their power. What was the tenor of their remarks upon that occasion? He would not quote what he himself said, but he would quote the remarks of the Prime Minister. His right hon. friend, after rehearsing some of the bitter memories of the past, which they did not wish to allude to that day, said— But no hope is held out to us by those in whose hands rests the decision of the question. They tell us in plain terms that when it suits them they will use the old methods for the old objects; and, in face of declarations of that kind, I confess that this House will be obliged to pause before it uses public funds and public legislation for the purpose of succouring the wounded soldiers in this species of civil war. The Prime Minister went on to say— If that section or party would hold out to us any hope that we have seen an end of these things, and that we need never look for a repetition of them in future, I for one would not look too closely either into the amount of money which we are asked to vote or into the merits of those who are to receive it. (NATIONALIST Cheers.) Hon. Members must not cheer too soon. He admitted that that did not dispose of the difficulty. It only emphasised the fact to which his right hon. friend and other hon. Members had borne witness—that they did wish to settle this question. He took it from the speeches made the other night that they all wished to settle it and they did not mean to leave it, unless they were obliged to do so, outstanding from the four corners of the Bill. It was difficult to bring this question in without using some means which might be held to put some form of pressure upon the men who had taken those farms. It would be his duty to see that the form of words used in the Bill was not capable of being abused in the direction of pressure on those men who had taken these farms—not by the hon. Member for Waterford and his followers, but by persons who might disappoint their intentions. He thought the hon. Member would agree with him that in so difficult a matter—a matter which he found it very difficult to handle without disturbing the happy conditions that had hitherto prevailed—the mere phraseology adopted became a matter of importance. They were all agreed that there must be no compulsion but that, on the other hand, they wanted to settle the evicted tenants question.

