§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ MR. KILBRIDE (resuming his speech)asked whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners would be directed to the housing provisions of the Land Act before they came to a final conclusion. The debate had been initiated for the purpose, not of criticising the action of the Estates Commissioners, but of obtaining information so that the country might know how the Land Act was working. There were many questions on which more light was wanted. Would the Estates Commissioners of their own initiative approach a new tenant to ascertain whether he was willing to accept compensation and leave the farm? Or where a new tenant had purchased under former Land Acts and the farm might be regarded as an estate, would a similar course be taken by the Estates Commissioners? He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with Lord Dunraven with a view to getting him to interest himself in the evicted tenants of Glynn, county Limerick. He did not desire to go into any further details on that subject; it 725 had been mentioned more than once in the Press; and if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquires he would probably find that the friendly intervention of Lord Dunraven would have a salutary effect. A further question was whether, in the case of sales in Connaught, the Estates Commissioners had sanctioned, or would sanction, the sale of property on which there were any number of uneconomic holdings; or whether, if the landlord had another estate in the neighbourhood on which there was a good deal of untenanted land, they would refuse to sanction the sale of the one without the other so that the uneconomic holdings would disappear. The particular case he had in mind was that of the O'Conor don's estate. He further complained of an alleged inconsistency in replies given by the Department to certain Questions put by the hon. Member for East Galway. The officials of the Department ought to be more careful to see that the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman was accurate.
§ MR. WYNDHAMthought hon. Members were making far too much of the incident referred to. The question put to him was whether there had been a correspondence with the Estates Commissioners. That conveyed to his mind the idea of a business correspondence between the Estates Commissioners and the landlord in question. He stated that there had been none, and that was the fact. A letter was then sent to him saying that this landlord had had a conversation with the Estates Commissioners. That was quite true, and he was much in favour of the landlords putting themselves in touch with the Estates Commissioners in an informal manner. But the two matters were wholly distinct.
§ MR. ROCHEsaid that the question he put was whether this landlord was correct in stating that his mode of procedure had the sanction of the Estates Commissioners, and the reply given was that there had been no correspondence or communication whatever.
§ MR. KILBRIDEhad no objection to landlords who did not understand the Act corresponding with the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of obtaining enlightenment. What he complained of was that the Department in Dublin, in sending a reply to the right hon. Gentlemen, should give what was undoubtedly a true answer, but not the whole truth, thereby placing the Chief Secretary in a false position. He was not at all satisfied with the manner in which the office of the Estates Commissioners was managed. It was very short-handed, and he understood that the Chief Secretary had complained of the difficulty he experienced in getting from the Treasury sufficient money for the clerical work.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMsaid he had made no complaint of the Treasury. What he had said was that they started the office with a staff which would certainly not be big enough when the operations developed.
§ MR. KILBRIDEsaid the impression given was that the right hon. Gentleman had found difficulty in getting from the Treasury sufficient money for the proper carrying on of the work. Were the clerks Civil servants? If not, by whom had they been recommended for appointment? The successful working of the Act would largely depend on the personnel of those who had the carry- 727 ing out of its [details, and yet it was said in Dublin that when it came to the question of appointing secretaries the Estates Commissioners were not allowed to appoint the men they desired to appoint and in whom they had full confidence, but that Sir John Franks, the Secretary of the Land Commission, insisted on making the appointments. One other point to which he wished to refer arose in connection with the Leinster estate. The greater part of that estate was composed of agricultural land, but there were certain town holdings, and he desired to know whether such an estate would be sold as a whole. The same point rose in the case of Castlereagh. These questions were exercising the public mind in Ireland, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would endeavour to supply the desired information.
§ Mr. POWER (Waterford, E.)referred to a Question placed on the Paper with regard to the trial in Mayo of two police constables for perjury. The constables had sworn that—
§ Mr. ATKINSONremarked that it was hardly fair to discuss a charge while proceedings were pending.
§ Mr. POWERsaid he desired not to discuss the charge, but to ask what procedure the Crown had adopted.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that no summonses had yet been served or witnesses examined. The men would be brought up in the ordinary way next month.
§ Mr. POWERsaid that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would 728 guarantee that all the parties would be examined, that was all he wanted.
§ Mr. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member surely did not expect him to state how the proceedings would be conducted or what witnesses examined in a pending prosecution. It was absolutely impossible for him to give such information. He would take care that all necessary, proper, and reliable witnesses were brought forward to sustain the charge. The prosecution was under his care, and the hon. Member could rest assured that everything would be done to secure the proper administration of justice.
