IRISH LAND BILL.

HC Deb 30 June 1903 vol 124 cc931-84

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 11.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)

to insert the following sub-sections at the end of the clause:— (3) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Subsection 1 of this section shall extend to the repair and rebuilding of houses and out-offices upon holdings surrendered to them under the provisions of this Act, or the Estate Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of exercising the said powers, make an advance to any such former tenant when reinstated in his holding for the purpose of repairing or rebuilding upon his holding, and for the restocking of the same, of such sum of money as they may deem necessary. For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'former tenant' shall, in case said former tenant shall have died, include his heir or personal representative, or, if no representative shall have been raised to him, such person as may be nominated by the Estates Commissioners as his personal representative. (4) Such sums of money as may from time to time be required for the purposes of Sub-section 3 of this section shall be advanced by the Land Commission on the demand of the Estates Commissioners out of the reserve fund. (5) In case any landlord shall sell directly, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, to former tenants of holdings upon his estate, or shall re-instate former tenants in their holdings as tenants thereof, the powers conferred by this section shall apply in the same manner as if the estate were vested in the Land Commission. After the explanations of the Chief Secretary on the previous day he did not think a lengthy discussion would be necessary. There appeared to be an agreement on the main object—the only question was how it should be worked out. They were all agreed as to the desirability of reinstatement wherever it was possible, and they were also agreed that the Estates Commissioners should have power to facilitate friendly arrangements with that object. That being so, there could be no doubt that some small provision ought to be made to give the poor re-instated tenant, a fresh start in life. No one would dream of leaving them in the position of mere paupers, without the means of carrying on their business, and at the mercy of the gombeen man. Two or three points would arise in connection with that Amendment. The Chief Secretary had promised to try and find some words which would remove any possibility of doubt in the Irish law Courts hereafter as to the sufficiency of the powers they were agreed that the Estates Commissioners ought to have. Was the right hon. Gentleman now prepared with any suggestion as to that? The second point was whether the works which the clause authorised the Commissioners to execute for the improvement of an estate included advances for restocking the land. He feared that that was not at all clear, and he could see no reason why some specific words, such as were suggested in his Amendment, should not be inserted. The third point was this. As the Committee were aware, Clause 11 only dealt with cases where the land was vested in the Land Commissioners themselves, and gave no power for dealing with what he believed would be the great majority of cases, i.e., transactions that had taken place directly between landlord and tenant. He could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman ever intended that there should be any such glaring inequality between the two classes of sales. If he was not prepared to accept that Amendment as it stood on the Paper, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, at any rate, not object to adding some such words as would make the new clause read, "The Land Commissioners may, where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them, or where the sale, as between landlord and tenant, has been sanctioned by the Land Commissioners," etc. No doubt, where an estate was not vested in the Land Commissioners, they might feel some difficulty about interfering directly themselves, and carrying out any actual improvements, but the object could be equally well accomplished if they had power to make advances to the new purchasers, as the Board of Works did at present. The words he suggested would answer the purpose, and give the Commissioners full powers to deal with the two classes of sales. They would leave no room for misconception, would settle the matter once for all, and leave no bitter memories behind. They all wanted to secure a clean settlement, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be too punctilious, but would accept words which, undoubtedly, would remove a formidable obstacle to the smooth working of the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 20, at end, to add the words, '(3) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Sub-section 1 of this section shall extend to the repair and rebuilding of houses and out-offices upon holdings surrendered to them under the provisions of this Act, or the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of exercising the said powers, make an advance to any such former tenant when reinstated in his holding for the purpose of repairing or rebuilding upon his holding, and for the restocking of the same, of such sum of money as they may deem necessary. For the purposes of this sub-section the expression, 'former tenant' shall, in case said former tenant shall have died, include his heir or personal representative, or, if no representative shall have been raised to him, such person as may be nominated by the Estates Commissioners as his personal representative. (4) Such sums of money as may from time to time be required for the purposes of Sub-section 3 of this section shall be advanced by the Land Commission on the demand of the Estates Commissioners out of the reserve fund. (5) In case any landlord shall sell directly, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, to former tenants of holdings upon his estate, or shall reinstate former tenants in their holdings as tenants thereof, the powers conferred by this section shall apply in the same manner as if the estate were vested in the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)

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

MR. BUTCHER (York)

thought the point a very important one. He was, he said, confident that on the part of landlords there was no objection to the reinstatement of tenants on fair terms, subject to the condition that no pressure should be brought to bear upon existing tenants to give up possession. He noted with satisfaction that hon. Members opposite had declared most strongly that they would deprecate any such pressure, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to clear up a doubt that arose on Sub-section 2 of the clause. It might be said the effect was to give the Commissioners compulsory powers to turn out a tenant in possession to make room for some other tenant. He knew that that was not the desire of hon. Members opposite, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would add words which would bring the sub-section more into harmony with the wishes entertained on both sides of the House.

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

said it was clear they were all agreed as to their object, and desired to find the best method of reaching it. He had given expression to his own desire to make the section work without any chance of friction, and he would introduce words to remove any doubt that might be entertained in any quarter as to the meaning of the clause as it stood. He was clear that Clause 11 would cover the object, but he was quite willing to make it clear to the hon. Member for Cork. He was sure that the Estates Commissioners would not use the compulsory powers of the Congested Districts Act of 1901 against the universal opinion of the House; but if there was any doubt, by all means let it be cleared up. Having said that, he repeated what he had said before, that there was some danger, in fact very great danger, in seeking by a number of specific directions to arrive at the intention. For instance, "advances for stock" were words used by the hon. Member for Cork, and the question of loan arose, and if transfer and rearrangement of holdings were not mentioned, that would raise doubts. Specific enactments would raise the presumption that the powers of the Commissioners were less than they were under the clause as it stood. In the first sub-section he felt clear in his own mind that no phrase could be wider than "the Commissioners may, where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them, take such steps to execute such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of the estate."

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

Does the word "works" include advances?

MR. WYNDHAM

said there was no limitation. The Commissioners would "take such steps." He did not think any doubt arose, but if any doubt could arise it could only be in respect to the object for which the steps were to be taken for "the benefit or improvement of the estate." The way to resolve the doubt was not to make the clause more specific, but to make it wider still, and therefore he suggested the addition of the words, "or for the use or enjoyment thereof, or generally for the purposes of this Act." Having dealt with one point he thought he ought to deal with the other. But if they removed the doubt on one side they ought also to remove the doubt on the other. He therefore suggested the addition of the proviso, "Provided also that the powers mentioned in Section 1 of the Act of 1901 shall not be exercised by the Land Commission unless they certify to the Lord Lieutenant that those powers are necessary for the benefit or improvement of the congested estate." He would propose the insertion of those two Amendments at the present stage, reserving the right of reconsidering their full legal effect on the Report stage. There were considerable difficulties in the way of extending the application of the powers to estates not vested in the Land Commission. The difficulties were so great that he had not yet attempted to grapple with them, and while he hoped that before the Report stage something would be done, he was not very sanguine of success. The same difficulty arose on Clause 13 with regard to sub-tenancies and middlemen. It was very hard to use the authority of a public body and public funds except in regard to property which was vested in that body, and he would only be delaying the Committee if he attempted to do it. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, that the Amendment he had indicated should be inserted, and that the Committee should leave to the Report stage the consideration of the possibility of extending the application of the powers to estates on which all the arrangements were made between landlord and tenant.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

said that as the right hon. Gentleman recognised the undesirability of there being any inequality between the two classes of sales, he could not imagine there would be any serious difficulty in finding, some way of providing against it.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

held that if a tenant was required to give up his holding for the benefit of the country or of the estate, he ought to come out better than he went in; therefore it should be considered whether the Lands Clauses Act should not in some degree apply in such cases.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that all these matters should be considered. It should be borne in mind, however, that these transfers were to be perfectly voluntary transactions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 7, after the word 'land' to add the words 'or for the use or enjoyment thereof or generally for the purpose of this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, after line 20, to add the words, 'Provided also that the powers mentioned in Section 1 of the said Act of 1901 shall not be exercised by the Land Commission unless the Commission certify to the Lord Lieutenant that those powers are necessary for the benefit or improvement of the congested estate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the policy underlying the Amendment he now proposed to move was that an asset ought not to be destroyed. An exclusive sporting right was an asset, no matter to whom it belonged, which, if dispersed, it was so difficult to collect again that it was really destroyed. The Government, therefore, held that, without prejudice to any other question, where there was an exclusive right it should be preserved. Where the landlord wished to reserve the right to himself he should be able to do so. Where the landlord did not reserve the right it was to be vested, at any rate for the present, in the Land Commission. The Government considered that a big Land Bill need not be overloaded to save rights of very little value, or of less value than exclusive rights. He begged to move—

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words (1) 'Where at the time of the sale of any land to the Land Commission or to tenants or others the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him. (2) Where such spotting rights are not expressly reserved the sporting rights shall vest in the Land Commission. (3) Where any sporting rights become vested in the Land Commission, those rights may be disposed of by them as they think expedient, having due regard to the interests of the purchasers of the land. (4) The expression 'sporting rights' includes any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."