The other night he laid down three principles for dealing with this question. The first was that there should be no compulsion; the second, that they must give equal treatment to all classes of persons with whom the Act would deal; the third, that there must be no special mention of evicted tenants. It might be a question of proper administration, that the evicted tenants difficulty was a thing to be easily settled in one part of Ireland to the satisfaction of all parties, including the landlords; while in another part of Ireland such a question as, for example, the labourers' question, might be so acute that no one would suggest that the first and most obvious thing to do was to find farms for the evicted tenants. He held, therefore, that, while they ought not to exclude anything from the Bill which might conduce to the settlement of this question, they ought not to push into the very forefront of the Bill a contentious matter in such a form of words as to leave posterity to think that they held this to be the most vital question of all. It might be so not unnaturally in the minds of some, but in the minds of others other questions were equally vital; and he thought the matter must be left to the tact and good sense of those who had to administer the Bill, and to the absolute harmony of conviction prevailing amongst all classes in Ireland that the sore ought to be healed. In Clause 11 of the Bill, it was undoubted that the Commission had powers to take steps for benefiting and improving an estate. According to the interpretation of the Statutes Act the word "estate" carried the plural and meant estates generally. The first sub-section of Clause 2 was as follows— The Land Commission may, where an estate, or untenanted land, is vested in them, take such steps and execute, or cause to be executed, such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of the estate, or untenanted land. In making provisions for improvement of estates under the clause the Commissioners were not pinned down within the limits of one estate. There was under that clause a fund, which might be used as a roving fund, of £250,000, which was the working capital necessary to fructify the financing of the sum of £5,000,000. He held that they ought not to lay it down that the Commissioners should at once turn their attention to this question of the evicted tenants, and use a large slice of this working capital for that purpose; but it was indubitable that under Clause 11 the working capital might be used for the benefit and improvement of a congerie of estates on which the Estates Commissioners were at work, and in many cases it would be the very object which everybody would wish to carry out. He was convinced that if what he now said was accepted on both sides within a very short time an example of peace and harmony given in one place would be rapidly followed in other parts of Ireland. The basis of the whole discussion was that there should be no compulsion; but on the other hand he could not disguise from the Committee that if these words were put in here, drawing such pointed attention to a particular class, then there would be speeches from this side of the House throwing doubt on the possibility of the hon. Members for Waterford and Cork being able to carry out their intention. They would throw down an apple of discord. It would be better to take the clause as it stood, and make no invidious selection, which was bound to throw them back into the futile controversies of the past.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in the spirit of a statesman. He recognised the delicacy of the question and his own great responsibility. Might he say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the landlords' side, one or two things. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth said that there were wounded soldiers on both sides, but had he forgotten that the landlords were to get £12,000,000 to bury their dead? That was a good contribution to the funeral expenses. Certainly on this side of the House they were not so well provided. Let him remind hon. Members opposite that, as the hon. Member for Cork had truly said, they were open to much misrepresentation for proposing what was in reality a grabbers' compensation clause. Then the Government were going to propose by-and-by a land agents' compensation and bailiff's' compensation clause, and even the income tax collectors were to get some consideration. Was it unreasonable for the Irish Members on their part to claim something for the ragged fringes in this question, while they were fully willing to give those men who had taken the farms full compensation, and to provide at the same time the possibility of reinstating the former occupiers of the land? His hon. friend the Member for Waterford, had made to-night as remarkable a declaration as he had ever heard in this House, and the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was couched in the same tone. He did think that Members on this side of the House, speaking on their responsibility for their people, regarded their words as good coin in Ireland, and would not be gone back on by those alleged competitors which an hon. Member had said he had in his own constituency. Well, he himself had no competitor in his own constituency except himself. The hon. Member for Waterford had stated that he would guarantee to this House, if this Amendment were accepted, on behalf of his Party and on behalf of his organisation, that those who had taken farms and were not willing to surrender them should be left unmolested in their holdings. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth referred to the clause as one which did not cover the case of shopkeepers. No doubt he had in his mind the Tallow case. The clause did cover that case. It applied to the case of Mr. O'Keefe, who took a farm, and it would enable him to get compensation if he surrendered, or, upon the other hand, the very significant promise of the hon. Member for Waterford guaranteed to him, if he failed to surrender the farm, quiet and peaceable possession for the remainder of his days. He thought this capitulation—he did not use the word offensively but in its strict legal meaning—on the part of the hon. Members for Cork and Waterford was well worthy of being entertained by this House. It had been accepted in that sense by the Chief Secretary, and he thought they had a guarantee in the situation created by these declarations, and in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, which made as much for permanent peace in the country as the Dunraven Treaty itself.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he could add a word or two which might be of use to the Committee. Many years ago, when the land war was at its height, he took an active part in forming what was called the Derelict Land Trust, whch raised thousands of pounds for the purpose of planting men on the evicted tenants' farms. That being so, he did not think he ought to remain silent altogether on this occasion. The first thing he wished to say was that that was done as an act of war. He had followed the course of these planters since. He knew many of them, and was brought into contact with them personally. Their career had not been a happy one. They had not achieved any success. As a simple matter of fact, he believed this question was not a large one in the sense the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said. He thought it was a very small and narrow one, and that, with very little arrangement and inducement, these men would gladly go out of their holdings and make room for those who had lost them, not from bankruptcy, or thriftlessness, or drunkenness, but only because of the land war, and because they stood in the front of the firing line. Very few of these men had succeeded. How could they? He was not very sure but that the people to be most benefited by this Amendment, and who would rejoice most if it were carried, were the planters. He thought it right to say that because he spoke from personal knowledge of many of the planters and their circumstances. The Committee might take it from him that these men were not fixtures as farmers were; they were put in as an act of war, and they would be glad to go out on terms now that peace had been proclaimed. It had been said that hon. Members opposite were very keen upon this question, and some members of the Committee had made comments on that fact. He would think very much worse of hon. Members opposite if they were not keenly and desperately in earnest in trying to get the best terms for these men who had fought with them and for them, and who had suffered the consequences of the war.

