HC Deb 29 June 1903 vol 124 cc868-95

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 5:—

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-live 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 again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. FLYNN

, continuing his remarks, said he thought on this occasion the representatives of the landlords might have acted more generously. Whatever objections the Irish Nationalists had to the Bill those objections had nothing to do with what the landlords would get out of it, and it was disappointing to find hon. Gentlemen opposite coming forward now and invoking the sacred name of the British taxpayer who, in the language of hon. Members, had been for many years a by-word and reproach, but who, whether they had been right or wrong in their action, were entitled to be considered. This clause would only come into operation when the landlord sold direct to the Land Commission and not when he and his tenants agreed together. He would not prolong the discussion, because he was in hopes that the Government had not really said the last word on this matter. He hoped that before the discussion came to an end they would have a communication from the Government that they were prepared to go somewhat further, or, at any rate, to make Clause 11 more comprehensive. No self-respecting body of public men in Ireland would ever consent to the d liberate abandonment of the evicted tenants of Ireland, who had made those great sacrifices for principle, without trying to do something to prevent them being a by-word and a reproach.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether before they came to Clause 11 he could not introduce some words that would save them from the possibility of the failure of the object they had so much at heart. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would enlarge the powers of the Commissioners under Clause 11, so that those powers should apply to the case of direct transactions between landlord and tenant, as well as to cases in which the land was vested in the Commissioners.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was quite ready in respect of this question and other questions which might arise to see before Report whether it was possible in all cases to deal with estates, which the landlord sold to his tenants by private arrangement, on all fours with the procedure applicable to estates held by the Commissioners. He was bound to say, however, that there were great practical difficulties, particularly when the expenditure of public money was being dealt with. That did not preclude an arrangement being come to on many of these questions, because where the employment of public funds was proper and desirable the simple plan was for the landlord to sell that part of his property to the Estates Commissioners. He did not think that, as far as principle was concerned, there was any difference between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As far as the easy administration of the Act was concerned, there was a good deal between them however, but they were in far closer agreement than many would have supposed. They practically came to agreement on the previous Wednesday, when he ventured to lay down three principles—(1) that it was desirable to settle the evicted tenants question—(2), that no pressure in favour of the evicted tenants should be put on those holdings now in the occupation of others, and (3) that in using the powers of this Bill to settle the land question they ought not to single out one class for preferential treatment to the detriment of another. All those principles were accepted without dissent. They were affirmed in Clause 2, and must be also affirmed in Clause 11, and if Clause 11 was not perspicuous it must be made so.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

said the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this Amendment was, under difficult circumstances, a friendly and satisfactory one No one regretted more than he did one or two passages in the rather unhappy speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, but in a matter of this kind he was not disposed to magnify differences, and he preferred to remember the frank and friendly speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney. He could not forget also that in this and other critical passages of the Bill those who had a right to speak for the majority of the Irish landlords had not failed to show their sympathy. They recognised that substantially the object of the Amendment was gained, and as they did not wish to fight for shadows he would ask leave to withdraw it; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would devise some means that would save him and them from the lawyers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

moved the omission of Sub-section (4), which apparently gave to the Lord Lieutenant under certain circumstances the power to enable the Estates Commissioners to buy an estate without taking any steps to inquire what price the tenants were able to give.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the sub-section would be necessary to the proper working of the Act. On many properties in Ireland there were difficulties as to the arrangements for access to turbary and other easements, which were hard to overcome, and the landlord was hung up by quarrels, not between himself and his tenantry, but between two sections of his tenantry. It was to meet such cases that the subsection was intended. But the matter was one which could perhaps be better discussed on Clause 17.

MR. DILLON

said the advantage of freely discussing these points was shown by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had completely converted him to the idea that the Amendment was unnecessary. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would like to point out that they were putting a great deal of responsibility on the Estates Commissioners, and they could not undertake to give them minute instructions in all these small matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