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

said the proposal of the Government was a very bad one, and he disliked it extremely. Nobody was more desirous than he to see sport preserved in Ireland, and he agreed that a sporting right was an asset which if once destroyed was very difficult to recover. In a great many cases it was useless to preserve the right on small farms, while if everybody was given the right, say, to fish, the subject matter of the right was really destroyed. The question was, had the Government done the right thing, and was this solution a proper one? He thought it was not, for unless they had the goodwill of the tenants towards the settlement all these provisions were worthless. The Irish were a sport-loving people, and desired people to come amongst them, and it might be a matter of extreme profit that sportsmen should come amongst them. Did this proposal give that incentive to the people? He maintained that it did not. This proposal was unnecessary, because the landlords could reserve those rights without this clause at all. So far as the law was concerned, there was no necessity at all for the provision which the right hon. Gentleman had just moved, which provided that— Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him. The question was, what ought to be done to tempt the tenants to give up rights to which they attached great sentimental value? The landlord should not be allowed to make those reservations, and there ought to be a specific reduction in the price if the landlord did make such reservations. The game should either be reserved as a whole or not at all. He suggested that the sporting rights should be vested in the County Councils, or if that was objectionable they should be vested in the Agricultural Board, and that Board might issue licences. He did not make that suggestion in any hostile spirit towards either the landlords in Ireland or in the House of Commons. His anxiety was that as the landlords might desire to live on their demesnes, they should have their own sporting rights, but they should not desire to eat their cake and have it. He would give them a right of pre-emption or first-letting, and he thought the Agricultural Board under Mr. Plunkett was hardly likely to do anything hostile to the landlords. The tenants of Ireland should understand that this national asset would go in relief of their rates or in some other way to relieve their burdens. This was a matter upon which there was a considerable amount of friction. Questions of malicious injuries would arise as to the burning of heather and other matters. A match might set a mountain on fire, and it might be dropped by a gamekeeper in negligence. This proposal might lead to the leasing of the sporting rights to strangers who might not be resident in Ireland. There was a considerable amount of feeling on this question in many districts in Ireland, and the best way to get over the difficulty, in his opinion, was that the Government should vest those rights either in the County Council or the Agricultural Board, and the landlord would have the first right to lease those lettings at some rent which would enable the tenants to benefit by insuring that this amount would be placed against some local burdens which the tenant at present discharged.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said this was a very important question, because it must be remembered that this Bill professed to attract landlords to sell. He did not know what attraction they were offering by threatening to extinguish the sporting rights, or if the landlord was to be walled up in his own demesne. It was in the interests of this Bill that they should approach this question from the point of view of inducing the landlord to sell and to remain in Ireland. Whether the landlords remained or not very much depended upon whether life would be tolerable there for them, and whether there was sufficient scope for that energy and recreation which had made Scotland the rich country it was at present. Sporting rights were a great national asset, and anything that was done to diminish or extinguish that asset was not merely against the interests of landlords, but also against the interests of Ireland as a whole. He had put down some Amendments to the Chief Secretary's proposal, and he would explain his reasons for doing so very shortly. The Chief Secretary's proposal dealt with cases where the landlord had reserved the exclusive sporting rights, and the effect of this proposal was to reserve those rights after sale. An estate was a sort of chessboard dotted with the landlord's exclusive rights, with concurrent rights, and with rights exclusively the tenant's. His contention was that they ought not to extinguish either the landlords' concurrent rights, or the tenants' exclusive rights. There were a good many tenants who had exclusive rights, and they ought not to extinguish them. The Amendment which he wished to propose was for the purpose of enabling game in considerable areas, where these various rights existed, to be preserved. If they did not do something in this direction, this great national asset would disappear. The hon. and learned Member for Louth said that, whether they had rights on paper or parchment did not matter, for they were no use unless they had the goodwill of the tenants as well. In order to evoke a little more discussion, he begged to move his first Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In line 5, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert—'(2) Where the vendor has a right, other than an exclusive right, to exercise sporting rights over any lands, he shall be entitled, within the prescribed time, to purchase up such exclusive right at such price as the Land Commission shall, in default of agreement between the vendor and the tenant, fix, and such price shall be paid to the tenant by the Land Commission out of the purchase money of the estate. (3) Subject to the provisions aforesaid, the sporting rights over the lands shall vest in the Land Commission.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)

* THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is not in order until the words proposed to be left out of the clause are struck out.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

suggested that the clause should be dropped. He did not regard the law as it stood as satisfactory at all, but it was not because he considered the present law unsatisfactory that he made this suggestion. If they examined the notice Paper they would find that the Amendments to this clause, of which notice had been given, extended to nearly four pages. Knowing the enormous diversity of opinion on the question that existed in the House he believed they would see clearly that it was impossible to contemplate the discussion of this clause without setting aside some hours for it. If that were so had the matter at issue the importance which was likely to be attached to it? Even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was it worth the long struggle and the great waste of time which it would involve? The hon. Member for Louth suggested one course that might be taken. He knew that view was held by some hon. Members—namely, to transfer the game rights to the Agricultural Department. That was a course which he himself would resist with all his power. It might be that in some respects the Agricultural Department was doing good work, but he was not a great lover of that Department in other respects. The proposal that the Agricultural Department should have the whole country covered with gamekeepers would be the prelude to a very prolonged and conscientious debate from these benches. But after all what was the object the landlords desired to achieve by this clause? Under the present law, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, the landlords could specially reserve shooting rights. He was very sorry for it. He recognised, however, that if he endeavoured to force his view on the Committee he should probably be defeated. He objected to the present power which enabled a landlord to specially reserve game rights. But what more did the landlords want? The present state of the law was from his point of view very unsatisfactory, but he thought the landlords would not be well advised if they insisted on debating this clause, in consuming a great deal of time over it, and giving rise to a considerable amount of feeling. Although he did not for a moment put this question on the same level as the questions which arose on the first and fifth clauses, it was a question which somehow or other would tend to develop heat perhaps very much in excess of its importance. He shared altogether the view expressed by hon. Members opposite that there was a good deal of sham in a discussion over shooting rights. Could anyone suppose that if this House tried to force on the people of Ireland any provision regarding game or sporting rights which the people did not like, they would be able to do so? Of course they would not. People throughout Ireland would kill the game if they put in this Act provisions which they did not like, and in that case the game would be far more likely to be exterminated. Every intelligent Nationalist would feel it to be his duty to go and kill as much game as possible in order to protest against the provisions. It had not been so easy to preserve game in the past, but would it be easier in the future if the landlords insisted on this clause after the land was in the hands of the people themselves? They could not preserve game in Ireland against the public opinion in that country. Therefore to force through Committee against the general opinion on these benches any provisions with regard to game would be disastrous to the objects which the landlords themselves had in view. He thought they should not arouse sleeping dogs.

The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the enormous wealth which had been brought to Scotland by the existence of game. That was a kind of wealth they did not want in Ireland. He had spoken to English tourists in the West of Ireland himself who, with the best possible intentions, said to him: "Why don't you turn these hills and waste places into game preserves and deer forests and bring over rich Englishmen?" He replied: "We want none of your deer forests in Ireland. You have driven the people out of the good land in Ireland and your sporting people would drive them out of the hills and bogs." He was not a sportsman himself and although he was not an irreconcilable on this question of game, he did not hold the view that the future prosperity of Ireland was much tied up in this question. The fishing rights in the great rivers were not involved in this matter. They were different properties and would be dealt with separately. Under the present law the great fisheries were sold altogether separately from the landed estates. The real question at issue under this clause had reference to small trout in the rivers, and, of course, the game that lived on the land. He said that rather than see any attempt to turn the West of Ireland, or any part of the country, into what the Highlands of Scotland now were, he would prefer to see the last head of game killed in Ireland. If the people of the West of Ireland got it into their heads that there was any such scheme hidden in this clause there would be very little game left for sportsmen. His advice to the Government was to drop this clause. If they went on with it they could not reasonably ask the Committee to consent to pass it in a rush. If they found on inquiry next year, or the year after, that the County Councils and the other parties concerned, could come to some agreement on the question, then they could introduce a separate Bill. It was a matter which might be dealt with in a short Bill, but to have a debate of this character in the middle of the Land Bill would not conduce to progress or peace.

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

said the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman—and apparently it was the only suggestion made—was to leave things as they were. The result of that first of all would be to destroy what had been most properly called a valuable national asset; in the next place it would take away almost every attraction to live in Ireland the landlord had; and in the third place it would leave matters in inextricable confusion and difficulty.

MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)

Under the Ashbourne Act have not the tenants the game?

