HC Deb 30 June 1903 vol 124 cc984-1016

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 15.

* MR. BUTCHER

said the Amendment he proposed to move had reference to the question of who should be allowed to sell under this Act? The persons put forward as the persons to sell should be the persons who were interested in obtaining the best price for the property. If a mortgagee had the power to sell within the zones at a price sufficient to cover his mortgage, and no more, he would be able to inflict a very serious loss on other persons interested in the property. According to the Bill as it stood, he had that power, and that was a thing that should be guarded against, because it would not be right to allow him to sell under the value. Another danger in the Bill was with regard to the bonus. The bonus was to go to the vendor, so that if a mortgagee sold he not only got his mortgage paid off, but also the bonus. It could not be contended that he should be paid his mortgage and get the bonus as well. Then there was the question of a tenant for life, who had no substantial interest in the property. Under the Bill he could sell within the zones at any price he liked without consulting anyone, and pocket the bonus. That was a case which ought to be provided against. It might be said that the person to sell had to be for six years in possession of the rents and profits of the property, but that was no protection at all, because the tenant for life in this case might be only nominally in possession of the rents and profits. If such a tenant for life was allowed to sell, he at all events ought to be prevented from getting the bonus, and it should go into the purchase money of the estate. Then there was the case of the bankrupt tenant for life. That was a case this Bill did not provide for. Under these circumstances, he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 30, after the word 'person, to insert the words, 'not being a mortgagee and not being a tenant for life, or a person having the powers of a tenant for life who is a bankrupt, or whose estate or interest in the land has been assigned or parted with.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said although he was unable to accept the Amendment he hoped he should be able to reconcile the Bill with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member. The Amendment, as it stood, precluded sales by mortgagees or tenants for life who had no substantial interest in the property. Both those classes could sell under the existing law. If these classes of persons were debarred from selling, one of the main objects of the Bill would be defeated. The clause, as it stood, only conferred discretion on the Land Commission, and it was not necessary to interfere with that discretion. He considered that other interests in these cases were protected by the discretion which was vested in the Land Commission. The Government proposed that persons in this position should not be entitled to the bonus on the same terms as others, because it was quite clear that great objection would be taken to a sale of property by such persons, and to their taking the bonus; and when the grant-in-aid clause was reached, he intended to propose that the bonus in these cases should go into the purchase-money for the satisfaction of other claims.

* MR. BUTCHER

said some of his objections had been satisfied by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but one objection had not been met, and that was sale by a person who had no interest in getting the best price, such as a mortgagee who only wanted to obtain the price of his mortgage.

MR. WYNDHAM

said a mortgagee could now sell and could not be precluded from selling under the Bill. Such an Amendment would only lead to weighty and prolonged inquiries in each case, and therefore defeat one of the main objects of the Bill, which was quick sale.

MR. CLANCY

said it would greatly weaken the Bill if this Amendment were carried, and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had made the concession he had, because it took away the very inducement for them to sell. The only inducement such persons had to sell was the very fact that they would get the bonus. The Chief Secretary now said the bonus was going to be thrown into the purchase-money, and the only inducement for them to sell was taken away.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. BUTCHER

, in the absence of the hon. Member for North Louth, moved the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name. He said if the person was registered as a person entitled to sell he ought to be allowed to sell under the Act. The acceptance of the Amendment would result in the avoidance of difficulties likely to arise in regard to whether a person was the person to sell or not. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 31, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'is registered under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, as amended by this Act, as owner of an estate sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, or.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had no objection to an Amendment of the Registration of Title Act, but he doubted if that could be effected under the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen desired there should be, this session or next, a new Registration Bill he had no objection to the Amendment" as amended by this and subsequent Acts," but as the hon. Member for North Louth had an Amendment lower down and was not then present the Amendment might perhaps be allowed to wait.

* MR. BUTCHER

said he was disposed to take the Amendment as amended by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the real question was whether this could be done in four sections, or whether it must be amended by a Bill.

* MR. HEMPHILL

said the mere fact that a person was registered owner ought not to be sufficient title for him to sell. It might be possible for a person not having a title under this Bill to be placed on the register.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought it would be better not at this Stage of the Bill to attempt to amend the Registration Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'claims in respect of an interest which is sufficient to constitute him,' and insert the words 'gives primâ facie evidence that he is.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the object of his Amendment might count his immediate predecessor's occupation as his own, as in the case of a father dying within the six years and the son inheriting.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 35, to leave out the words 'has been by himself or his,' and insert the words 'or his immediate predecessor in title has been personally or by an.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

said it appeared to him that a man who was in possession by a Receiver of the Land Court had not sufficient title to sell. He therefore begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 35, to leave out the words 'or a receiver.'"—(Mr. H. Robertson.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said this Amendment might be accepted. The word "receiver" was not meant to cover a Receiver of the Land Court at all. It was not ad rem and was therefore unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 37, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'subject to such conditions with respect to advertisements and notices as may be prescribed.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 39, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that an owner who has not for six years immediately preceding been in receipt of any portion of the rents or profits of the land (other than the demesne, and whether or not he be under an occupation rent for such demesne) shall not without the consent of his incumbrancers be at liberty to sell any land under the Land Purchase Acts. (2) A mortgagee in possession with power of sale, or a mortgagee who has been by himself or through a receiver in exclusive receipt of the rents or profits of an estate for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding, shall, for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, he deemed to be a landlord.'"—(Mr. Sharpe).