§ Mr. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)said he wished to call attention once more to the practice of jury-packing in Ireland. At a recent assizes, the Lord Chief Baron, referring to men who had been ordered to stand aside, had used the following remarkable words—
What is the use of keeping men here when they are never allowed to serve?Surely after such an expression from so high an authority the practice of ordering jurors to stand aside would be abandoned by the Crown. The practice had grown into such a persistent habit on the part of the Crown prosecutors that it was followed even in the smallest of cases, and resulted in what he contended was a prostitution of justice. Jurors were brought at their own expense from remote parts of the country; they had to remain in the city several days; if they did not appear they were liable to be heavily fined, and then when they went to enter the box they were told to stand aside, the implication being their oath was not to be relied upon, and that they would not try the case in a fair and impartial manner.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid it was not only inaccurate but ridiculous to suggest that a charge of perjury was conveyed against any juror who was ordered to stand aside. The same power was given to j the prisoner, as to the Crown, to challenge jurors to whom objection was taken. So necessary was this right in Ireland if a fair jury was to be secured, that even in civil cases it had been found necessary to give the right to challenge six jurors.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)asked why jurors were not challenged in the North of Ireland.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that was an amusing inquiry, seeing that there had not occurred elsewhere a case in which so many jurors had been ordered to stand aside as happened at a trial in Belfast two yeare ago.
§ MR. MACVEAGHasked the name of the case to which the right hon. and learned Member referred.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he referred to the case of the man Trew. The hon. Member for Cork was quite mistaken in supposing that the Lord Chief Baron had conveyed any censure on the conduct of the Crown. The suggestion was that the challenging of jurors had been going on to such an extent that the Lord Chief Baron came to the conclusion that it was useless to bring up the jurors to be sworn. What were the facts? Four jurors were ordered to stand aside, and it was the first case in which any jurors were challenged. It was difficult to understand, therefore, how the Lord Chief Baron could have come to the opinion he was alleged to have expressed.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDBut did he use the words? They speak for themselves.
§ Mr. ATKINSONI believe the Lord Chief Baron made an observation, but I understand that the report is inaccurate.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIf the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred the matter to the Lord Chief Baron—
§ MR. ATKINSONI have not communicated with the Lord Chief Baron.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThen if you want an explanation you ought to ask him for it.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he had no right to examine the Lord Chief Baron, but he had ascertained from the Crown solicitor that it was the first case in which any jurors were challenged, so that the report in the paper was necessarily inaccurate.
§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLpointed out that the Tory organ in Cork criticised the action of the Lord Chief Baron in using the words.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether it was not evident that the Lord Chief Baron was speaking not only of his experience on that particular occasion, but of his long experience, extending over many years, of the practice.
§ MR. ATKINSONdid not know how that might be, but the facts were as he had stated. With regard to the Questions concerning the Land Act, he could not state precisely whether the Estates Commissioners had formulated any schemes for labourers' cottages, but he believed they had had their attention directed to the matter. In the new Labourcrs Bill would be found drastic provisions enabling schemes formulated by the Estates 731 Commissioners to be carried out at once with great thoroughness. In the case of a tenant who had purchased his holding, it would be quite impossible for the Estates Commissioners, under the Act, to purchase that holding in order to sell it to somebody else. There was nothing to prevent a tenant selling the holding to another purchaser, but the Estates Commissioners would have no power to require him so to sell. The hon. Member was entirely in error with regard to the appointment of secretaries to the Commissioners. The formation of the staff was a matter of negotiation, and during the negotiations it was not desirable to appoint a staff more than adequate to deal with the work at the particular moment, but it was necessary that the arrangements should be sufficiently elastic to allow of extension when the work increased.
§ MR. KILBRIDEsaid his complaint was that the expressed desire of the Commissioners to have certain gentlemen appointed as their secretaries was overruled by Sir John Franks.
§ MR. ATKINSONunderstood that that was a mistake. As to the status of the clerks, some were Civil servants; some had been transferred from another department, some were temporary, and some were permanent. With regard to the particular estates mentioned by the hon. Member, it was highly undesirable to discuss in Parliament questions at present pending before the Estates Commissioners, who would have to decide as best they could on the matters before them. If a question of law arose there was suitable machinery for referring the matter to the legal head of the Commissioners for decision. That course had 732 been taken in several cases, and decisions had been given enabling the Commissioners to proceed with their administrative work. Another question was with regard to the sale of town holdings. The Act was intended for the sale of agricultural land. There might be isolated cases to the contrary, but it was never intended that town holdings should be purchased under the Act, or that the money provided should be absorbed by the purchase of town holdings from town tenants.