moved an Amendment empowering the Lord Lieutenant, where necessary for the preservation of the peace, to dispense with the conditions as to voluntary sale, and to direct the application of the provisions of the Land Clauses Act to the purchase of an estate. He said that the Amendment was to provide for those cases where disturbance resulted from variation in the conditions of neighbouring tenants. He thought it would be very desirable for the Lord Lieutenant to have this power. The Amendment was suggested by hon. Members belonging to the Liberal Party, and he regretted that some were not present at that moment to advocate it. The concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman had practically wiped out the zone system, and he did not believe tenants would purchase unless under Schedule prices. In Galway in 1890 the average price of land was fourteen years purchase; in 1892 it was sixteen years purchase, and in 1894 it was ten years purchase. In 1896 it was eleven years, whereas in 1895 it was thirteen years. In Mayo, Roscommon, and Sligo the averages had varied from six to sixteen years purchase, and it certainly would not be fair to compel new purchasers to purchase under a zone system which would make the price equal to thirty-two years purchase of second-term rents. It could only produce public disturbance. He begged to move—

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'and the Lord Lieutenant shall, where it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, dispense with the conditions as to voluntary sale, and direct the provisions of the Land Clauses Act as shall apply to the purchase of an estate by the Land Commission and the resale to the tenants where it can be effected without prospect of loss.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not see how voluntary purchase could lead to disturbance. The Amendment would rather defeat its own object of promoting the peace. All were agreed to give the present Bill a trial; and the whole of Ireland was united in putting compulsion on one side. [Mr. DILLON: For the present.] Then why bring up this question of compulsion again and again when it had no chance of acceptance by any section of the House?

MR. TULLY

said he brought it up because on the Second Reading he had no chance of stating his views on it. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

rose to move an Amendment to introduce a power of compulsion in dealing with these questions. He said they were making a really serious attempt to deal with the problem of re-settlement in the West of Ireland, and he thought it would be found to be the universal opinion that, unless some form of compulsion was introduced, it would not be possible to settle the question. He had on the Paper an Amendment to Clause 72, to give compulsory powers to the Congested Districts Board.

*THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the point could not be discussed at that stage, and the Amendment was not therefore proposed.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 29, to leave out from the word 'case' to end of line 30."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TULLY

next moved an Amendment extending the definition of an estate under the clause. He pointed out that a large number of small tenants on the fringe of grazing farms were absolutely shut out by the definition given in the sub-section, and he said he was confident that the acceptance of his Amendment would give universal satisfaction in Ireland.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 34, to leave out the words 'an estate,' and to insert the words 'any estate in the province of Connaught, and counties of Donegal, Clare, Kerry, and Cork.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Gentleman could not have considered the matter very carefully. The Amendment would not effect the object which he had in view, and he ought to remember that congestion was sporadic.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MURPHY

pointed out that according to Sub-section 4 of Clause 1, congested estates were excluded from the zones, and he thought it very necessary to add the words, "or part of an estate situated in a congested districts county." This Amendment would cover such cases as that of the Kenmare estate in the County of Kerry, the congested portion of which would be shut out by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He wanted to protect the tenants of the bad part of that estate.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 38, at end to insert the words 'or part of an estate situated in a congested districts county.'

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

MR. WYNDHAM

pointed out that the scheduling of congested districts was somewhat accidental and arbitrary, and it was notorious that in uncongested districts they might have a worse state of affairs than in congested districts. The Government came forward with this plan for defining congestion wherever it existed, and congestion so defined was outside any provision other than that it might be bought, while in order to carry out the improvements which might be necessary to improve the state of affairs, public money to the extent of 10 per cent. on the aggregate transactions might be expended.

MR. DILLON

agreed that the definition ought to extend to all congestion, but the original definition of a congested district was preposterous. He had an Amendment lower on the Paper which he thought was of great importance; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept that?

MR. WYNDHAM

The Amendment of the hon. Member is already in the Bill.

MR. DILLON

doubted whether that was so, but it would be more convenient to explain the point when the Amendment was reached.

MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL

said the Committee ought to know exactly where they stood with regard to the zones in congested districts. He was perfectly satisfied that the definition should apply outside the scheduled districts, but he desired to know whether congested parts of the country would be brought within the zones if they were not excluded by the exemptions already made. If so, the tenants, instead of twelve, fourteen, or sixteen years purchase, would have to pay twenty-two years purchase, which was an impossible price for such districts. In County Kerry alone there were 12,000 holdings of under £5 valuation, with a population living upon them of 67,000, or an average of 14s. per head. The same thing obtained in most of the other congested counties. But as they would not be congested under the present definition, they would be compelled to purchase within the zones, a fact which he feared would render the Bill inoperative so far as they were concerned.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in any case this Amendment would not carry out the objects of which hon. Members had spoken. The portion "or part of an estate" was covered by the provision that an estate was whatever the Commissioners defined as an estate. Districts were at present scheduled having regard to the relation of rateable value to population and various matters other than actual congestion. The Government might have said that the Congested Districts Board should deal with congestion wherever it occurred. They considered that plan and rejected it, because the officers of the Board were known in the congested districts but not elsewhere, and there were other difficulties in the way. Another suggestion was to absorb the Board in the new Department, but that would have involved the loss of the valuable asset comprised in the fact that the members and officers of the Congested Districts Board were known in the congested districts. The Government aimed at preserving the Board in the areas where they could work most effectively, and then said that wherever the Land Commission certified it to be a right and proper district an estate should be defined as congested, and should get the advantage of the 10 per cent. for carrying out works and the bonus, but should not have to come within the zones. That plan combined the maximum of the advantages of the existing system with the maximum of the advantages of the system now to be brought in. Sub-section 6 must not be taken without Sub-section 5; the former was really only the Treasury check.

MR. MURPHY

was afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the point he desired to bring out. Three-fourths of the Kenmare estate, under Clause 1, was non-congested; the remaining one-fourth was scheduled as a congested district, and, judged from every point of view, deserved to be regarded as such. If the landlord wanted to sell to his tenants, would not the tenants on that remaining one-fourth—who would not come under the definition of this sub-section—have to make the same terms as those on the other three-fourths?

MR. WYNDHAM

Certainly not.

MR. MURPHY

understood that as the whole estate would have to be sold the congested portion would have to come to the same terms as the uncongested portion, and remain within the zones.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that was not the case. That matter was decided on Clause 1, upon which they could not go back.

MR. MURPHY

said that as the Chief Secretary was so confident on the matter he would not press the Amendment.

MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL

asked whether he understood that if tenants and landlord on an estate in a congested district as at present scheduled, desired to buy and sell, and the land did not come within the definition of this sub-section, they could do so outside the zones.

MR. WYNDHAM

said they could do that under Clause 1, subject to the words he had inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

said that if the Amendment he now desired to move was in the Bill already, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the discussion would be very brief. He agreed that the definition ought to extend over the whole of Ireland. The Bagot estate might be taken as an example. More than half the area was grass land; it was an ideal estate for the purposes of migration; but under this definition it would not be a congested estate because less than half the area was occupied by holders of less than £5 valuation. There were many estates outside the scheduled congested districts, the greater part of the area of which was held by three or four large grass farmers, but they would not be classified as congested because less than half was held by the poorer people. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that that point was already covered by the Bill, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 34, to leave out from the second word 'estate,' to the second word 'of,' in line 35, and to insert the words 'whether situated in a congested districts county or not, a substantial part.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

strongly urged the right hon. Gentleman to extend the definition in the sense proposed by the Amendment. He could scarcely call to mind a score of estates outside the scheduled areas that would come under the definition of Sub-section 6. The general configuration of the country had to be borne in mind. In many places there were large stretches of magnificent land which would not come within this definition, but around which there was a regular ring of little villages of poor people who probably had been evicted from the richer land. These people were as congested as they could possibly be, but they would be shut out from the benefits of this clause because of the rich lands which were not theirs, but were in the occupation probably of some large grazier living in Dublin or London. This was really the kernel of the whole difficulty. Unless these rich lands were made available for the people, the Government were simply proposing to feed the dog with its own tail by making the very poverty of the land its disqualification. By accepting the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would leave the Estates Commissioners the supreme judges of what constituted congestion, a question which could be settled only according to the particular local circumstances of each estate. Unless some such Amendment was accepted there would be a necessity to bring in a subsequent measure to amend the imperfections of this definition.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that this was a question of great complexity, and the Government had carefully considered all the alternatives before deciding on the plan in the Bill. The Commissioners were made the judges of what constituted congestion. The definition of congestion was not in Sub section 6; that was the Treasury check on the definition of congestion. The greater part of the definition was in Sub-section 5, although possibly it was not admirably worded— If the Land Commission certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon … that was the real essential definition of congestion. Then came the next point in this complex matter—What was an estate? According to the Bill, an estate was whatever the Estates Commissioners declared to be fit to be treated as an estate. The Bill, therefore, did what the hon. Member for Cork desired; the Commissioners were to be the judges of what was congestion, but the Treasury placed a limit upon their judgment to the extent of saying that at least one-half of the holdings must be of such a character.