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Amendment, as it was opposed to the Irish and other Land Acts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 16:

MR. BUTCHER

said that Clause 16, Sub-section (1), provided that the Land Commission should be able to recover arrears of rent in regard to land purchased by them, and the Amendment he was about to move proposed that the Commission should pay over the value of the arrears to the landlord. In the case of a sale direct to the tenants, the usual practice, if there were any arrears, was to add a certain sum to the purchase-money, and out of the purchase-money a sum not exceeding one year's arrears was paid to the landlord. That was fair enough. But in the case of a sale to the Land Commission, there was no provision in the Bill by which the landlord would get anything in respect of arrears. He contended that if the landlord was not to get anything in the way of purchase-money for the arrears, and if the Land Commission was to be entitled to recover the arrears, the value of the said arrears ought to be paid to the landlord. Unless some such provision was made, sales to the Land Commission would be penalised. He was aware that another clause provided that the landlord should keep one year's arrears of rent, but that merely reduced the purchase money. His point was that, as the landlord had nothing in the purchase money in respect of the arrears, he was entitled to either the arrears themselves or their value. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 10, at end, to insert the words '(2) The value of such arrears of rent, if not agreed upon between the vendor and the Land Commission, shall be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and shall be paid by the Land Commission to the vendor over and above the purchase-money of the lands. Payment of the value of such arrears of rent shall be made immediately on the completion of the purchase agreement to the person who would have been entitled to receive the same.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not possibly accept the Amendment, and he thought he could satisfy his hon. and learned friend that it was not one on which he need insist. The Amendment would have the effect of placing on the Land Commission the duty, not only of judicially ascertaining the amount due, but also of estimating the value of the debt. Such a power would be inquisitorial, and would lead to a great waste of time. The arbitrary limit of one year's arrears, as placed in the Bill, seemed to him to be the best arrangement. At present, attempts were sometimes made to collect the arrears, but they generally broke down, while if they succeeded they were not usually welcome in the public interest, because it meant that people who were already in debt made an effort to discharge that debt, and then entered into obligations with the State. The almost universal practice was that, where the tenant desired to buy and the landlord to sell, an arrangement was come to by which—as it was crudely put—a year was added to the price; in other words, the parties agreed to a bargain which wiped out all question of past debt—a transaction which was absolutely necessary before the tenant-purchaser could be accepted as a debtor of the State. In the Bill the Government had endeavoured to strike a rough-and-ready bargain which they believed to be substantially just. It appeared to be unjust that a part of the purchase-money which might be in respect of arrears should go into the purchase money, because it really belonged to the vendor, so they cut the Gordian knot by saying he might take a year's arrears out of the purchase-money, the remainder of the purchase-money being distributed amongst the superior interests. This decision had been arrived at after careful consideration; the Government considered it fair as between the vendor and the owners of superior interests, and it certainly made for speed, whereas the Amendment would mean great delay, immense difficulty in estimating the value of the arrears and in collecting them, and also the questionable proposal that all such arrears should be handed to the vendor, and nothing to the owners of superior interests.

MR. BUTCHER

asked whether it would be possible for a landlord, when he negotiated a sale with the Land Commission, to get an increase of price where there were large arrears of rent. If so, his difficulty would be met. If it would not be possible, he thought it was very hard that a whole year's rent should be cut out of the corpus of the purchase-money. The arrears ought to be either included in the purchase-money or paid over subsequently to the landlord.

MR. WYNDHAM

pointed out that the purchase-money was the total amount the purchaser had agreed to pay. There was nothing in the Bill by which an unfavourable distinction was drawn between sales to the Land Commission and sales direct to the tenants. By Clause 5, the Land Commission would be in treaty with the tenants to know how much they would pay, and one of the first considerations in such a matter was always the manner in which the arrears were to be dealt with. The Land Commission, being in touch with both landlord and tenant, would arrive at a bargain to which three-fourths of the tenants subscribed, the result of which was a corpus of money out of which the landlord was to take one year's arrears, as was usually done in the case of sales effected directly between landlord and tenant. He thought that was a practical solution of the question.