MR. ATKINSON

said he would answer that question in a moment. How did things stand at present under the Purchase Acts when a property was sold? The Land Commission was obliged to vest in the vendee the fee-simple of the land and discharge all claims. Prima facie that would mean the exclusive right to game for the owner. There were three classes of tenants in Ireland. There were the tenants over whose holdings the right of game was reserved exclusively to the landlords at the time the rents were fixed. To vest the exclusive right in the tenants would be to give them a property which they had not purchased at all. The property was not theirs, it was their landlord's. They did not buy it because, it being reserved to the landlords, the conveyance was made to the tenants exclusive of those rights. The tenant at the time his rent was fixed consented that those rights should be reserved. His rent was fixed irrespective of the exclusive right fixed on the property giving him no right of game. Now the Government provided in this clause that the conveyance in that case should be made, giving the tenant that which he had purchased, and giving the landlord that which he reserved at the time the rent was fixed. The other two classes of cases were where the rent was fixed without any express reservation of game rights. That was a most confused condition of things because if the hon. Gentleman referred to the 5th Section of the Act of 1881, he would see that there was a kind of joint sporting property. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that land should be conveyed to the tenant with that kind of joint right existing. Yet if they vested it in the landlord they injured the tenant, and if they vested it in the tenant they injured the landlord. What they said in that case was that if the landlord chose to arrange with the tenant for money that he would give him the exclusive interest in that joint right, then they could carry out the sale, and the exclusive right so bargained for as a separate and independent transaction between man and man would be preserved on the purchase. There was one way of conciliating the tenant, and inducing him to acquiesce, and that was to pay him for the right. And when the landlord had once got the exclusive right, he could come the next day and sell it to his tenant. The third case was that of the ordinary tenant from year to year who had more extended rights. In the same way, they said to the landlord by this clause, "If you want the exclusive sporting right, you must reserve them, of course by paying for them, and when you have got the exclusive rights come into the Land Court and arrange the conveyance." If he did not choose to do that, then the exclusive rights went into the Land Commission. Observe, this provision gave nothing to the landlord for which he had not paid.

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

All three cases may exist on the same property and get mixed up?

MR. ATKINSON

said "yes"; and therefore he submitted that the only effectual way of dealing with the matter was that where the landlord had already got the sporting rights to preserve them, where he had not got them and wanted to get them, let him buy and acquire the rights. If he did not think it worth while to buy, then such sporting rights; as there were, were reserved to the Land Commission. Any other arrangement would lead to the utmost confusion.

* MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said this appeared to him to be one of the most difficult questions with which the Committee had to deal. But he could not at all admit the argument of the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that the very foundation of this Act of Parliament, when passed into law, was to abolish altogether the relation of landlord and tenant. As they all knew, the right of hunting, fishing, and shooting originated in the old feudal system when the landlord was the lord of the soil and when he let the soil to the occupier with certain rights reserved, either expressly or impliedly. But the moment the landlord parted with his estate, independently of this Act altogether, these rights were gone. And when the Land Commission now purchased a property from a landlord the latter ceased to have any right whatever in that land. He became as complete a stranger to it as any Member of this House who had never been in Ireland in his life. It would be an anomaly in law, without any parallel or principle, if the tenant who had bought the fee-simple of the land subject to the payment—not to the landlord bat to the State — of the purchase annuity for a certain number of years, was not the owner of the rights of shooting, fishing, and hunting.

MR. ATKINSON

said that it had been decided over and over again by the Courts that under the Ashbourne Act the sporting rights were reserved to the landlord on the sale of the holding.

* MR. HEMPHILL

said that was under an express provision of that Act, which was not adopted in this Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was most important that the game should be preserved. It would, he thought, be a loss to Ireland if the game and the fishing in fresh-water rivers were not preserved in some way or another; but certainly they could not be preserved by giving them to a person who had parted with the estate altogether. It would be better to leave Clause 12 as it stood— Where any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land, becomes vested in the Land Commission, that right may be disposed of by them as they think expedient. That vested in the Land Commission this incorporeal right of fishing, hunting, and shooting, and they must deal with it for the benefit of the public and the neighbourhood generally. The only argument that could be advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth was that the late landlord would be induced to continue to occupy the demesne which he was supposed to buy back.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

And might be induced to sell the rest of his estate.

* MR. HEMPHILL

said he had no doubt the landlord would be only too anxious to sell. The thing would be to get the tenant to deal with the landlord. He quite sympathised with the hon. and gallant Member that he might be the victim occasionally of ennui in a remote part of Ireland, but that would be obviated at once if this clause which it was proposed to reject were allowed to remain as in the original ill. What would be easier than for the Land Commission to give a lease of the shooting, fishing, and hunting to the occupant of the demesne? He confessed that his plan would be that this incorporeal right should enure for public purposes, and that it should be vested in some public body. He was no lover of Government Boards, and, like the hon. Member for East Mayo, he would rather it should be vested in the County Councils, who were representative bodies for public purposes. The County Councils might perhaps adopt the view of the hon. and gallant Member—though he hoped they would not—and turn Ireland into something like the Highlands of Scotland and cover it with deer forests and grouse moors. It should be recollected that under the existing law—a law which existed long before the Ashbourne Act—a tenant from year to year has an absolute right to the game; and it was only where there was a lease that the shooting, fishing, and hunting were reserved to the lessor.

* MR. BUTCHER

said there were two important points on which they were all agreed. One was that it was desirable and necessary to preserve sporting rights in Ireland as a national asset. The other was that if they allowed sporting rights to be split up among a large number of small holdings, those rights would cease to exist. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt some means of preserving them. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to approach this question in the same conciliatory spirit which, it would be admitted, was shown by hon. Members on his own side of the House on more important matters. The hon. Member for East Mayo very truly said that more important matters had been dealt with in a spirit of agreement, and he thought it was not too much to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to approach this question in a similar spirit of conciliation. This was not only a landlord's question; it was also a tenant's question. It was necessary that resident landlords should have sport.

MR. LUNDON (Limerick, W.)

said there would be no landlords.

* MR. BUTCHER

said it would be most important that former landlords should continue to reside in the country and spend the money they would receive under this Bill in the country. An hon. Gentleman said that many persons who resided in Ireland suffered from ennui. He would assume that that was the result of want of sport. It was said that fox-hunting ought to be sufficient; but there were many counties where fox-hunting did not exist, and it would be desirable to supplement that form of sport with shooting and fishing. What was the solution proposed by the Chief Secretary? It was a most reasonable one and amounted to this: that where the landlord had acquired and was in possession of exclusive rights of sporting, he should be allowed to keep those rights.

MR. REDDY

asked if the hon. Gentleman ever knew of a landlord having the right to shoot over another man's property.

* MR. BUTCHER

said that a large part of the shooting in this country was over land not the property of the persons shooting. A very great proportion of the sporting rights in this country were exercised by persons who did not own any land. But, of course, in Ireland, as in this country, sporting rights could not be exercised without the goodwill of the occupiers of the soil. He frankly admitted that. The landlord who had sporting rights, and who was disagreeable to the tenants, he would even say who did not do his utmost to conciliate the tenants, would get very bad shooting indeed. What he anticipated was, that if the shooting rights were reserved to the landlord under this Bill he would take excellent care to be on the best of terms with his former tenants and to see that they co-operated with him in preserving the game. Therefore he ventured to think that the Chief Secretary's clause, so far from promoting bad relations, would go far to promote good relations. So much for the rights which were the exclusive property of the landlord. As regarded rights which were not exclusive rights the Chief Secretary proposed what had been proposed by two or three hon. Gentlemen—that they should be vested in a public body. The Chief Secretary proposed the Land Commission; the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken proposed the County Councils; and the hon. Member for North Louth proposed, the Department of Agriculture. Which of those public bodies should have the non-exclusive sporting rights vested in them was a fair matter for discussion; but if it was agreed that those rights should be vested in a public body it would not be difficult to agree as to the particular body to be selected. He ventured to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would be doing a service to the Bill if they would come to some reasonable settlement on this matter. If any Amendment were necessary to the Chief Secretary's proposal it could be moved later.

MR WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said he thought it was a matter of great regret that the Government should have given rise to this discussion by introducing the clause, because, as far as he understood there was absolutely no need for it. At the present time there was perfect freedom as regarded sporting rights between those who bought and those who sold.

MR. ATKINSON

said it would be absolutely necessary to introduce a clause to vest the sporting rights in a public body.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said that was not the Amendment. He spoke on the matter as one who was most anxious that the game should be preserved as far as possible in Ireland; and it was because he was certain that if the people were given the idea that when they bought their land they would be deprived of the sporting rights there would be no game at all that he regretted that the Government had brought in this clause. It appeared to him that under this clause it would be perfectly open to a tenant to refuse to purchase his holding unless the question of the sporting rights was satisfactorily settled. The Chief Secretary in his Amendment said that exclusive sporting rights might be expressly reserved to the landlord. What was the necessity of that? If a landlord were making a bargain with a tenant he would be at liberty to reserve anything he pleased.