MR. DILLON

said the question at issue was an exceedingly important one. Sub-section 5 gave a most important power to the Land Commission, but that power was controlled by Sub-section 6. The Treasury check was a very bad one, and it was just the kind of thing against which he and others had been struggling for the last seven or eight years. Three or four times he had been asked by the Chief Secretary to assist in getting through the House after midnight, as unopposed measures, Bills for amending the Congested Districts Act, and there were now seven or eight of those Acts simply because a complete job was not made of the matter at the beginning. What would be the effect of this Treasury check? Suppose an estate, such as the Bagot estate, came into the market, and the Commissioners reported that it was a suitable estate to be treated under this sub-section, they would be met by the Treasury check, and they would be unable so to deal with the estate, because half the area did not consist of bog holdings. Thus, some of the most beneficent work the Commissioners could do would be stopped by this absurd check. In the minds of many hon. Members, who could not follow the technicalities of the Bill, one of its great recommendations was that they had been led to believe that this measure would put an end to this wretched condition of poverty in the west of Ireland. Was it reasonable that the Committee should be asked to assent to this check, which could only have the effect of limiting the power of the Estates Commissioners. The Treasury had the protection of the discretion of a public department in Ireland and if they were not going to trust the Estates Commissioners the position was absurd. They had also the protection of the Lord Lieutenant. They were nevertheless told that this was not sufficient protection and that they must have this Treasury check. He hoped the Chief Secretary would accept this Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would assume that there was an estate upon which a proportion of not less than one-half in value was badly congested and the rest was good land. This was not a compulsory Bill, and therefore they must assume that the landlord would be contemplating a sale of his property, either going to the tenants himself or to the Estates Commissioners. Let the Committee suppose that this landlord made his own arrangements with his tenants for all the good part of the land, and then proposed to sell only the very bad portion of his property. Supposing it was congested to the worst degree, it was clear that that property ought not to be passed forward under this Bill. The solution in this Bill was that under Clause 85 they would not define such property as an estate at all. As the amount of valuable land in Ireland was distinctly limited, he thought the proportion laid down of not less than half was a fair one. The clause as it stood was necessary to secure that the good land was sold with the bad land, and not separately; that there should be the proportion of good land stipulated in the clause was a necessary security.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that if a grazing farm surrounded by a large number of small holdings exceeded half the rateable value of the area, the Treasury check would prevent the land passing, although it was most desirable that it should be utilised by the neighbouring small holders.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member for South Tyrone was stating the reverse of what he had said. Such a property as the hon. Member had described was not an estate, and they would not define it as one.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that those who had seen these Treasury checks in operation knew precisely what they meant and the trouble they gave. This proposal might be clear to the right hon. Gentleman, but unless everything in this Bill was made as clear as possible they might rely upon it that any ambiguity in the intention of the clause would be construed against the tenants in the Irish Courts. Having had painful experience of this in the past, they were determined now to be perfectly sure of what they were doing, because they were now dealing with the poorest class of Irish tenants.

MR. WYNDHAM

contended that by the carrying of this Amendment they would effect nothing, for it did not touch the matter at issue. They touched it under Clause 85, Sub-section 5, and under Clause 7 by getting additional land.

MR. DILLON

said that if a landlord was willing to dispose of his grass lands for the sake of the 10 per cent., by this clause they denied to the unfortunate small holders the opportunity of enlarging their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman had now let the cat out of the bag, and this provision was apparently to prevent the landlord from obtaining this 10 per cent. encouragement. He wished to point out the grotesque insufficiency of the Chief Secretary's reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 85 gave power to insist that the landlord should give a certain amount of the grass lands, or the Commissioners would not allow the estate to pass. Why should that power be confined to getting an area equal in extent to the congested area?