MR. DILLON

said he had always held that this question was one of the most vital connected with the Bill, and that on its solution would depend in large measure the spirit in which this Act was administered in Ireland, and the attitude of the Irish landlords towards its administration. But, when the right hon. Gentleman asked the Irish Members to accept his fair and agreeable words, his assurance that these men would be humanely and generously dealt with in accordance with the agreement of the Land Conference, he listened in vain to obtain from the representatives of the Irish landlords the slightest degree of hope that their voice would be raised in the same direction. What was the use of the right hon. Gentleman's fair and agreeable words if it was stated from the benches opposite that vengeance was still to be the doctrine preached in the administration of this Act. He had hoped that the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would have shown a willingness to make it possible for them to work for peace in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about forgetting the past; but how were they to forget the past if the evicted tenants were to be treated in the spirit which had been shown that night?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

What spirit?

MR. DILLON

said he did not want to use strong words; he meant the spirit of want of forgiveness, want of generosity, and want of any genuine desire for peace in Ireland.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said he had already stated in the House that he was ready, and he believed that the landlords in Ireland were ready, as far as possible, to see the evicted tenants reinstated, so long as that did not involve the eviction of the present holders.

MR. DILLON

said that the eviction of the present holders had not been demanded by the Nationalist Members. Had they made no concession, when they retired from the position which the whole people of Ireland had taken up in saying that these men should be evicted? The right hon. and gallant Member had the singular want of taste and judgment to say that the Nationalist Members might find rivals in their constituencies who would make it hot for them. Yes; that might be true if the right hon. and gallant Member pursued the policy in which he was engaged. If the right hon. and gallant Member wanted them to redeem the pledge sincerely given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that these men would be secure from all molestation in the future, then he had taken a very bad way to do it. Did he imagine that the Nationalist Members were to be sent home to Ireland absolutely empty-handed in this matter? The right hon. and gallant Member must give them something. He had thought that the whole of these discussions were to go on on new lines, that both sides were desirous of seeking peace by mutual concessions, and above all, that both sides were desirous of showing and proving that they had no wish to inflict injury in respect of what was past. What would this concession involve? That no pressure would be put upon any tenant in Ireland who now occupied a holding to go out of it. The only way in which there could be security against pressure was to meet them fairly. He supposed that the amount of money involved would perhaps amount to £100,000. He had listened with curiosity and surprise to the extreme anxiety displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth in behalf of the British taxpayer, when it came to a gift of £100,000 to the tenants to heal this sore; but there was no anxiety on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's part for the British taxpayer when it came to giving a bonus of £12,000,000 to the Irish landlords, and when he was claiming twenty-five years purchase for his own estate. He was sorry to be obliged to say it, but there seemed to be a feeling on the part of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept all the good terms offered to the landlords, and still to retain the base and unworthy pleasure of punishing the evicted tenants. That was not the spirit in which the landlords could bring this question to a peaceful and happy conclusion. In his opinion the landlords were making a very great mistake in that attitude, even from a money point of view. Hon. Members opposite thought it good policy to hint at this particular stage—though it was never heard of at an earlier stage—that the influence of the Nationalist Members in Ireland might disappear, and that other great forces might arise which would set them aside, and carry on the land war. His answer to that was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking the very best possible way to make that new fight inevitable and formidable. The passage of the Bill went smoothly and quietly until some concessions were asked for the tenants. Then, forgetting the generous terms obtained for themselves, the landlords' representatives immediately showed their teeth, and opposed every concession to the tenants whatever. He put it to these hon. Members opposite, who only appeared to be accessible to the pocket argument, did they think that such a temper as they had displayed would facilitate the bargains which they were to make with the tenants? It was one of the characteristics of the Irish people that they would go a long way to make concessions if these were carried out in an atmosphere of general reconciliation and goodwill; and he believed that in such an atmosphere the landlords would get a higher price for their land than they would if they gave to the tenantry of Ireland, and the general public of Ireland, the impression that they were still animated by bitterness and a spirit of vengeance.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether he was correct in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that, under Clause 11, the Estates Commissioners were to have all the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and would have the power to use money at their disposal for rebuilding and restocking any new holdings to be created under the Act. Had the Congested Districts Board the power to buy out the interests of existing tenants in order to put the evicted tenants in; and if so, had the Estate Commissioners that power under Clause 11? Secondly, he wished to know whether the money under Clause 11, which was at the disposal of the Estate Commissioners, was available under the Bill as it stood for the purpose of restocking and rebuilding farms, such as these eviction farms?