MR. BUTCHER

understood that his point would, in substance, be met, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER

moved to insert "Judicial Commissioner" for "Land Commission," his contention being that the matter referred to was one more fitted for the Judicial Commissioner than for the Estates Commissioners, who were not necessarily conversant with questions of law. He admitted that the present proposed Commissioners included persons so qualified, but that might not always be the case.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, lines 14 and 15, leave out 'Land Commission,' and insert 'Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said there was one series of Amendments on the Paper proposing to substitute "Judicial Commissioner" for "Land Commission" wherever the term was used, and another series suggesting the substitution of "Land Commission" wherever "Judicial Commissioner" occurred. The Government had endeavoured as far as possible to give administrative work to an administrative body and judicial work to a judicial body, the allocation having been made after very careful consideration. Upon that allocation the hon. and learned Member had an advantage as the Bill was drawn, because there was an over-riding injunction that all judicial points were to be brought before the Judicial Commissioner, so that if any doubt arose it would be decided by that official.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he understood the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded, but surely it was entirely a question of law as to who was entitled to the purchase-money.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that whenever a primâ facie case could be made out that a question was one of law it would go to the Judicial Commissioner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the Committee had now reached a point of considerable difficulty, as wag shown by the fact that no fewer than five notices of Motion for the rejection of this clause were on the Paper, those Motions coming from every part of the House. The reason was that tenants in every part of Ireland were very jealous of any attempt to touch their rights under the Act of 1881. He did not think the rejection of the clause was the course that ought to be followed. It was quite impossible to allow one-fourth of the tenants on any estate to bar or hinder the sale to and purchase by the other three-fourths. It would be equally impossible to leave that one-fourth as tenants of the Land Commission, as the Commission would be unable to fix the rents where they were themselves the landlords. He did not say that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was a perfect way out of the difficulty, but it was taken almost bodily from Section 40 of the Act of 1896. It might not be a very logical thing to declare a man to be a purchaser when he did not want to purchase, but the Committee had a choice of difficulties, and there was no way out except by some such means; and inasmuch as this method of procedure had already been adopted and no complaint had been made of it, he thought it was as good a way out of the difficulty as any that could be found. In addition to the part to which he referred, viz.— The Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly. there was the following proviso to safeguard the interests of the one-fourth of the tenants, viz.— Provided that the Commissioners before making such order shall consider any objection thereto, or modification therein, made or suggested by such tenants, and may alter or modify the terms at which such tenants, or any of them shall be deemed to have purchased as may be considered equitable. The proviso which he had added would safeguard the interests of the objecting tenants, for the Commissioners, having heard their case, would have discretion to make any difference which in their judgment might be called for in the terms as between the dissenting minority and the assenting majority.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 33, to leave out from the word 'holdings,' to end of clause, and insert the words 'The Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly. Provided that the Commissioners before making such order shall consider any objection thereto, or modification therein, made or suggested by such tenants, and may alter or modify the terms at which such tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have purchased as may be considered equitable.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM

said this Clause was referred to more than once during the debate which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the views of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and many of his hon. friends were then carefully expressed upon it. He thought the proviso should not be accepted, but he agreed to accept the first part of the Amendment, believing it to be as good a way as any of dealing with the cases under consideration. He wished to explain the process by which the Government had arrived at that conclusion. It had been admitted that some method must be found of dealing with such an estate bought by the Land Commission. It had been admitted that there were cases in which the Land Commission ought to buy with the assent of three-fourths of the tenants. The hon. Member for East Mayo accepted the illustrations he gave of cases in which it was proper for the Land Commission to buy a property without having previously got the consent of the Court. Having bought, the Land Commission became the land owner. Before he introduced this Bill he came to the conclusion that it was not advisable to unduly weight this measure by the introduction of any novel procedure to meet the difficulties of the case when the Land Commission bought without the assent of three-fourths. Then he held that where a majority had bought, the minority might well go on under the present rents. He held that there was a far less drastic procedure than the one recommended to-night, and he thought it was recommended as a substitute by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the Second Reading debate, namely, that where three-fourths bought the remaining one-fourth should be deemed to have bought. They were now invited to revert to the practice under Section 40. There was a great deal to be said for adopting that method, which was known in Ireland. Certainly nothing could be urged against employing that measure when it was to be employed by the Estates Commissioners. He thought such a tribunal could with general satisfaction administer Section 40 in the cases where it was admitted that some machinery must be found. ["No, no."] That he understood was the suggestion thrown out during the Second Reading, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of adopting the old method. There was another advantage in proceeding along a known path. They could work in other Amendments on the Paper. There was a very good Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. As it stood he did not think the phraseology would work in.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Not if you accept this Amendment, for then my Amendment would be needless.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the proviso to the Amendment did not occur in Section 40, and he thought they had better proceed along a known line. He hold that the object which the hon. Member was aiming at was attained without the proviso.