MR. ATKINSON

said that it was necessary to insert a provision in order to prevent any previous arrangement being destroyed by the sale.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he wished to ask whether it would not meet the case if a clause were inserted in the Bill setting forth that where land was to be sold the matter of sporting rights should be a matter of agreement as between landlord and tenant. As far as he understood it, that was the law at present. He believed that it would be an easy matter to come to an agreement. The tenants were all fond of sport, and the great majority of the landlords were also interested in it; and that being the case, what reason was there for believing that an agreement could not be arrived at. They were about to trust landlords and tenants to come to an agreement as to whether land should be sold, and the price at which it was to be sold; yet, they would not allow landlords or tenants to come to an agreement between themselves as to sporting rights. It seemed to him to be crediting both the landlord and the tenant with a spirit of unreasonableness that they did not possess. In Ireland the law had not always been popular, and a great many of these troubles would never have occurred between the classes if the law had let them alone and had not interfered with them. He believed the landlords and the tenants would come to an agreement in this matter if they were not hemmed in by restrictions and reservations. If they said that the tenants when they bought their land were to allow strangers to trespass in pursuit of game they would raise very great trouble indeed in Ireland. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to leave the law as it now stood and to allow the landlords and the tenants to make a fair and free bargain with regard to the sporting rights. He hoped the minds of the people who purchased their holdings would be disabused with regard to this matter, and that they would be given to understand that they could stick to the game if they chose.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the policy of the hon. Gentleman was the policy the Government had endeavoured to express in this first sub-section— Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has … the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him. If the hon. Member wished the law to remain as it was, and if this clause expressed what the law was, they were agreed as to policy. [Cries of, "No, no."] Then he did not follow the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman wished to leave the matter where it was.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said matters as they were now were in a bad state they wished to leave them in a better state, but their solution was not the solution of the Government.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it was a matter of law not of policy; the hon. and learned Member was entitled to express an opinion on the law, but the Government must act on the advice they had. They were advised that unless they could get some definition such as was contained in this first sub-clause, the matter was in doubt. The law as it now stood seemed to be that if the exclusive right was with the landlord he could keep it. They took no account of joint-rights in the purchase agreement. There was no attempt to collect them together and put them in. All they said was that if a landlord had created an exclusive right it could not be left in doubt, it existed as a piece of property; it might be worth £200 a year, and they could not leave property worth £200 a year in doubt.

MR. WOOD (Down, E.)

pointed out that it was a matter of arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, and the tenant would take into consideration the value of the sporting rights in the price at which he purchased.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that was precisely the position. They said the fee when conveyed should not cover that property, but that when it was not reserved by the landlord it should go to the Land Commission, but that if the landlord wished to reserve the sporting rights he should be able to do so by agreement, which was exactly what the hon. Member for Clare suggested. They only simplified the phraseology of the declaration which confirmed the desire expressed by all, that the landlords and tenants should arrange this matter as they thought best.

MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)

said the whole principle of the Bill was to do away with those strange anomalies which they found in Ireland as the result of the Land Bills of the last twenty-five years. If they did away with the sporting rights the question for the Committee was this: The sporting rights were one of the most valuable assets in the country. If they were to be vested in the Commission, let the landlord, if he desired, have the first refusal of them at a rental, to be paid to the County or District Council in whose district the rights were, to be used for public purposes. This Bill broke up Ireland into a country of peasant proprietors, and one of the dangers of a country of peasant proprietors was the wholesale destruction of the feathered kind. That was the reason of the phylloxera visitation which came upon the countries where there had been an indiscriminate destruction of the feathered world. He therefore agreed with the preservation of game, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would not press his Amendment in its present form, but would vest these rights in the Land Commission.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

could not understand why there should be any heartburning on the part of the Irish tenants if this Amendment were carried. In many cases game rights were preserved under the Ashbourne Acts, and no feeling whatever was excited. Wag it to be supposed that if a landlord in order to reserve these rights to himself gave his tenant valuable consideration for them bad blood would be created? Nothing of the kind would happen. The idea was chimerical. The Amendment simply proposed an act of justice to the present proprietor.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that in the earlier debates the Chief Secretary and the representatives of the landlords never made a speech without referring to the Land Conference Report, but in this matter that document was being entirely ignored. The Conference debated the subject for nearly a day, and came to the conclusion that the sporting and fishing rights should remain as they were, subject to the provisions of the existing Land Purchase Acts.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

That is the present proposal.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said it was nothing of the kind. The Conference, at which both landlords and tenants fully stated their views, found it impossible to agree, and decided the best course was to leave matters as they were. If on an estate a landlord had a shooting right worth £200 a year, that right was surely a part of the fee. According to the Chief Secretary the fee-simple meant everything; consequently, it would convey that right of £200 a year. But had the fee never been conveyed hitherto? The existing Land Purchase Acts conveyed the fee as entirely as the present Bill would do, and they made these rights a matter of bargain between the vendor and the buyer, the fee being conveyed subject to those bargains. The Chief Secretary said that that was what he proposed now to do. Why did he propose to do that which was already the law?

MR. WYNDHAM

said that on matters of law he must take the opinion of the Attorney-General.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he valued the opinion of the Attorney-General on any subject, but he was not bound to follow his advice. The less lawyers had to do with this business the better. This matter could be settled, not by the advice of the Attorney-General but only by the goodwill and friendship of the people of Ireland; and he advised the Chief Secretary to pay more attention to the views of Irish Members opposite than to the legal pedantry of any lawyer. He agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo that the matter should be left as the law now left it. When the idea got abroad that the Land Conference had given away these rights, he was deluged with letters of protest. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would leave this matter as it stood.

MR. ATKINSON

said the object of the Amendment was not to defeat, but to preserve the rights of the parties, and to prevent them being defeated by the coercive force of the vesting order. There was not in the Land Code from beginning to end any provision whatever for the preservation of these sporting rights. But it had been decided that notwithstanding the coercive force of the section of the Act of 1888—that the fee was to be vested in the purchaser—in those cases where rents had been fixed, and the exclusive rights had been reserved to the landlords by the order fixing the rent, the Judges had found themselves unable to make a vesting order under the Purchase Act preserving the rights secured to the landlord by the order made when fixing the rent. Hi sole object was that when the parties had come to an agreement vesting the sporting rights in the landlord before the sale, the legal machinery provided by the Act for carrying out the sale should not have its operative effect destroyed by altering that agreement in any way.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he always remembered the law when he had made it himself. The Attorney-General seemed strangely to have overlooked the fact, but the existing law was the exact contrary of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. [The hon. and learned Member quoted Section 31, 32, and 34 of the Land Purchase Act of 1896, and the decisions based thereon in support of his view.] What did the Chief Secretary's clause do which the clause he had read did not do? Within the last twelve months the Government itself, in the case of Lord Dillon's estate, obtained a declaration from the Court reserving on the Dillon estate the entire game rights. It was common knowledge that the landlords had reserved those rights in the past. He did not like the existing state of the law, but he preferred the present state, because he thought it was better than the law which was now proposed by the Government. The Land Conference agreed that the existing state of the law should not be interfered with, because it enabled the landlord to make those reservations. Personally he would have preferred a different state of things to the present law, and he would like to have the sporting rights vested in the County Councils, but he thought that even the Agricultural Board was better for this purpose than the Land Commission. He did not suggest that the Agricultural Board would employ gamekeepers, nor would the Land Commission, but if they would not vest the sporting rights in the County Councils, and leave the landlord to take a licence out from the County Councils, surely it would be best to leave the matter alone. This proposal was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. He did not see why the Government should give way to the landlords in making this claim, for this was not a light matter. If, as had been stated, the sporting rights were a national asset, they were willing to take it away from both the landlords and the tenants, and make it a national asset. But the Government clause did not make it a national asset at all. It was said that the landlord might have made a lease of his sporting rights. Did those vesting orders he had mentioned enable that to be carried on as against the tenant? Was there any difficulty in making the tenant subject to a particular agreement in regard to game rights? With great submission he said that there was no difficulty whatever in this matter. If there had been any difficulty, how was it that under the Ashbourne Acts landlords had been able to make these reservations? Had they been all along in the dark as regarded this law?

MR. ATKINSON

said they did not say that there was any difficulty. What they said was that it was essential that the parties should see exactly where they stood in this matter.

MR. T. M. HEALY

contended that the argument of the Government was that this could not be done. The Chief Secretary had stated that he had been advised in that direction by the Attorney-General. This was a matter of considerable importance, and he asked the Government to leave the landlords their present powers in regard to sporting rights which enabled them to make all those reservations. He hoped they would agree to this course, and let them pass on to the next business.

COLONEL NOLAN (Louth, S.)

thought that all such rights ought to go to the new proprietor. He knew cases where at the present time the shooting was let by the peasant proprietors themselves. If they had a system of small proprietors they could not have game in defiance of them, because they could easily destroy the eggs of the partridges and grouse. With regard to transferring these rights to the County Councils, he thought it would be rather hard to expect county councillors to be always going about prosecuting poachers, and as for the Agricultural Board, he thought they would find enough to do under this Bill without prosecuting poachers or protecting the game. He wished the clause to be so drawn up that no third party could come in at all. The new proprietor should purchase everything in the place, and no doubt some bond of friendship would exist with the old proprietor. Let the new proprietor lease back these rights if he liked to the old proprietor, but they ought not to a low a third party to slip in.

MR. WOOD

said the Chief Secretary had told them that he was in substantial agreement with the representatives of the tenants in the House, and if that was correct, and if it had been possible to carry this principle out satisfactorily for the last fifteen or twenty years, surely it was sufficient now that they should proceed on the old lines in regard to sporting rights. So far as the Ulster tenants were concerned they were just as strong as they were in the West upon this point, and any interference with the right of free bargains as to sporting and fishing rights would be resisted in Ulster as strongly as in the West of Ireland. The tenants had been giving way at all times; the tenant was being asked to make all the sacrifices and the landlords were getting all the benefits. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to get up at once and make some concession upon this point.