MR. WYNDHAM

said that his answer to these two questions was certainly in the affirmative. The use of the powers of the Estates Commissioners was to be governed by all he had said that night, and the other night.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would put words in the Bill which would make that plain.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

said it was unfortunate that when the proceedings had gone so harmoniously this heat had been generated. He thought there had been a distinct misunderstanding by the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the position of the Irish landlords on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in his opinion the Irish landlords were actuated by hostility to the evicted tenants.

MR. DILLON

The two representatives who spoke.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

said he understood that the hon. Gentleman had referred to the general body of Irish landlords; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Irish landlords, including the two Gentlemen pointed at, did not retain the least hostility to the evicted tenants. Every landlord in Ireland desired that all cause of trouble and dispute should be buried. Their point was simply that the present tenants should not be coerced, either indirectly or directly, to give up their rights. On the other hand, they had no hostility to the evicted tenants, and were glad to see them placed in the best position consistent with the absence of any coercion towards the present tenants. Under this Bill various powers were given. Money was promised to enable these evicted tenants to secure other holdings. Power was also given to deal with these particular lands; estates might be bought, and tenants' interests might be purchased, and there was nothing whatsoever in the Bill to prevent even the exact scheme drawn up by the Amendment from being carried out. The only exception, perhaps, was that of money. This question could not be settled by mere money. But the Bill gave ample powers for the shifting of tenants. If a tenant was in possession of an evicted holding there was nothing to prevent his changing his holding. The whole of these estates were in the hands of the Land Commission. They might be dealt with as one estate, and it was perfectly possible under the Bill to make a shifting arrangement. The Amendment appeared, to a certain extent, to limit the powers of the Commission rather than to extend them. It said, in fact, they might not make arrangements with the tenant of an evicted holding, except under certain limited terms. That was not the way to deal with these tenants. The Commissioners had the power to give them another holding, and the evicted tenant could be replaced by means of the money grant to be given under the Bill. It had been admitted that the Chief Secretary had sympathetically asserted that it was his wish and desire that this question should be settled; but it had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo that the Irish landlords had not delivered themselves in the same sense. On behalf of the Irish landlords, however, he begged to say that they took exactly the same view as that entertained by the Chief Secretary; they were just as anxious to pour oil on these troubled waters. He felt certain that the object would be better secured by relying on the declarations that had been made than by inserting in the Bill anything to limit rather than increase its powers. He made these observations with a view to, and in the hope of, securing a spirit of tranquillity in Ireland.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked the Chief Secretary to state whether, in a case where a farm was occupied by a new tenant, and the latter was willing to go to another farm, or to receive a certain sum as compensation for relinquishing his holding, the Land Commissioners, if they thought it fit an arrangement should be made, would have the power to make such arrangement under Clause 11.

MR. WYNDHAM

Yes, certainly.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

thought the question was very largely met. He believed, in spite of what had been said to the contrary, that a great majority of the landlords would be glad to have some arrangement by which new tenants of evicted farms would give them up and allow the old tenants to be reinstated. He had been approached by friends of landlords in the county of Clare with regard to bringing about a settlement of that nature. In one case the new tenant had carried on the farm without profit either to himself or the landlord, and they were extremely anxious for an arrangement to be made. A resale was arrived at, the new tenant surrendered the farm voluntarily, and the old tenant was restored.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co. N.)

said all they desired was to include in the four corners of the Bill the reinstatement of the evicted tenants so far as possible on an equitable basis. There could not be the difficulty that some hon. Members had tried to make out, because he knew of a considerable number of evicted farms which were being worked at the present time by the occupants at a loss, and which were rented at much lower sums than had been paid by the former tenants.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.