MR. DILLON

denied that the Amendment was on the lines of Section 40. That section was compulsory against the landlord as well as the tenant, but this Amendment proposed to put compulsion on the tenant without there being any compulsion whatever on the landlord. The landlord was not compelled to sell. But when the Land Commission had bought over the heads of the tenants, this proposal empowered that body to compel one-fourth of the tenants to buy their farms at a price to which they objected. He thought that was a most unfair and one-sided provision. The average price put upon the farms by the Land Commission was fifteen and a half years purchase. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an undertaking that in no case would any tenant be compelled to purchase at more than fifteen and a half years he should have no objection. The tenants ought not to be subjected to any penal clause. The proviso which the hon. Member first put into his Amendment would have had a considerable effect in mitigating the offensive character of the proposal, but the Chief Secretary objected to it, while accepting the penal portion.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that in the discussions of this Bill he had agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Mayo, but on this occasion he differed from him entirely. He did not regard this as a penal provision at all, but as a most reasonable proposal, especially as modified by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for Mayo had referred to the Act of 1887 and the "eviction-made-easy" clause; but he would recall to him the Act of 1896, when the Government proposed to take away from every tenant in the congested districts area the right to have a fair rent fixed. He himself was afraid to open his mouth on the Bill of 1896, because the hon. Member for Mayo was then the Leader of the Party, and he was more or less, sometimes more and sometimes less, under his jurisdiction; and so, if it had not been for the hon. and learned Member for North Tyrone, who interposed at the very moment when the Chairman was putting the clause, every tenant in the congested districts area would have had this right taken away from him. But what was this proposal? Let them be reasonable and have some sense of proportion. The Land Commission, in the interests of the tenants, acting in the same spirit as the Congested Districts Board, acquired a holding. What for? Not to make money out of it and to sell it to London speculators, but to benefit the tenants on the holding. It might very well be that two or three wastrels on the holdings would set up their backs and obstruct the sale to the whole of the tenants. If they did so, surely it was fair and reasonable that the Land Commission should be empowered to act according to this provision. The terrible penalty was that these tenants were to be made owners of their land. If anyone made him owner of his house on the same conditions he would be delighted to accept money at 2¾ per cent.

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

said the other day when he was proposing an Amendment of a similar character to this one, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said it was preposterous and absurd. The hon. Member for East Mayo had made an attack upon the hon. Member for South Tyrone over this Amendment, but the hon. Member had enough to do to carry that wretched Dunraven Treaty on his back. [An HON. MEMBER: Tullyfy him!] The minority spoken of were likely to be the selfish land-grabbers and those who always held out against a reasonable settlement.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that both upon the introduction of the Bill and the Second Reading exception was taken to this clause, mostly to Sub-section (b), which proposed to apply compulsion not merely to one-fourth, but practically to one half in cases where the Lord Lieutenant enabled that to be done. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not now suggest that the power to the Lord Lieutenant should remain. The Chief Secretary was quite right in saying that he made a suggestion with reference to the 40th Section. What he said was that he took a strong objection to the bare majority, and that with reference to the three-fourths he thought the penalty proposed in the Bill, that the remaining one fourth should be deprived of their rights, was an absurd and monstrous one. He agreed that it would not be desirable, nor did be think that the tenants generally would regard it as desirable, that a small handful of tenants on an estate should be allowed to block a whole transaction of purchase, and, therefore, that some power should be taken to deal with such a contingency, but he thought the simplest and least objectionable way of doing so would be on the lines of the 40th Section. He did not see why the Chief Secretary should object to the proviso. The Judge in the Land Court was given this discretion, and why should it be taken away from the Commissioners? All that the proviso said was that before imposing this penalty upon recalcitrant tenants the Land Commission might consider any objection taken as to the price, and surely that was reasonable and proper. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman objected to this proviso. Surely if a small number of tenants held out, it was reasonable and proper that the Commissioners should inquire whether the objection was reasonable or not. Although he shared the objection to the clause as a whole which had been put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, he thought this question of blocking transactions by two men was one that must be dealt with in some way. If the proviso proposed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone were allowed to stand, it might be a way out of the difficulty. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he could not allow the Amendment to stand as a whole. It gave the Land Commissioners the same discretion as was possessed now by the Land Judge. He saw no reason why they should not have that discretion.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said they were all, he believed, anxious that this Bill should run, and that the sooner they placed the tenants in possession of the land the better. He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing that one-fourth of the tenants of an estate should bar a settlement which would bring satisfaction to a multitude of people. He did not believe they would find one estate, perhaps, out of a hundred where one-fourth of the tenants would refuse to be made proprietors of their own land at a large reduction of rent. But the proposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone might obviate a difficulty which might arise and bring about an unfortunate state of things. The only difficulty he had in regard to the proviso was that it appeared to be fraught with legal complications; it introduced the lawyer.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Where does this terrible man come in?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said he could come in to show where modifications were necessary, and where the terms might be modified. If the hon. and learned Member for Louth were employed he could make a good deal out of these points. It was to avoid the delay and expense which would thus be involved that he objected to the proviso from the layman's point of view. He thought the other part of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was one which would lead to what they all desired, and that was the most expeditious manner possible of placing the Irish tenants in possession of their land.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that in the seventeen years that the Purchase Act had been in force he had not been three times before the Commission. He understood that the Estates Commissioners would do their work, not sitting as a court at all, but as an administrative body. It would be managed by direct communication with the tenants, the tenants' solicitors, and the landlords' solicitors. The machinery of purchase was not a contentious business at all.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said he had as great an objection to a solicitor as to a lawyer.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that in his judgment the tenants who did not employ solicitors to work for them were penny wise and pound foolish. He had known hundreds of pounds lost because the tenant would not pay 6s. 8d. to a solicitor. One solicitor was acquainted with another, and they could arrange these matters. Just as hon. Members from Ireland could run things through his House by meeting the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, arguing with him in the most polite way outside the House, and using to him a quite different tone and manner to that which they employed officially inside, so the tenant's solicitor, meeting the landlord's solicitor in the marketplace, and talking over things, got over a hundred points long before they reached the Commissioners. He did not apprehend that the difficulties suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would in the least appear. He thought they were dealing with an imaginary difficulty, but it was one that must be provided against. If they allowed two or three curmudgeons to take advantage of their ill-humour or cussedness to block a sale these men might become masters of the situation, just as they had known such a thing in this House, he would not say on the part of the Colonial Secretary or the hon. Member for Stoke. It was notorious that two or three men asserting themselves unduly undoubtedly acquired great power. There was no machinery known to the constitution by which a three-fourths majority could be ruled by one-fourth. They had not that protection in the Bill, and it was now proposed to provide it on the easiest terms possible.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that having considered the Amendment he had gone the whole length to which he could go at one bound when he accepted the first part of it. The proviso was not necessary, and he saw some dangers in it. He had tried to meet hon. Members opposite, and he hoped the Committee would now come to a decision on this matter.