MR. WYNDHAM

said they all appeared to be agreed that the landlord and tenant should be allowed to bargain in regard to the sporting rights. They had been told that in the past these reservations had been made and that this proposal would make no difference. If they were all agreed that the landlords had this exclusive right, and that they would be able to arrange it with the tenants—of course getting a less value—why on earth should it not be stated in the only document dealing with this question.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said if this debate was prolonged the responsibility would rest entirely with the Chief Secretary. He was bound to say under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they were in substantial agreement upon this point, and he admitted that on both sides of the House there was an agreement that free bargaining should be preserved between landlord and tenant in regard to these rights. That had been observed in 80,000 cases which had already been settled under the existing Land Purchase Acts, and in the overwhelming majority of these cases the sporting rights had been reserved to the landlord. Therefore under the existing law there was no trouble whatever, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth had shown. There was no difficulty in vesting these rights subject to reservations agreed upon between the two parties to the bargain. The right hon. Gentleman said that his words were only intended to carry out that idea, but they were of opinion that his words went very much farther, and were unnecessary. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should withdraw this clause, and that upon the Report stage—after he had had time fully to consider whether any words were necessary at all, or whether their contention was right that no words were necessary—he might, if necessary, bring up words to enable this agreement to go on between landlord and tenant. Unless there was some other meaning in these words that they had not detected, there was no reason why he should not withdraw the clause, and leave the matter to be discussed upon some future occasion. Although he agreed with the Conference Report that the law should be left as it had been under the Land Purchase Acts, that was not his idea of a settlement of the question. His idea was that the sporting rights should be held by the County Councils and should be let out by them, and the money so obtained used for the benefit of the people. It appeared to him quite clear in Committee now, as in the deliberations of the Land Conference, that there was no probability of coming to an agreement on that point within a reasonable time, and therefore he waived his own view on the matter, and was prepared to accept a settlement based on the lines of the Land Conference, leaving the matter perfectly open to free bargain between landlord and tenant in the future as it had been in the past. He asked the Chief Secretary not to be responsible for the prolongation of this debate. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment and reconsider the matter. The right hon. Gentleman would be free to bring up other words if he thought it necessary on the Report stage. When they had come to a substantial agreement it would be little short of criminal to go on wasting time discussing the matter, in view of the number of clauses which had still to be considered.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he did not think the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman would accomplish the object he had in view. There were between twenty and thirty Amendments to the clause on the Notice Paper.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Withdraw the clause and then all go.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said hon. Members from Ireland should be careful as to how they withdrew a clause in regard to which there was considerable feeling among British Members. He did not see that the Chief Secretary could do more than he had done in explaining that free bargaining under the clause was in no way interfered with. What was proposed was really a way of registering what was called "free bargains." Those who were objecting to the clause could not get that into their heads. To show, however, that the landlords on their side wished not to delay, he was willing, if all the sub-sections proposed by tin; Chief Secretary were accepted, to withdraw the whole of his Amendments.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

said there seemed to be great confusion prevailing in regard to this matter. He thought one way of getting over the difficulty that was felt would be to omit the clause altogether when it was admitted that in selling to the tenant the fee of his holding the landlord sold all the right he had Why not allow the tenant to buy all? Every time the Attorney-General had spoken he had described the game as a great national asset, but, as a matter of fact, it was a landlord asset. A price which was regarded on these benches as liberal, and even extravagant, was being given to the landlords for their land, and yet they wanted to got tagged on to that another asset in the shape of game. He personally took great interest in sporting matters, and he was very anxious to have a satisfactory arrangement come to between both parties in order that sport might be encouraged in Ireland, but he certainly did see that if this clause was forced through the House it would defeat itself, for the result would be that the tenants who were now to become the owners of their holdings would resent the infliction placed upon them, and would certainly destroy the game instead of endeavouring to preserve it. He knew cases where the tenants had purchased and the landlords had reserved the game. These were properties where there was continual friction. There were gamekeepers and spies still about, frequent prosecutions took place, and heavy fines were inflicted. The result was that the game on these properties was destroyed. On the other hand, there were properties where the game rights had not been reserved by the landlords, and the tenants themselves preserved the game with the best possible advantage. His contention was, and he said it with regret, that if they attempted to place coercion on the tenants in order to deprive them of what they had a perfect right to get when purchasing their holdings, it would mean the destruction of game in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had mentioned a case where a landlord was in receipt of £200 for game. But how many cases of that kind were there in Ireland? The landlord was probably getting that for some large wood or mountain preserve. But a case of that kind did not affect the question with which they were now dealing. The landlord would probably retain that property in his own possession, and it would not interfere with the position of the tenants. They had no objection to the present landlords living in Ireland and enjoying themselves, after the tenants had become owners of their holdings; but if they wished to enjoy sport of every description, it would only be by giving the tenants the game rights in their own hands. If these rights were reserved to the landlords, the gamekeepers, and spies would give the greatest possible trouble and annoyance to the tenants, and offenders against the game laws would be severely punished by the landlord magistrates on the bench. The question of fishing rights affected a large number of holdings. The measurement of the holdings included portions of the rivers on their borders. The tenants paid rent for the rivers, and when they purchased their holdings the fishing rights should also be conveyed to them.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,) Dublin University

said he would make an effort to clear up the confusion this matter had got into. What was the difficulty which the clause was intended to meet? By the Act of 1881, Section 5, the Land Commission had power, when fixing a fair rent, to reserve the exclusive right of sport to the landlords. When a lessee, under the Act of 1887, for the first time got the power of having a fair rent fixed during the currency of his lease, that was coupled with the condition that in the fair rent so fixed the reservations applicable to the tenancy from year to year were to be carried on in the tenancy created under the Act of 1887. Therefore the tenants got their rents fixed on the basis of the landlords claiming the right conferred by Section 5 of the Act of 1881. The judicial rent was fixed on the basis that this element, or appurtenance of holding, was to be the property of the landlord. When a holding came to be sold under the Ashbourne Act, the Court found that prior to the passing of the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Louth had referred, there was no provision enabling the Land Commission to allow any reserve, such as sporting, when the fee was invested in the tenant. What the Land Commission said was that inasmuch as all they were giving to the tenant was the holding, and as the sporting right had been detached from the holding when the fair rent order was made, they were entitled to exempt from that holding the sporting right. That was challenged and bitterly contested, but the Land Commission adhered to that decision; and hence when the Act of 1896 was introduced, in order to put an end to all these jealousies Sub section 2 of Clause 41 insisted that the vesting order should be subject to such reservations as were specified in the order. The sole object of the first sub-section of the clause under discussion was to continue that same power in the future.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that Clause 86 of this Bill said "Part One of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts, and may be cited with these Acts."

MR. CAMPBELL

said he was quite aware of that, and if hon. and learned Members would bear with him a moment he would explain. He believed there had been unnecessary confusion and friction in regard to this matter. They were all agreed to leave the rights as they at present existed. But a number of hon. Gentlemen said they wanted the present state of the law altered. If they did that, it meant that they wanted to take from the landlord the right of property expressly reserved to him under the lease, or, where there was no lease, by virtue of the judicial fair-rent order. But if they were all agreed that the sporting right was reserved under the lease, or under the judicial rent order was still to be reserved to the landlord, then when the tenant came to buy the holding he should understand that he was not buying that right. That was, in his own idea, all that was intended to be accomplished by the first sub-section of the amended clause. The object was to prevent any litigation afterwards between the selling landlord and the purchasing tenant, and to provide that on the face of the purchasing tenant's title deed it should be stated that he had not bought the sporting right. The tenant could come to the landlord and say he wanted the sporting right; but it was desirable that the tenant should not be deceived, or believe that he was getting the appurtenant right of shooting which was not his, and which he had not given up when the fair rent was fixed, because it was reserved to the landlord in the lease. Why should the tenant be left under the delusion that he had got the sporting right, if, in fact, the sporting right had been reserved to the landlord prior to the sale? He hoped he had thrown some light on the matter.

MR. DILLON

said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown considerable light by his most interesting speech which, indeed, to his mind was, the only clear speech delivered from the Government Bench. They had been engaged two and a half hours discussing the first Amendment to the clause—and there were thirty-three on the Paper—and they did not appear to be any nearer the end. He spoke with clean hands on this question because he had not a single Amendment on the clause on the Paper, and he thought that what had occurred in the discussion must have struck anyone that his advice to the Government at the beginning of the debate was not unfriendly. The hon. and learned Gentleman had explained for the first time why it was that the Government were clinging to this provision. They had been told that it left the law as it stood, but why then waste time in clinging to a clause which did nothing to define the law?

MR. WYNDHAM

asked if the hon. Gentleman really suggested that when they had settled so many big questions they ought to find a difficulty in stating in a simple way that the landlord and tenant might settle this question between them?