MR. WYNDHAM

contended that there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners dealing with congestion by the ordinary process, and they could buy three times as much land as that contained in the congested holdings. They could enlarge the holdings and spend money under Clause 11, but they could not in addition to the bonus pay another 10 per cent. upon those transactions. They could put another 10 per cent. on the aggregate of those transactions when the probability of congestion reached a certain pitch.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said he had talked to a great many people in his own constituency, and the cry was "Enlarge your holdings." He suggested to the Chief Secretary that the area should be one-fourth instead of one-half. This was a matter of the most vital consequence to the West of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had been talking about doing a great deal for the large tenants, but it was these miserable little holdings of £3 and £4 a year to which he ought to devote his attention.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said that if the Chief Secretary kept in the clause this limitation, he would deal with a number of estates which really were, to some extent, congested as not being congested at all, unless under the definition of "estate" in Clause 85 the congested portions would be treated as separate estates. This limit would give rise to a natural suspicion that an attempt might be made to deal with districts which were really not congested as if they were congested. There were districts which were not scheduled as congested districts where the limit mentioned in this clause was not reached, but where there was a great deal of congestion. In such cases care should be taken to treat those districts as though they were in every sense of the word congested districts. In the County of Clare and other districts there was a great deal of congestion, although perhaps it would be hard to find properties where the limit mentioned in his clause was reached. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this limit should be left to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, who would be sure to be men amply qualified to discharge their duties. Why should they draw a hard and fast line in this matter?

MR. WYNDHAM

said they were really discussing particular cases in which it was proper that public money should be lost in ameliorating the condition of these unfortunate places in Ireland. In the congested districts the Congested Districts Board had the power of utilising certain credit transactions. When they got to a later clause hon. Members would see that it was proposed to increase the credit of the Congested Districts Board by adding another £20,000 a year which the Board might lose on its transactions. In addition to the bonus of £12,000,000, it was proposed that there should be an extra Treasury aid of 10 per cent. on the transactions they were dealing with. He thought that was very liberal, and in any case he could not enlarge it.

MR. TULLY

said this clause would enable the landlords to dispose of the slum parts of their properties to the ratepayers, while retaining the grazing lands. He instanced the property of Lord De Freyne, in Roscommon, as a case where the congested portion of the estate could be sold and the price obtained out of the ratepayers, and the good land retained in his own possession, or that of his friends. This was one of the most insidious parts of the Bill, and a change should be made to obviate the danger to which he referred.

MR. ATKINSON

said there was to his mind no difficulty about the matter. It was true in one sense that Lord De Freyne could sell the congested part of his estate, but on one condition—namely, that he got any man fool enough to buy it. He would assume that Lord De Freyne, or any other landlord, had 1,000 acres of grass land, and 400 acres in the congested portion of his property on which there were 100 families. What could he do with the 400 acres? The Commission would not buy it unless he added 300 acres of grass land. The hon. Member was mistaken as to the nature of the powers of the Land Commission in regard to the enlargement of holdings. The Treasury would only consent to lose money on the 400 acres plus the 300 grass acres. Supposing that the Estates Commissioners were restricted to 300 acres, as far as the enlarging of holdings was concerned, they might add land outside of the estate which had 400 acres in the congested portion.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said the addition of 300 acres would obviously not be enough for the 100 families living on the congested portion. The Attorney-General said this could be remedied by getting the land the Commissioners might think necessary to add, but they could not get that additional land on the same terms as the rest. They could not get it by using 10 per cent. of public money. That was their point. They were depriving themselves of the power that was necessary to deal with this problem in a proper and drastic manner. The Chief Secretary stated that this would involve a loss of public money. He admitted the force of that statement, but then the whole of this Bill meant a loss of public money. If £12,000,000 were necessary to grease the wheels of the transactions in other parts of Ireland, he did not see why the Government should hesitate at the comparatively small sum that would be required to grease the wheels in dealing with the congested districts.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had in the consideration of the Amendments brought forward by hon. Members from Ireland done his best to meet their views. In this case he did not think there was anything to be gained by continuing the debate, and he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. DILLON

said he would withdraw his Amendment, but he was still of opinion that the Government had made a very great mistake. The Attorney-General did not know very much about the question. He did not suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman ever crossed the Shannon in his life.

MR. ATKINSON

Oh, yes, I have.

MR. DILLON

said the danger was that the grass lands would pass rapidly into the hands of wealthy graziers and be lost to the people for ever. He was very much surprised that some of the landlords did not back him up in the proposal he had made. The Government had thrown away one of the most powerful means at their command for carrying out the work they professed to be extremely anxious for.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TULLY

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept his Amendment. In page 4, line 35, to leave out the word 'half,' and insert the words 'one-fourth.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'half' stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said this was practically the Amendment they had been discussing for an hour and a half.