MR. DILLON

said it was absurd to represent the attitude he had taken up in this matter as indicating a desire to enable two or three men to obstruct the sale of an estate. No such idea ever occurred to his mind. But there might be, and he believed there would be, estates where if the price was fixed by three-fourths of the tenants the remaining fourth would feel aggrieved; and it was not fair to reject the proviso by which they would be enabled to state their grievance to the Commission. The Chief Secretary had made an urgent appeal to wind up the discussion simply because he had announced at the commencement, at one jump, the concession he was prepared to make. He protested against that, for hon. Members were at least entitled to state their views at reasonable length.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he wished to offer a word of explanation as to what he meant. What he thought would happen was that where three-fourths of the tenants on an estate agreed to purchase on certain terms the minority of one-fourth might hold out. What he imagined would take place under these circumstances was that the Land Commission would probably send down an inspector to confer with the recalcitrant minority, to learn their circumstances and to report to the Commission, and that the Commission would then act on that report and do what they thought right in the circumstances. That was all he thought the proviso would do. He did not think this was a penalising clause against the tenants. He did not chose to lose the first part of his Amendment because he could not carry the second.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for assisting their progress this evening. He formally moved the omission of the proviso.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To omit lines 7 to 10."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

moved to add at the end of the first sub-section—

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 38, at end, to insert the words 'where the tenant could have obtained an advance of the entire purchase-money, and the Land Commission had offered in the prescribed manner to make the advance.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18.

MR. CLANCY

urged that the regulations as to turbary should be laid on the Table of the House. He did not desire to detain the Committee by moving an Amendment, but he wished to say that if it was proposed to give the trustees powers to tax that would be thoroughly unconstitutional.

MR. ATKINSON

said it would be quite impossible until the trustees had acquired particular rights to make regulations as to how they were to be exercised.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 25, to leave out the word 'vesting,' and insert the word 'sale.'"—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 30, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said he could not accept the Amendment, because in many cases it would be necessary that the word "may" should be retained.

MR. MITCHELL

said he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 31, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'and on any estate purchased by the Land Commission when the only bog available is in possession of the landlord. It shall be necessary for the landlord prior to sale to dispose of the whole or as much as may be necessary of the bog to the Land Commission for the use of the tenants, at such price as in case of dispute may be considered fair by a Land Commission inspector.'"—(Dr. Thompson.)