MR. DILLON

said that the right hon. Gentleman should drop these words in the Amendment and allow the parties to do as they had been doing for the past fifteen years. But the real object of the Amendment was perfectly plain; it was to make it almost compulsory on the tenant to part with this right without his knowing what he was doing. The law as it at present stood was that the tenant could not part with his right which attached to the fee without the whole matter being explained to him. The object of the Government was that vast bodies of tenants were to sign these vesting orders under the impression that they were not parting with the game rights, and that they were not to be consulted beforehand. It was because he knew that this business would lead to misunderstanding and confusion that he had suggested that the agreement of the Land Conference should be loyally abided by. The Land Conference agreed to let sleeping dogs lie and not to alter the law at all. Did anyone imagine that if this clause was forced through Committee against the will of Members on that side of the House, it would not lead to a feeling of injury in Ireland in regard to game rights? The right hon. Gentleman had quoted—and he listened to him with amazement—as an example of the troubles that would arise if the Amendment were not carried, the Dillon Estate. But the trouble on the Dillon Estate arose because the tenants did not want to give up their game rights and an attempt was made to force them to do so. The tenants objected to sign the agreement, and wanted an alteration. He would further put it to the right hon. Gentleman that even if he got his Amendment, had he considered the subsequent Amendments, many of which would lead to as angry and prolonged discussion as the present Amendment. There was one Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York, which was a monstrous Amendment, and which they would have to oppose to the end. Had the right hon. Gentleman in his mind Sub-section 2, where the landlord was specially exempted from all those regulations? Was not that setting up an invidious distinction in favour of the landlords, who would buy with public money, and be to all intents and purposes on an equality with the tenants, as they would be in the position of peasant proprietors. Yet they were to be specially exempted from all those regulations. It was too much to expect that such a provision should be allowed to pass without a protest. There was abundant evidence that the section would lead to considerable discussion, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to drop it.

MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)

said he was sorry that neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General for Ireland had said anything about Sub-section 2. What was Sub-section 2? Did it mean that where the landlord did not care about the exclusive sporting rights, they should be vested in the Land Commission. Why should not those rights be transferred to the tenant if the landlord did not put any value upon them?

MR. WYNDHAM

explained that Subsection 1 was a convenient form for carrying out what most people desired. All that Sub-section 2 said was that where there were exclusive sporting rights to be safeguarded which the landlord did not think it worth while to keep, then they should not be dissipated, but for the moment the property should be left with the Land Commission until it was decided what to do with it. He would suggest that they should settle Sub-section 1, which only dealt with the exclusive rights which the landlord did think it worth while to keep, but could only keep by agreement with his tenants. All that was proposed was that the result of that agreement should form part of the procedure.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked why they should not leave the law alone. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened in 1881. It was most remarkable. When the Land Bill of 1881 was introduced there were the words, and the only words "exercise any rights for hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish which belonged to the landlord," so that every tenant, year by year, had his rights to game under the Bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone. But let them mark what the Lords did. The words they substituted were— Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, the right of which shall belong to the landlord exclusively, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880. They, the Irish Members put in subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, in order to give the tenants the extra right. The landlords in the House of Lords would want to graft something on to this clause which would transmogrify it, and then they would be told when the Bill came back that unless they accepted it in that way it could not be passed. Let them mark the difference in the clause as brought in by Mr. Gladstone, and as finally moulded by the House of Lords. The clause in Mr. Gladstone's Bill ran— Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, and if the landlord at the commencement of the statutory time so requiries, then, as between the landlord and the tenant, the right of hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish shall belong exclusively to the landlord subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880. What a transformation that was from the original proposal. The Solicitor-General, whom he congratulated upon his able appearance at the Table, reminded him of the way in which the Closure Rule was framed. The original words were that the Closure was to be enforced if Mr. Speaker granted his assent. That was altered at the instance of the Speaker to read— If Mr. Speaker shall not have withheld his assent. By the proposal in this clause automatically these rights would belong to the landlord and the tenant had no right of haggling or bargaining with reference to them, and they wanted to withdraw from the tenant the chance of being a free haggler or bargainer. He conceived this matter to be of capital importance. He was willing to abide by the Land Conference Report, which gave the landlords a huge concession, and beyond that concession he would not go—viz., to leave the law as it stood. The Government were introducing a sharp weapon and a burning question all over the country. Let them take these sporting rights as a national asset and vest them in a public authority. Was not that a large concession? Further, he would give the landlord the right of preemption, and on cheap terms. Was not that a fair concession? But the Government would not agree to that. They wanted to put something in the Bill different to the Ashbourne Acts, and then the House of Lords would say they must make that much clearer. It would then come back to the House of Commons in the dregs of August, and the House of Commons would be told that unless they accepted the Amendment the Bill could not pass. That was not fair. They had offered the Government that which the landlords insisted upon at the Land Conference—in fact, they had offered even better terms—and he, for his part, if necessary, would continue the resistance.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he regretted the attitude taken by the hon. Member who had said this was a stock upon which something further was to be grafted in the other House. In this Amendment he had endeavoured to put the very minimum of that to which great importance was attached by the landlords. He had put in no more than they understood was promised by the Land Conference Report. If his Amendment was accepted he was humanly certain that it would not be used as a stepping-stone in another place, and the whole of his efforts would be directed to this final solution of the question. On the other hand, if he were to withdraw the Amendment—but that he could not do—the other House might deem itself absolutely at liberty to deal with the question de novo, and would possibly frame a provision to which much greater exception could be taken than had been taken to his proposal, and then there might be a regrettable conflict between the two Chambers. He had sought in this, as in every other question, for a basis giving a minimum on this point to the landlords and the sporting classes in Ireland. This was a matter to which they attached great importance. On the question of the evicted tenants the landlords' representatives did their very best, and he would ask hon. gentlemen opposite on the question—to which the landlords attached, if the hon. Gentlemen opposite pleased, a sentimental importance—to place this provision on the statute book. It did not go further than the Land Conference Report, and merely gave the landlords what they understood was promised to them. Sub-section 2 was another matter. He was prepared to put in words to make it clear there was to be a bargain, but he must adhere to the Amendment. He felt compelled to adhere to his Amendment on this occasion, and he asked the landlords' representatives to support him.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he fully endorsed the remarks of the Chief Secretary in regard to landlords generally with reference to the evicted tenants question, and with reference to the concessions made in Clause 1. It would have been impossible to have obtained those concessions but for the conciliatory attitude of the landlords. He therefore felt the force of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman. This was a comparatively small matter, but one which excited the greatest possible feeling. Members who sat beside him would be satisfied with the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman said his Amendment did not alter the existing law, but he had not made that plain to the Committee. He had now taken up the position that he could not withdraw his Amendment and would not, but he was prepared to put words into it to make plain what was the desire of the Committee namely, that these rights should not be reserved to a landlord except as a result of a bargain with his tenants. They were exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass, and if some words could be put in to make that plain there need not be any further conflict.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he quite appreciated that the hon. and learned Gentleman was doing his best to get them out of the difficulty they were now in, and he would give an undertaking before the Report stage to make it perfectly plain to the hon. and learned Gentleman's satisfaction that that was part of the agreement, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman had some particular fancy to put the words in now.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he thought it was most undesirable to leave a lot of these questions over to be brought up on Report. There should be no difficulty in inserting words now.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin University

said that in order to get out of the difficulty he would suggest that the Amendment should be accepted as he had just drafted it, namely, "Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants, or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may, by agreement between the landlord and tenant, be either conveyed to the tenant or reserved to the landlord." He thought those words would clear up the whole thing.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

thought those words carried out the object for which they had been contending, and if they were accepted the Amendment might be agreed to without further discussion.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would accept the words for the sake of peace.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 21, to leave out Sub-section 1, and insert the words 'Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may, by agreement between the landlord and the tenant, be either conveyed to the tenant or reserved to the landlord.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— The expression 'sporting rights' includes any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. BUTCHER

said he was award that the right hon. Gentleman had an Amendment down at a later stage of the Bill dealing with mineral rights, but that did not meet the case he had in view when placing his Amendment on the Paper. The object of his Amendment was to preserve the mining rights and water rights to those to whom they now belonged by law. The mining law was very complicated, but he believed its main provisions were that unopened mines belonged entirely to the owner of the land; that, with regard to mines which had been opened, there was a concurrent right of working to both landlord and tenant; and that, as to quarries and so forth, there is also a concurrent right, but the tenant must not work them for purposes of profit. The effect of the Amendment would be that where a bargain for the sale of any land was made, based as it would be on the agricultural value of the land, the mining rights should remain exactly as they were. It could not be right that the tenants, or the Land Commission should be given these rights unless they paid for them, and the Amendment proposed that the Land Commission, should be empowered to purchase them. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 25, to leave out Sub-section 2, and insert the words '"mining rights" shall mean all rights of mining, and taking minerals, and of digging and searching for minerals, and of opening quarries, or beds of stone, limestone, sand, marl, gravel, or clay, and taking materials therefrom, and of raising timber from under the ground, and all rights to and in respect of mining rents and royalties; and the words "water rights" shall mean all rights of or to water power. (2.) On a sale under the Land Purchase Acts of an estate, whether to the Land Commission or otherwise, the owner of the estate or any other person or corporation entitled to any mining rights, or water rights shall, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, by such owner, person, or corporation, be entitled to and shall retain and exercise or dispose of as he or they shall think fit all such mining rights and water rights. (3.) On any such sale as aforesaid, notwithstanding that any mining rights and water rights are retained by or reserved to the owner of the estate, such sale shall be deemed to be a sale of an estate within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and advances shall be made accordingly. (4.) The Land Commission may purchase from the owner of an estate, or from any person or corporation, at such price as may be agreed on, any mining rights or water rights, and such sale shall be deemed to be a sale within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and advances shall be made accordingly. (5.) Where any mining rights or water rights become vested in the Land Commission such rights, or any of them, shall be disposed of by them in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

thought the hon. and learned Member could hardly be serious in proposing this Amendment. The landlord was not only to get a high price for his land and a large bonus, but it was now proposed that he should also be compensated for these mineral rights.