MR. T. M. HEALY

appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment. This was really "tearing a passion to tatters." They heard that every Amendment was "vital," or "important," or "most solemn." They could all be "vital." The important thing was to pass the Bill.

MR. TULLY

said he was jumped upon early in the evening for daring to speak of compulsory sale, but hon. Members who did not wish him to press this Amendment had been talking all the evening in favour of compulsory sale. As he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WYNDHAM

moved the omission of the words "ten acres in area and." By leaving out the area his definition of congestion was not affected, but it gave more elasticity to the Treasury check.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 36, to leave out the words 'ten acres in area and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham).

Amendment agreed to.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB

moved—"In Clause 5, page 4, lines 36 and 37, leave out 'or of mountain or bog land.'" He asked for a definition of mountain or bog land. He thought there would be more elasticity in the clause if these words were left out.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'or of mountain or bog land.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was well aware that there was some mountain land which would be a great additional source of wealth to the tenants on an estate, but on the other hand he had seen mountain lands which would present great difficulty when they were dealing with the Treasury.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHEEHAN (Cork Co., Mid.)

moved—"In Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end, add 'or an estate in any rural district in which it shall be certified by a chairman of a Rural District Council that labourers, as defined in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, are without suitable homes and allotments." As one sincerely interested in the labourers of Ireland he hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to accept this Amendment. The debate on the question of the labourers which took place in the afternoon would have had one advantage if it had impressed on the Government the importance of the question, and the necessity of dealing with the labourers in a reasonable manner. He held, of course, that the evicted tenants had the first claim on the untenanted land, but once their claims were satisfied the labourers had a claim to the grazing lands.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 38, at end, to add the words 'or an estate in any rural district in which it shall be certified by a chairman of a Rural District Council that labourers, as defined in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, are without suitable homes and allotments.'"—(Mr. Sheehan.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not go back on what he said in the afternoon. He hoped the hon. Member would not raise any further question about the labourers at present. The Committee had only disposed of two clauses in a whole Parliamentary day.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)

had the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—"In Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end, add, (7) Where the Estates Commissioners, in exercise of the powers vested in them by this Act, sell to a labourer a holding or a parcel of land situated in a rural district which comprises a congested estate as defined by this section, it shall be lawful for them to treat said labourer in all respects as if he had been residing in a congested districts county, and they shall have all the powers to improve the said holding and assist said labourers that are possessed by the Congested Districts Board for aiding migrants in a congested districts county under the provisions of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act."

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 38, at end, to add the words '(7) Where the Estates Commissioners, in exercise of the powers vested in them by this Act, sell to a labourer a holding or a parcel of land situated in a rural district which comprises a congested estate as defined by this section, it shall be lawful for them to treat said labourer in all respects as if he had been residing in a congested districts county, and they shall have all the powers to improve the said holding and assist said labourers that are possessed by the Congested Districts Board for aiding migrants in a congested districts county under the provisions of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act.'"—(Captain Donelan.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

asked the hon. Member to defer the consideration of the question of the labourers.

CAPTAIN DONELAN

agreed to the request.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

appealed to the Chief Secretary to ask his friends below the gangway to be equally moderate.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

*MR. BUTCHER

moved an Amendment on Clause 6 with the object of limiting the new and drastic method of sale set up by the clause to insolvent estates. In the case of such estates what was proposed was a good method of facilitating sale, but in the case of solvent estates, unless this Amendment were conceded they might have them sold by auction at a great undervalue. He would point out that unless the Amendment was accepted they might have a perfectly solvent estate wrecked. Hon. Members knew that estates in Ireland were constantly sold merely for administrative purposes; and in a case like that the owner ought to be allowed to negotiate with the tenants and not be forced to sell the estate by auction, which was recognised on all hands as being an impossible mode of effecting advantageous sales in Ireland.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 2, after the figures 1858 to insert the words 'and to which the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 apply.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that this Amendment was the greatest satire on the Landed Estate Court ever moved. He asked what business had solvent estates to come into that Court? They were only a nuisance in Judge Ross's Court. Why should not a solvent estate stand the risk of the auctioneer's hammer? The proposal of the Government was really a necessity of the time. The ultimate fate of this Bill was a matter of the time of the House. Again and again the representatives of the tenants had telescoped their remarks in the interests of the Bill, and the landlord party must reciprocate.