MR. ATKINSON

said that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would suggest that there should be a wider and less definite wording of this section. A man on the upper part of a mountain might have twenty or thirty acres of bog land, and an acre or two of tillage land. The only pasturage which he had in the summer time would be on a patch of the bog land. It would be very hard upon him if a man on the lower part of the mountain, who had plenty of pasture on which his cows browsed up to the udders in grass, came up and destroyed his little bit of summer grazing.

MR. ATKINSON

said that these things could be provided for by schemes which would be drawn up to meet each case.

DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.)

said he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

said he wished to draw attention to the question of hand-made turf. If the regulations under Sub-section 2 were enforced against a large number of tenants in his constituency they would be severely penalised. The right hon. Gentleman had promised him that he would add some such words as would protect these tenants. He moved therefore.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 32, after the word 'cutting' to insert the words 'or making.'"—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to put in after the word "turf" in line 34, the words "and pasturage." It was not merely the turf which the tenant on the top of the mountain wanted, but the small bit of grass on the turf.

MR. ATKINSON

said he presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that the turf and grass should not be cut away to such an extent as to seriously injure the mountain holding. If so, he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 34, after the word 'turf' to insert the words 'and pasturage.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20.

* Mr. HEMPHILL

said that this clause enabled the Land Commission on the application of any proprietor of a holding to determine all questions which might arise respecting the boundaries of the holdings, easements, or appurtenances, claimed by any proprietors against any other proprietors or tenants of holdings. That was an enormous power to give to the Land Commission on a subject upon which the Irish tenants were peculiarly touchy, and which often gave rise to disputes and disorder. In order to modify the clause he begged to move. In line 3, after the word 'may' insert 'with the consent of all the proprietors and tenants affected thereby.' If these words were inserted the mischief would be minimised, or disappear altogether; because it would become a species of arbitration, and enable the tenants to get a hearing. It would be a monstrous thing to allow the Land Commission to settle boundaries on an ex parte statement.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 3, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'with the consent of all the proprietors and tenants affected thereby.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

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

MR. TULLY

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment.

MR. ATKINSON

said that the proposal on the Bill was simply to enable the Land Commission to settle a question of boundaries instead of driving a number of poor proprietors into litigation. The Land Commission would have no coercive jurisdiction.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said that the questions thus left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Commission might be of the most momentous character. The County Courts and the Superior Courts were open to the tenants. He would suggest that some limitation should be placed on this new power that was to be conferred.

MR. ATKINSON

said that it was not proposed by the Clause to oust the jurisdiction of the County Courts. It simply provided that two adjoining proprietors might appoint the Land Commission to arbitrate between them. He would be willing to insert on line 3, the words "at the request of the parties interested."

* MR. HEMPHILL

said that that was exactly the thing he wanted, and he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 3, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'at the request of the parties interested.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 3, after the words 'think fit' to insert the words 'for the carrying out of such purpose.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)

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

MR. ATKINSON

said his right hon. friend apparently wanted to confine the exercise of these magisterial powers to the purchase, but in his opinion it was much more important that the Land Commission should have power to arbitrate either before the purchase, on the purchase, or after the purchase.

* MR. HEMPHILL

said he could very well understand the granting of such powers to the Land Commission for the purpose of educating the people in the policy of this Act, but here they were setting up a tribunal for the purpose of determining some of the most delicate questions that could be raised.

* MR. O'DOHERTY

considered the proposed tribunal a very proper one, and considered that it would confer a great amount of good on small farmers throughout Ireland. Anyone acquainted with Irish County Court procedure must regret the great amount of money wasted on disputes over very small matters.

MR. WOOD

could not agree with the last speaker. He thought the clause was unnecessary because under existing Acts ample powers were conferred on the Land Commission to settle disputes for the purpose of carrying out sales between landlord and tenant. He considered the suggestion of the Attorney-General a very fair one. He was reminded of a case which came under his personal notice. Two tenants had a dispute, and in order to avoid the expense of litigation they agreed to place a turkey cock on a table, and whichever of the two parties the bird first bowed to was to be deemed in the right. The experiment was not a success, so at last they had to go to the County Court Judge, and to spend a good deal of money which might have been saved had they obtained proper legal advice in the first instance.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

hoped that the clause would be allowed to pass. He regarded this clause as one of the very best in the Bill, as it would do away with a lot of useless and expensive litigation.

MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)

thought the clause did not go quite far enough. When the Land Commissioners sent down an inspector to inspect an estate he might find a dispute between two tenants A and B as to a right of-way, or a boundary, or some matter of the kind, and the landlord would be unable to go forward with the sale until the dispute was settled, although possibly the tenant might decline to persevere with that. When A made a claim and did not persevere with it it remained a block in the way which was perhaps only to be got rid of by the landlord paying A to withdraw his objection. In his opinion the Land Commissioners should be given power to determine all disputes between tenants in respect of holdings about to be sold.