* MR. BUTCHER

said he simply proposed to leave the rights as they were. Surely when the land was being sold as agricultural land the mining rights should be kept out of the matter altogether.

MR. FLYNN

contended that if the Land Commission bought the land it bought everything contained therein. The Amendment was a most fantastical proposition, put forward on behalf of a section of the community who were already getting exceptionally generous terms.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

, as showing the necessity for the Amendment, instanced the case of an estate in Kilkenny, on which was situated one of the largest coal-fields in Ireland. He had received a letter from the proprietor saying he would absolutely refuse to sell any of his land unless the value of the coal-field was made up to him. Could it be conceived that the owner would sell his land at its surface value when that which was under the surface was worth ten times as much? The Amendment would leave the law as it at present stood, and that, he thought, was a reasonable course to follow.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the Amendment would make the digging up of a little bog-oak or sand or gravel a mining right! The idea was absurd. Was it to be supposed that a farmer would buy his farm and not be at liberty to use the sand or gravel he might find there? These landlords' rights could be carried a great deal too far. He was willing to make almost any sacrifices for the Bill, but he was not willing that the tenants should be put in such fetters as these. The proposal was monstrous.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

thought the heat of the hon. Member must have been caused by some misconception.

* MR. T. W. RUSSELL

We know what is going on in that corner.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said it seemed to be forgotten that certain rights at present belonged to the landlord, and were part of his estate.

AN HON. MEMBER

And he is going to sell his estate.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

further pointed out that these rights were left entirely out of account when fair rents were fixed. The Amendment proposed that the rights should be reserved to the landlord unless they were paid for. That was a reasonable proposition, and one which he should support.

MR. ATKINSON

said that the natural thing, when the reversion was sold, was that the mining rights should go with it. It would, however, be impossible for small proprietors reasonably to develop such rights, and so the Bill provided that the mining rights should be vested in the Commission, and disposed of by them in a manner to be provided by Parliament. It was felt that the Land Commission, if they held the mining rights of a couple of hundred small properties, might be able to develop them in a manner that the individual tenant could not. By an Amendment lower on the Paper, the Chief Secretary proposed to secure to the tenant purchaser the right of mining and taking stone, gravel, sand, or clay, not merely for the cultivation of his farm, but for sale. On the other hand, other minerals, such as ores and so forth, would be vested in the Commission. That being the position they had taken up the Government were unable to accept this Amendment. Those rights were absolutely useless in the hands of the tenant purchasers, and he thought what the Government proposed was the best position to take up.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said that after the statement of the Attorney-General he thought the Government scheme was one to which no exception could be taken. He quite agreed that there might be cases in which mineral rights might be of such importance that they ought to be utilised in the public service, and he was convinced that if those rights were scattered over a series of small holdings it would be impossible to devote them to the public benefit. He entirely assented to the proposition that these rights should be vested in the Land Commission for the benefit of Ireland, and if the clause was amended so as to give to the tenant the right of using gravel, sand, and clay for his own purposes of husbandry, and also for sale, if he thought fit, that would be a sensible settlement of the question. That being so, he hoped the Government would stand by this provision, and not allow this clause to be mutilated, either in this House or in the House of Lords, by any such proposal as that which was now before the Committee. When he listened to such speeches as those which they had just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, it appeared to him that the landlords wanted to get the highest price they could for their land and keep it as well. If the landlords got the value of their land, including the minerals and everything else they now owned, from the sky to the middle of the earth, what injustice was there in preserving these rights to the tenant purchaser? Imagine what would happen if the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for York were adopted. The land would not be felt to belong to the tenant purchaser at all, because every day the landlord might come in ripping up the land and searching for minerals which he might dig out and carry away. If the minerals were a national asset, peace was also a national asset, and peace would be entirely destroyed by any such proceedings on the part of landlords who had sold their land to the tenants. The Amendment under consideration, in his opinion, did not tend to preserve that feeling which had hitherto been manifested in these debates. Such Amendments did not further the progress of the Bill in a friendly spirit, and if any such proposals were carried, in his opinion they would gravely imperil the future settlement of the land question.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he hoped the hon. and learned Member for York would not press this Amendment. It was quite evident that this proposal would excite strong feeling. The Government had explained the altitude they took up, and though that attitude was not altogether satisfactory, Irish Members were willing to go half way and accept it, and it was only fair that the representatives of the landlords should reciprocate.

* MR. BUTCHER

asked the Committee to consider the case of a tenant upon a judicial holding paying an agricultural rent. A rent of what? Simply of the agricultural land on the surface. In estimating that value the landlord did not get one farthing for any mineral rights underneath. If the landlord wished to sell such land he would make an agreement within the zone, based on the rent of the agricultural land. That was quite right so long as he was selling agricultural land, which simply meant the use of the surface. He wished to know why the Land Commission should take such assets as valuable coal mines or other minerals underneath the land from the landlord and not pay one farthing for them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] He did not think that was either business or fair play. He was in favour of a man if he had property selling it if he could get anything for it, but he was not in favour of a man being forced to sell. [An HON. MEMBER: Not forced.] At any rate he was not in favour of a man entering into an agreement to sell one thing and being forced to sell something else with it. He hoped the Chief Secretary would find some means of meeting such a case as he had put, which might prove exceedingly hard to the landlord. He thought the mining rights should be preserved to the landlord, or else he ought to be paid for them. The idea of vesting them in the Commission, who had not paid a farthing for them, was really one which, he thought, they should not be asked to support.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the British taxpayer came in here, and it was part of his bargain with the Treasury that these somewhat remote and he was afraid, speculative rights, should be thrown into the bargain and should belong to the State. As a matter of fact the landlords did not derive any advantage from what might or might not be under the soil. He had done his best to arrive at a solution which was fair all round. He should deprecate any attempt to prevent the landlords getting minerals from their land, but if a landlord thought there was coal under a particular field, it might be worth his while to buy that field back. He was not aware that there was a lot of coal, or copper, or gold in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: Gold Ornaments.] Of course, if there was a mine that was being worked or was leased to somebody else, that was another matter. It was quite clear that they could not interfere with that. And, in the same way, if a landlord were really working a mine or a quarry with capital and with people employed, if, in fact, it was a going concern, there ought to be nothing in this Act to make it difficult to keep that concern going. If, however, it was speculative, then let the State have the minerals, but let them make it clear that that conveyance in futurity to the State was not to deprive the peasant proprietor of any minerals either on or under the surface which he needed not only for husbandry but also for entering into contracts.

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out that mines could not be disposed of without a Bill in Parliament. He asked what provision had been made to protect the Crown rights in regard to gold?

MR. WYNDHAM

That is provided for by Sub-section (b).

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

asked the Chief Secretary whether in the case of minerals being found in any particular county that county would get the advantage or whether the revenue would be put to a general fund. It seemed to him that the individual county should have a preferential claim. In his own county fifteen years ago copper mines were worked to great advantage. He knew one case where one proprietor got £2,000 by receiving one-sixteenth part of the profits.

MR. WYNDHAM

did not think they could carry it further than they had done in the clause. They could leave that to Parliament to be dealt with in the future. If it became a practical question it could easily be discussed, but he did not think they should discuss it now.

* MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said the clause would seriously affect the granite industry which was carried on in the part of Ireland he came from. If the right to the granite was vested in the peasant proprietor he thought that would interfere with the development of the industry. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the insertion in the Bill of a definition of "stone," and also that all valuable minerals should be vested in the Crown and not in individuals.

MR. WYNDHAM

said a great deal of the granite that was available was already being worked. In those cases the rights would be covered by a further clause which he would suggest. When the hon. Member asked them to try to legislate for granite which might be worked he did not think that would be practicable. He would like to say generally that it was not possible in one Bill to anticipate all the developments that might take place. A number of questions might be raised, but if they were not to have any practical effect for ten, fifteen, or twenty years he thought they might leave something to their successors. If there was any danger of granite not being worked on account of this Bill, Parliament would amend the Bill in order that it might be worked.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had in contemplation the coal mines which were at present being worked.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not wish to go outside the language of the clause at present. He would put in a clause dealing with mines which were being worked and which had a substantial value at the present moment, and also with properties which had a prospective mining value. All that would be provided for He thought what was now proposed was a useful, practical, all-round, fair decision on the ordinary cases.

* MR. BUTCHER

said his right hon. friend had not convinced him, but as he had promised to deal with certain specified cases, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 36, at end, to insert the words 'or (c) to any stone, gravel, sand, or clay.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

SIR ROBERT FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

said there were foreshores where the rights to take sand, gravel, rocks, and stones, between high and low-water mark were vested by the Crown in certain people. He did not intend to move an Amendment, but he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the right which these people had at present under old grants from the Crown. He knew one case where the grant was a little over 600 years old. Ought there not to be some means by which that right could be handed to the tenant when he purchased the farm?