§ MR. WEIR () Ross and Cromartycalled attention to the inaction of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland. For years past they had been hoarding their money, and although recently they had been spending it more freely they were not dealing with the most congested districts. In the Island of Lewis not a yard of land had been secured under the Act. The Board was primarily established for the purpose of securing land for the people, for the extension of holdings, and for the migration of the people, but not one of those purposes had been served in this Congested Island. Several years ago twenty-nine quarter-acre sites for fishermen's dwellings were secured, but the conditions were such that only men who had broken the law were able to obtain them. He did not believe in breaking the law; he preached the gospel of peace, but he was afraid it was a mistake, and that his constituents followed his advice to their hurt. If they broke the law they would probably receive more attention. The conditions for these dwellings, although they had been modified, were still so onerous that there had been only twenty applicants, and not one site had been allotted. Houses of the most insanitary character existed, cattle being 733 separated from human beings by a mere hand rail. Moreover, the apathy and indifference of a Government Department had allowed the fishing industry to be ruined. A Report of the most distressing character had been presented with regard to the Island of Lewis. Why did not the Government take action on that Report? A Government Bill had been introduced to amend the Congested Districts Board Act, but simply because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark placed a "block" on the Paper, the Government shivered in their shoes, and notwithstanding their magnificent majority, withdraw the Bill. That was a miserable conclusion for the Government to come to. Had the Scottish Office approached, Major Matheson the proprietor of the Island of Lewis, and asked him to break up some of the large farms? If not, why not? And why were not the deer forests broken up? The hon. Member was continuing to deal with the condition of the Island of Lewis when
§ Mr. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was repeating, in precisely the same language, statements he had already made in his speech.
§ Mr. WEIRsaid he had no desire to indulge in repetition. He urged that some system of technical education should be instituted in the Island, so that the young people might be able to go out into the world and hold their own. Another thing that could be done was to approach the railway and steamship companies with a view to getting lower rates for the conveyance of fish, as the present rates were absolutely prohibitive. A matter which ought to be dealt with by the Local Government Board was the number of uncertified deaths in Scotland, specially in the 734 Highlands. Happily the Highland people were not likely to administer poison to their fellows, but the system offered great opportunities for it. In conclusion he pressed for a better service in connection with the provision of cruisers for the protection of the fisheries.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,) Glasgow, Bridgtonthought the hon. Member had been hardly fair in charging the Congested Districts Board with hoarding up funds, when he knew that quite recently large purchases had been made, and that the development of the estates which had been purchased would be productive of considerable benefit.
§ MR. WEIRsaid his contention was that the Board did not pay the slightest attention to the most congested part.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid they were obliged to take estates where they could get them. Most of the matters to which the hon. Member had referred had been brought up on many previous occasions, and no advantage would accrue from repeating the replies then given. He would, therefore, content himself by saying that he would bring the question raised by the hon. Member before the notice of his hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland.
§ MR. MARKHAM () Nottinghamshire, Mansfieldsaid that during the South African war commissions were given to a number of men from the ranks, and he understood that most of those men had been "hustled" out of the Army in a manner which was not creditable to the service or to the country. He hoped the War Office would see that the few remaining officers of the class he referred to were not "hustled" out in the same way.
§ Question put.
| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. | Percy, Earl |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Asher, Alexander | Graham, Henry Robert | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Grenfell, William Henry | Randles, John S. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Rasch, Sir Frederic Game |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Hambro, Charles Eric | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ud'nderry | Renwick, George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Bignold, Arthur | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson |
| Bigwood, James | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Bond, Edward | Helder, Augustus | Russell, T. W. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Horniman, Frederick John | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Caldwell, James | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh) | Shackleton, David James |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Keswick, William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. R. A. E. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win. | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Tuff, Charles |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lawson, John Crant (Yorks, N. R | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter, (Bristol, S. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Weir, James Galloway |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Manners, Lord Cecil | Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Markham, Arthur Basil | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Wood, James |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Milvain, Thomas | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Moore, William | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Morgan, David J. Walthamstow | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrell, George Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Morrison, James Archibald | |
| Fyler, John Arthur | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Mount, William Arthur |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Allen, Charles P. | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Reddy, M. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Poland, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Roche, John |
| Campbell, John (Armagh S.) | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Murphy, John | Sheehy, David |
| Cullinan, J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Toulmin, George |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, X.) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John | |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Malley, William | |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Mara, James |
§ Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
736§ The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 72.)
§ Adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.