* MR. HEMPHILL

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21.

MR. WYNDHAM

moved an Amendment, providing that any question of law arising should be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 12, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the words 'shall on the application of any person interested.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WYNDHAM

next moved a further Amendment to line 13, the object of which was to prevent frivolous law points being raised.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 13, at end, to insert the words 'unless in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners the application is frivolous.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DILLON

moved to amend the second sub-section so that it should read:— The Estates Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, as additional Members of the Land Commission. He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Chief Secretary gave a sort of pledge that there should be no difference in the status of the Commissioners, that there should be no chairman, and that all should have the same status and powers. The object of this Amendment was to secure the redemption of that pledge. The provisions of Sub-section 2 were plainly inconsistent with that promise, for one Commissioner was to be appointed by Sign Manual and his salary charged on the Consolidated Fund, while the other two were to hold their office at pleasure and to be paid a lower salary to be provided by Parliament. It was pretty well known that the landlord's nominee on the Commission was to be Mr. Frederick Wrench. He was to be paid £3,000 a year as compared with £2,000 a year to be given to the other Commissioners, and as his salary would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund he alone on the Commission would not be subject to Parliamentary criticism. He would, in fact, hold a position entirely different from that held by the other two Commissioners. He thought that hon. Members around him were entitled to object to the landlords' representative on the Commission being made practically the president of that body. As had been said more that once, the future of that Bill depended to an enormous extent on the method of administering it. Land Bill after Land Bill in the history of the Irish Land War had been destroyed by administration, and the hopes and confidence of the people had been turned into bitter disappointment in consequence. If there was to be any real settlement now, there must be a fresh departure in the matter of administration. They did not want the work entrusted to such men as Judge Ross and Mr. Frederick Wrench, who would be withdrawn from the criticism of Parliament, and as to whose actions Ministers would be able to refuse information. He had hoped to see the administration put on a sounder basis and placed in the hands of men who would be recognised as a responsible body of administrators and not mere officials. Let the Government adopt that policy honestly and frankly, and not give the chief place to one who enjoyed the confidence neither of tenants nor of landlords. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise the gravity of that question, and the importance of endeavouring to secure the confidence of the Irish people in the Commission.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 14, to leave out the words 'one of.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'one of' stand part of the clause."

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that on the night the Bill was introduced he heartily congratulated the Government on the fact—as stated by the Chief Secretary—that the decisions of the new tribunal, being a non-judicial tribunal, would be open to criticism on the Estimates. But on seeing the Bill in print he very soon discovered that the statement of the Chief Secretary was inaccurate, inasmuch as the most important member of the Commission, by having his salary charged to the Consolidated Fund, was removed from the criticism of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, conveyed a false impression on the night he introduced the Bill. It was now clear that Mr. Wrench was placed in the position of superiority over his colleagues. Parliament would be unable to discuss his conduct, and he could not be removed except by some almost impossible procedure, while his colleagues were to be in the position of removable resident magistrates. And Mr. Wrench was to occupy that favoured position in spite of the fact that he had not the confidence of either the landlords or the tenants in Ireland. Worse than that, the other two members of the Commission were paid lower salaries than Mr. Wrench, and were removable at pleasure. It was a most serious thing that Mr. Wrench should be put in such a position of superiority, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give them satisfactory assurance that his promise on the point would be redeemed. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Wrench was already a member of the Congested Districts Board, and he certainly could not satisfactorily perform the work of the two offices.