MR. ATKINSON

said he hoped his hon. friend would not persevere with his Amendment. The Land Judge always gave an opportunity to remove a solvent estate out of the Court.

MR. BUTCHER

said that if his right hon. friend assured him that what he had in view would be met without any Amendment of this sort, he did not wish to insist upon it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

said he had put down on the Paper a series of Amendments, the purpose of which was to modify the procedure of the Land Judge's Court. The first was "Clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall.'"

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 3, leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—Mr. Dillon.

Question proposed, "That the word may' stand part of the clause."

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that for many months the Land Judge and the Land Commission were at loggerheads upon the 40th Section of the Act of 1896; and it was important to leave as little discretion to the Land Judge as possible.

MR. ATKINSON

said if the word "shall" was inserted it would make it impossible for the Judge to have any discretion. There were times when the word "may" was of as much vital importance as the word "shall."

MR. DILLON

said he did not wish to take up the time of the House further, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

said his next Amendment was—"Clause 6, page 5, line 12, after 'loss,' insert 'and after giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard, fix the price at which, in their opinion, the estate or part thereof should be sold to the tenant in occupation thereof discharged of all superior or intervening interests, and shall accordingly." He moved this Amendment in order to raise what appeared to him an exceedingly important point. The clause, as it stood, would, he contended, do nothing to clear out the Land Judge's Court; in fact, it would leave the matter worse than under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896. There was nothing in the Clause to prevent an estate being kept in the Court and nursed for twenty-five years, so as not to be sold. The Land Judge had persistently refused to give the information to the House of Commons which they had asked for, and they were consequently in the dark as to the condition of the Court. A Question had been asked as to the number of the estates which were in the Land Court, and their rental, and they were told that that information could not be got because the Court was too busy. They were obliged to fall back on some statistics provided by the President of the Board of Trade. These showed that in 1894 there were 1,500 estates in the Land Court, that in the case of 1,266 receivers had been appointed, and that the rentals amounted to £648,000. Most of these estates had been in the Court for years, and had been vainly offered to the public, because the Judge did not think the price tendered was sufficient. The Court had in fact drifted more and more into the position of a collector of rents of bankrupt estates; and under the present arrangement he saw no prospect of any reform being brought about. The Prime Minister had said that probably one-sixth or one seventh of the land in Ireland was in the hands of this Judge, and did not properly belong to the Irish landlords at all. How could these estates be properly managed by a Court or a Judge? The thing was so absurd that it would not be tolerated in any other country in the world. What made the system more monstrous was that, in the opinion of good lawyers, it was illegal. The Court was set up under the Encumbered Estates Act of 1849, for the purpose of facilitating and accelerating the transfer of laud in Ireland; but on the passing of the Judicature Act in 1877 the Court was merged with the Court of Chancery, and the practice of the Court of Chancery was incorporated with it. For the first twenty years the interests of the tenants had never been mentioned at all. The practice of the Court had been to sell by auction all the estates that came into the Court at a rough general average of from twelve to fourteen years' purchase of the rental, without the slightest reference to the interests of the tenants. But, after 1879, when the Court availed itself of the Chancery jurisdiction, they blocked all the sales, and they commenced to use the machinery of the Court to nurse bankrupt estates, and to collect rents for the immense number of receivers which were appointed. The sale department was entirely closed, and, when a new judge was appointed in 1885, Judge Boyle, he introduced a more robust system of collecting rents, by sending the tenants to gaol, and by invoking the machinery of contempt of Court, to collect rents.