MR. ATKINSON

said he promised to carefully consider the suggestion of his hon. friend. When the owner of the dry land was not the owner of the foreshore there might be difficulty in carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion by a vesting order, but there would be no difficulty in cases where the landlord owned the foreshore because he could by deed transfer his right to the tenant. The position of the purchasing tenant would depend entirely on the nature of the landlord's interest in the foreshore.

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

said it seemed to him that under Sub-section (c) now proposed, the landlord would retain the stone, gravel, sand, and clay, and that the tenant would be excluded from taking them.

MR. WYNDHAM

No. The clause says that there shall be reserved "to the Commission the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals." "Minerals" cover everything that goes to the Land Commission. The clause does not give to the Commission "any demesne or other land repurchased by the vendor of the estate," or "any right which i vested in the Crown." Therefore they would be the property of the purchaser.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said there were many tenants in his own constituency who, for the payment of a shilling or two, were allowed to take manure from the foreshore. That was a right which hundreds of tenants enjoyed apart from the kelp right. It would not be fair to sell that foreshore to an individual tenant whose farm bordered upon it. It would be well that the Government should consider whether that seaweed could not be vested in some trustees so as to prevent any man getting hold of it.

MR. WYNDHAM

On Report we could do that I think on Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 3, at end, to add the words '(4) Provided always that nothing in this Act shall affect any lease or agreement demising or dealing with any of the rights mentioned in this section.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

asked his hon. and learned friend to allow him a little more time to consider this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he wished to say that the clause as it now stood was not satisfactory to him.

MR. CLANCY

said that this clause provided for the redemption of what were called intervening interests, but only so in the case of an estate purchased by the Land Commission, or by the Congested Districts Board. He had put down an Amendment providing that this power of dealing with intervening interests should exist in the case of individual sales between landlord and tenant. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment, which he accordingly moved—

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 7, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'or being otherwise sold under the provision of the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said that his right hon. friend recognised the absolute, necessity of a clause of this kind in dealing with large farms, some of which were sub-let. In that condition the large farmer could not buy, because he was not in possession of the whole, and the sub-tenant could not buy directly either. There was a good deal of difficulty in putting the powers in force when the sale took place between landlord and tenant, and very considerable difficulty in calling the Land Commission into operation to interfere. It might, however, be quite possible to carry out everything desired by agreement. Assuming that the large farmer had sub-let, to a sub-tenant, twenty acres, and that the landlord wanted to sell, there would be nothing to prevent him arranging with the large tenant to surrender the lease of these twenty acres, and then the landlord could deal directly with the sub-tenant for the sale of them. All that could be carried out by agreement. His right hon. friend hoped to contrive simple machinery whereby the good offices of the Land Commission could be obtained so as to apportion the rent between the large tenant and the small tenant, and so enable an agreement to be arrived at.

MR. CLANCY

said he recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met his Amendment. Anyone who had had any experience of the Land Judge's Court knew that if the whole tenancy had been sub-let at the same rent, there would be no reason why the agreement should not be easily arrived at; but in a great many cases where the tenancy had been sub-let at an enhanced rent, the middleman would have a substantial interest which he would not surrender unless there was an expectation that he would be able to buy himself.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it was his desire to hit on a plan by which a landlord could sell his estate with the exception of this or that part, and then bring in the Land Commission to apportion the rents of all the parts.

MR. CLANCY

said after that explanation he would not persevere with his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER

said he wished to move an Amendment to insert at the end of Sub-section 1 of Clause 13, "Provided that when the person in such exclusive occupation shall have been paying a higher proportionate rent than that paid by the owner of the intervening interest to the owner of the estate, such higher rent shall be assumed to be the rent in respect of which an advance may be made in estimating the price of the estate under the provisions of Section 5." His Amendment was designed to provide that in cases where the middleman was compensated out of the purchase money, the purchase money should be estimated on the basis of the increased rent got by the middleman.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 8, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that when the person in such exclusive occupation shall have been paying a higher proportionate rent than that paid by the owner of the intervening interest to the owner of the estate such higher rent shall be assumed to be the rent in respect of which an advance may be made in estimating the price of the estate under the provisions of Section 5.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Amendment.

MR. DILLON

said the Amendment was preposterous and without meaning.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

moved an Amendment providing that where a holding in any such estate was held by joint tenants or tenants in common, or was subdivided between two or more persons, and the Land Commission were satisfied that such tenants or persons were in the exclusive occupation of separate portions thereof, the Commission might, if they thought fit, for the purpose of the Land Law Acts, as well as this Act, declare that any such tenant or person should be deemed the tenant of the parcel of land in his exclusive occupation, and that such parcel should be deemed a holding, and might apportion the rent of the holding between such tenants or persons as the justice of the case might require. He suggested that if a man was a tenant for the purposes of sale he should be regarded as a tenant for all purposes, and it would be most unjust, he contended, if this were not to be the case with regard to this part of the Bill. He was quite prepared to admit that this was not the best place for his Amendment, but his desire was to put the matter on a sound basis.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 30, to leave out the words, 'foregoing provisions of this Act,' and insert the words, 'Land Law Acts and this Act.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said he thought the clause did all that was necessary for the purpose of purchase, and it would not be desirable to amend the law as suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he recognised that a new clause would probably be the best means of making the alteration. He would bring it up later in the shape of a new clause; and he hoped that the Government would then view it with an open mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. EDWARD MITCHELL (Fermanagh, N.)

moved to leave out Sub-section 5 of Clause 13. His object in moving the Amendment was for the purpose of avoiding litigation if possible, especially in the case of small holdings. He also desired to entrust the Land Commissioners wholly and solely with the power of dealing with small holdings under this section. He did so because there was a Judicial Commissioner whom they all knew as one who would do his utmost to be fair and just to all classes of both tenants and landlords.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (5)."—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 5 stand part of the clause."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said this clause applied to some of the poorest tenants in Ireland, i.e., to those who were called co-tenants. To lodge an appeal was not a great privilege for these people, because it simply meant expense, as the landlord would probably take the appeal further. It was not reasonable to suppose that if the Estate Commissioners could be trusted in large matters they ought not to be trusted in this small matter. Their decision ought to be final.

MR. ATKINSON

said he thought his hon. friend, the mover of the Amendment, could not be conversant with the difficult and complicated questions of law that might arise. They might involve the construction of a marriage settlement, the question whether a man was a tenant for sixty years or a tenant for life, the construction of a lease and many other important legal points. It would be perfectly impossible for all the various questions that might arise to be settled by the Estates Commissioners, and, in fact, no one would recognise them as a final tribunal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had had some difficulty with regard to the first part of the Amendment, Sub-section B, he now proposed, but having regard to the agreement at which they had arrived this afternoon, he now thought there would be no difficulty in the Committee accepting these words. Of course, if any further words were thought necessary they could be put in. It was quite clear that they ought not to handicap the small purchaser by giving less for the sporting rights than they had agreed to give this afternoon, and if this Amendment was accepted he would make these matters equal between the landlord and tenant. Sub-section C was necessary in order to provide that land, when vested in the Land Commission, should be subject to the ordinary maintenance charges. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words '(b) to any sporting rights reserved by the vendor; (c) to any maintenance charge under the Public Works Acts; and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, having accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it was only fair to acknowledge that these words did not infringe on the word which had been agreed to.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

asked that when the right hon. Gentleman made it equal between landlord and tenant, they would also take care that adequate protection should be given to the lessee of the sporting rights.

MR. CLANCY

thought some declaration was necessary, and that if the sporting rights were conveyed to the tenant under the agreement, the vesting order should specify them also.

MR. ATKINSON

said the vesting order vested all in the tenant. The only object of having the sporting rights mentioned in the vesting order was to preserve in that document the evidence of the agreement come to between the parties.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he wanted to see in a case where an estate was going to be sold, and the landlord had let for a term his sporting rights, that the lessee of those sporting rights should be sufficiently protected.

SIR EDWARD CARSON

pointed out that when a landlord and a tenant came to an agreement to purchase, the landlord would have to deal with the question of sporting rights. He might say, "I must reserve the sporting rights because I have already granted a lease of them"; or he might say to the tenant, "I will convey them to you subject to the existing lease." Therefore any words were unnecessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SHARPE (Kensington, N.)

said the object of the Amendment in his name was to ensure that in future the practice hitherto adopted by the Land Commission should continue, and that full and proper notice should be given to these persons.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 19, after the word 'notices,' to insert the words 'on all incumbrancers and on such other persons.'"—(Mr. Sharpe.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said no doubt the hon. Member was sufficiently conversant with the Bill to know that great powers were vested in limited owners to enable them to sell at once. This clause dealt mainly with the question of ascertaining whether the person dealing with the Commission had authority to sell. It did not at all affect the distribution of the purchase money. Of course, the rules would provide that adequate notice should be given, but it was unnecessary that everybody should have notice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. BUTCHER

said his next Amendment dealt with a technical matter, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether it was necessary, and would accept it now, or if not sure upon the point whether he would consider it on Report.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Amendment could not be accepted in its present form.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15.

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.