MR. T. M. HEALY

did not claim to be able to say whether or not the landlords had confidence in Mr. Wrench. He preferred to discuss the Amendment rather from the point of view of the inequality of the Commissioners than that of disparagement of one of their number. He contended that it was reasonable to require that Mr. Wrench should be put on the same footing with his colleagues as regarded Parliamentary criticism, tenure, and salary. He well remembered the mistake that was made in the case of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, who was appointed to his office by a Liberal Government at a reduced salary of £2,000, with the result that he was practically boycotted by his colleagues and treated as if he occupied an inferior instead of an equal position. They did not want a recurrence of that. There was a strong aroma of the Treasury about this clause; and the right hon. Gentleman had already rejected one Amendment on the ground that he was fettered by the Treasury. As to the questions of status and tenure, such a case might occur as that, because the Commissioners by a majority refused to buy a slum holding. A Member of the House of Lords would at once come down with a Motion for their removal, and as the Peers held the Government in their pockets, the position would be intolerable. If the question was not decided that evening there was a danger of its discussion occupying the whole of the next day.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that with reference to the action of the Treasury he would remind the hon. and learned Member that the Bill was brought forward upon the responsibility of the Government as a whole, but there was no doubt that a strong case had to be made out for creating new departments and new offices. He would repeat now what he said on the first and second reading of the Bill—namely, that the sole intention of the Government was that the Estates Commissioners should be a body of administrators, and not a body of Judges. He did not know that he need take up the cudgels on behalf of Mr. Wrench, but he would only say that he should not have recommended his appointment unless he had had a very high opinion of his ability. No one had joined with him more cordially in pushing on land purchase and shortening the procedure. But, taking it that Mr. Wrench might be one of the three Commissioners, was it contended that a person who held a certain position at a certain salary could be appointed to do more work on condition that his tenure was altered and his salary reduced? That was not practical politics. It was the intention that Mr. Wrench and the other Commissioners should be subject to the criticism of Parliament, and if there were any doubt as to that let it be removed. That was his intention, and he would see that it was carried into effect. His suggestion was that it should be made clear that the Estates Commissioners, as Estates Commissioners, were an administrative and not a judicial body, and that their action in that capacity could be reviewed on the Estimates year by year. Their tenure, he thought, should be the tenure of the Civil Service. The hon. Member suggested that there should be a levelling up as regarded salaries; but he would prefer not to discuss that suggestion. He associated himself, however, with the Treasury in thinking that £2,000 was an adequate salary for the work; and he could not suggest an increase to the Treasury. The salary which a man received did not add weight to his influence in council.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he did not want the House of Lords coming down and banging these men.

MR. WYNDHAM

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman how these men were to be subject to the criticism of this House and not of the other House. If they were to be administrative, clearly they must have an administrative tenure.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said there never had been an instance in which they were restrained from discussing the action of County Court Judges. He himself had discussed the judicial action of every County Court Judge in Ireland. He remembered beginning with Judge Clarke in 1881, and then he went on to Judge Barry, of Monaghan. The County Court Judges had never been considered to have a Consolidated Fund tenure. He thought there was some force in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the salary, but on the question of tenure he remained immovable. It was an absurd tenure. These men ought not to be removable at pleasure. Their minds were all full of the old tenure disputes. But this was not the old question. It was not a question whether a man was within the Act or not. It was a question where two parties were agreed except as to amount, as to whether the Commissioners would give a man a £10,000 bonus or not, perhaps for a slim estate. With the influence of the constant hammer-hammer of society in a little island where everyone was known, and where the telescope and microscope of public opinion were on everyone, were these gentlemen to be given a scavenger's tenure? Why, under the Local Government Act the humblest employee of a County Council was given an absolute tenure. Was it reasonable that they should be asked, knowing what they did about the vicissitudes of appointments in the past, to agree to such a proposal. If they were to agree to the suggestion of the Government they would be positively giving away the tenants' case. He himself had not put down many Amendments to the Bill; he did not care a great deal about them; and he would tell the Committee why. When the Land Act of 1881 was being passed he said:— Give me the making of the Land Commission, and I do not care who makes the land laws. But if the Estates Commissioners were to be the merest shadows, whose breath was to depend on the thunders and vetoes of the House of Lords, they might as well appoint the three greatest landlord partisans in Ireland. No man could stand up in Ireland against constant debates by influential men. If Lord Londonderry, Lord Abercorn, Lord Ardilaun, or any of the great proprietors came down to the comfortable Assembly over the way with a Motion calling attention to the conduct of Mr. A, B, or C in Dublin, and declaring pontifically that it was intolerable—the Chief Secretary might then be at the Treasury or be Prime Minister, and they would have in that House a Chief Secretary who knew not Joseph, or perhaps knew him too well, and who would take up a strong line on the landlords' side—why the echo of the division would not have ceased before their Lordships would come clattering across the lobbies, and the Chief Secretary of the day would have to send a telegram to these unfortunate Commissioners which would make their hair curl. Where was the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, who had pleaded on behalf of the British taxpayers? This was the occasion for protecting the British taxpayers. The Commissioners could only incur censure by acting on motives of economy and strictness. It was not the criticism of the Irish Members they would incur, but the criticism of the gentlemen across the lobby. He took a strong view on this clause, and unless they got some satisfaction he was afraid its discussion would occupy a good deal of time.

MR. WYNDHAM

said they could not possibly settle the question that night. The hon. and learned Member would give the Estates Commissioners a tenure tantamount to the tenure of a County Court Judge; that was to say that they could be removed, not by the House but by the Lord Chancellor. If they gave the Commissioners the tenure of a Judge it would tend to make the procedure judicial. He was inclined to make it administrative; and what they had to find was some plan that would keep the procedure administrative, and subject to criticism in that House, but which would not subject those who had such important duties to perform to any slight. As time did not then suffice for the discussion of the matter he suggested that they had better sleep over it.

Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.