He did not think there was any part of the land system of Ireland which needed more remedy than this. He knew that under it men had been sent to gaol for an offence which was not known to the criminal law at all, and kept there until they were almost forgotten. He was credibly informed in one case in which the man was kept in prison for two years, and was in danger of losing his mind. He maintained that this was an atrocious system, and a montrous position of affairs. His Amendment would have the effect of enabling the Land Commission to make proposals to the Land Judge for the purchase of an estate in the Land Judge's Court; and that when an agreed price had been offered the Land Judge should make an order vesting the estate in the Land Commission. That, of course, raised the question of compulsory sale; but not any more than it was raised under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The Amendment would not push the principle of compulsion one inch against the landlord. Section 40 provided that in the case of an estate for which a receiver was appointed there should be compulsory sale as against the landlord; and all his Amendment proposed was to withdraw from the Land Judge's Court the power of blocking the sale of such estates. He thought that was not an unreasonable proposal at that time of day. Section 40 had been in operation for several years; but it absolutely had produced no effect. The condition of things in the Landed Estates Court was just the same; and he thought in that Bill they were entitled to press for an improvement.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 12, after the word 'loss,' to insert the words 'and after giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard, fix the price at which, in their opinion, the estate or part thereof should be sold to the tenant in occupation thereof discharged of all superior or intervening interests, and shall accordingly.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said that most of what the hon. Gentleman had stated was merely pushing an open door. The Government desired as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite to clear up the Landed Estates Court. The Estates Commissioners would be empowered to make an offer for an estate, and it would not be competent for a Judge to hang up its affairs. The Judge must bring the estate to auction; but he should not be compelled to accept any offer which appeared to him to be unreasonable or unjust.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that no one knew more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. At the same time, he wished to express sympathy with the hon. Member for East Mayo. It was a matter in which something ought to be done; and if the Government would only take their courage in both hands something would be done. At present it was almost impossible to ascertain what went on in the Court. On the other hand, there was some excuse for the non-making of a Return. A Return was moved for by the late Member for Cork, a relative of his own. He pressed for it very strongly, but found that the congestion in the Court was so enormous, the staff so slender, and the parsimony of the Treasury so awful that it was quite impossible to get the existing clerks to put their heads down and work out the Return that was required. Therefore, on the whole, he had given those men some measure of absolution for not providing the Return, yet the fact remained that this House had been denied information with reference to one-seventh of the land of Ireland, and they were absolutely in the dark regarding it. There were questions of tremendous magnitude raised at every moment in connection with this Bill; but the Attorney-General knew the question down to the bottom, and he knew the necessity for an improvement. Owing to the lateness of the hour he would not press the matter further, but he would suggest to the Government that they should to-morrow suspend the twelve o'clock rule in order that they might be able to get on in a friendly manner among themselves.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had had opportunities of discussing this clause with Judge Ross, who he could assure hon. Members wanted to clear his Court. But they could not exercise compulsory action in connection with a Judge of the High Court. He urged hon. Members not to press the Amendment, but to let the clause and the next three clauses pass. If the anticipation that he held out to hon. Members as to there being no difficulty under this clause was not realised, the remedy would be a simple one next session.

MR. DILLON

said he was very much inclined to accept the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman; but when the right hon. Gentleman asked him to take it that Judge Ross wanted to clear his Court he absolutely declined. The right hon. Gentleman in consulting Judge Ross could not have consulted a worse man. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman enormously strengthened his objection. The right hon. Gentleman said that they could not criticise a Judge of the Supreme Court; but it was an outrage that one-seventh of the land in Ireland should be under a Land Judge who was practically in the position of a landlord, but who could not be criticised. The hon. Gentleman said that the matter could be dealt with next session, but he did not know where the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the House would be next session. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask him to seriously believe that there would be another Land Bill next session? Was there to be a new Land Bill every session? That was an absurd prospect. He would not move his Amendment now, but he would reserve to himself the slender consolation of renewing the subject on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. EDWARD MITCHELL (Fermanagh, N.)

said that having regard to the request of the Chief Secretary he would not move his Amendment.

Clause 6, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8, agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR. CLANCY

said that the Government might easily dispose of this clause by striking it out altogether.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was willing to leave out all words from "Pastoral" to the end of the clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the whole clause ought to be omitted. They were now agreed on Ashbourne terms, and there fore the definition of an estate was unnecessary.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not strike out the whole of the clause; but he was prepared to omit the latter part.

MR. CLANCY

said that the clause was absolutely inconsistent with the new clause which the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to move.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that it was not a question of holdings, but a question of estates.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 38, to leave out all words from 'pastoral' to end of Clause."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10, agreed to.

Clause 11.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that as the hon. Member for Cork City, who had Amendments to move, was not present, he would move to report Progress.

MR. DILLON

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would have the Bill reprinted, as in its present form it was very inconvenient.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he hoped to be able to arrange that.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.