Commons Sitting of 20 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Landrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Wigan Corporation Bill. Ordered, That, in the case of the Wigan Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into Consideation.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be

1363
now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
North East London Railway Bill. Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
(King's Consent signified). Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 2) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Midland Railway Bill, with Amendments.
PETITION.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Hackney, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years from 1890 to 1904, Fifty-second Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-second General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 250.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (EXCESSES), 1903–4.
  Copy presented, of a Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grant for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings for the year ended on March 31st, 1904 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 251.]
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered July 18th; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon he Table, and to be printed. [No. 252]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3443 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Caledonian Canal. Copy of One-hundredth Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 253.]
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments in the year ending March 31st, 1905, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from Abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 318, Session 1904)."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered, "(1) from each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the names of the Officers, their respective salaries, and other allowances, if any; the amount of security each gives, the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments und salaries, for the year ended November 20th, 1904; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management; the rate of interest paid to Depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of in crest on all accounts; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to Depositors; the total amount invested with the Com-missioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; the balance in the hands of the Treasurer at November 20th, 1904; the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund on November 20th, 1904; other assets, including estimated value of Bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of Depositors; the number and amount of annuities granted; and the average cost of each transaction; also the year in which business commenced in each Bank, and the name of the day of days, and the number of hours in the week, on which the Banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of moneys; including in such Return a list of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such Banks, as well as t e number and amount of Depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the Officers of such Banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such Banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their Depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same Banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the Return, for each separate county, as well as collectively, for England and
  1366
  Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, and for the United Kingdom; and (2) for the year ending November 20th, 1904, showing the total number of I Depositors in Trustee Savings Banks; the total number of deposits; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 224, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Mount.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Issue of Summonses in Dublin Licensing Cases.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the I Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to issue summonses in licensing cases without any examination of the circumstances beyond the mere reading of the reports of the officers of police; and whether, having regard to the number of cases dismissed, he will make an order that in future the solicitor specially appointed to act for the police should be consulted so as to prevent cases of a doubtful or trivial character being brought on.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts of each case are carefully considered before a prosecution is instituted. There has been no increase in the proportion of cases dismissed, and it is not the case, as suggested, that summonses are issued in trival or doubtful cases. The Answer to the latter inquiry is in the negative.

  Evicted Tenants in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Fitzgerald Day, of Camp, county Kerry, has sold his lands; and, if so, whether, seeing that there are three evicted tenants, Ellen Scannell, Martin Crean, and Patrick O'Connor, who have not been enabled to purchase their holdings, the

  1367
  Estates Commissioners will refuse to declare this an estate until those tenants have purchased.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

  Defences and Garrisons at Halifax and Esquimault.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has accepted the proposals of the Dominion Government to take over, on certain conditions, the entire control of the Halifax defences and garrison on July 1st, and that of Esquimault on July 1st, 1906, meanwhile defraying its entire cost; and whether the correspondence that has passed between the two Governments will be laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.)His Majesty's Government have accepted the proposals of the Dominion Government as to taking over the defences and garrisons at Halifax and Esquimault. The correspondence on the subject will be presented to Parliament.

  Destruction' of Papers Relating to War Stores.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Sir Fleetwood Wilson at the War Stores Commission to the effect that the cause of the disappearance of the missing papers was that a rat got in to the store in which the papers were kept, and that the medical officer ordered the destruction of the papers in order to prevent a plague; whether he can state if the medical officer's report was verbal or written; and whether he can communicate the details to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lytteldton.) The details in connection with the matter referred to have already been communicated to the House in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Donegal on February 8th†. 1904, to which I have nothing to add.

  Defects of the New Short Rifle.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the new short rifle has been abandoned; and if the following defects have been found that the magazine jams; that the balance is bad; that the metal is too soft, resulting in the barrel being permeated with corrosive gas.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The new short rifle has not been abandoned. A small defect in the magazine spring has recently been reported and a modification introduced to remedy it. The reply as regards the two other alleged defects is in the negative.

  Trials of the Short Rifle.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the I fact that after the first trial of the short rifle under the direction of Sir William. Butler the report upon it was unfavourable, he will explain why a second trial was ordered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is regretted that the ground for the hon. Member's Question is not understood. No trial of the short rifle-under the direction of Sir William Butler can be traced.

  Efficiency of Volunteer Officers.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what measures he proposes to take to enable Volunteer officers to make themselves more efficient in view of the fact that the usefulness of the Volunteer fore a generally depends very largely upon the efficiency of the officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)The general question of promoting the efficiency of Volunteer officers, is receive careful consideration, and I am in t at present in a position to make any definite statement as to the detailed measures which it may be considered advisable to carry out.

  Treatment of Children Awaiting Trial.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause instructions to be issued to the Metropolitan Police within the county of London that all children arrested on Saturdays and holidays, or at such tune that they cannot at once be brought before the magistrate, shall be taken to one of the remand homes provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and thus save the children from being detained in the police cells for any time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) As I stated in my Answer to a Question asked by my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University, on July 18th†, 1904, I cannot, under the fisting law, give the instruction which the hon. Member suggests. The police have no power to take children to a remand home until they have been brought before a magistrate and remanded. I may say, however, that when children are arrested too late to be brought before a magistrate, or on a day when the Courts are not sitting, they are invariably released on bail, if that course is possible; and that if their detention in the police cells is unavoidable, care is taken to prevent their coming in any way into contact with adult criminals.

  Nursing of Sick Poor in Workhouses.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask die President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the nursing of the sick poor in the workhouses, especially in those which contain only a small number of such inmates; what action has been taken, in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which reported on this subject in November, 1902; and whether he can give an assurance that early steps will be taken to carry out those recommendations.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) After the Report of the Departmental Committee was issued a considerable number of representations were received by the Department in connection
  †See (4)Debates,CXXXVIII.,258.
  1370
  with the recommendations of the Committee, and an Order dealing with the subject is in preparation.

  Payment of School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain of the auditors of the Board have informed local education authorities that it is irregular for them to pay on the date in July when the schools close for the summer holidays those salaries which fall due on the 31st July for the previous month or quarter; and whether, having regard to the long-established custom, and to the convenience of all concerned, he can state that no unfortunate consequences will attend the following of the practice this year; and whether, also, he can suggest any method by which irregularity and inconvenience may be avoided in future years.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that attention has been called to this matter in some of the reports to local education authorities made by one of the district auditors. The Local Government Board have expressed the view that it is competent to a local education authority to make it one of the conditions of employment of a teacher that his salary should in circumstances of the kind mentioned in the Question become payable in advance, and in order to avoid difficulty at the audit they have sanctioned payments made in advance, in so far as they might be open to objection on the ground of the absence of such a condition, at the same time saying that the matter should be put on a proper footing for the future. The Board would be prepared to take the same course in respect of the present year in any other similar cases.

  Separation of Church and State in France —British Subjects Affected.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could state the number of British subjects owning Church property in Prance who would be affected in case the Bill for the separation of Church and State

  1371
  in France became law, and the religious denominations to which they belonged; and whether any steps have been taken in order to safeguard their interests.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Embassy in Paris have ascertained that no British subjects would be affected by the passage of the Bill, the object of which is to suppress the "Budget of Public Worship," no part of which can be assigned to persons who are not French.

  Chinese Government and the Mackay Treaty.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received to the telegram sent by the Foreign Office early in May to His Majesty's Minister at Peking asking him to obtain a detailed statement of the complaints of a large number of British merchants in China that the Government of China ignores the Mackay Treaty, rendering the same ineffective in most essentials, and that the Government of China actively opposes the stipulations of that treaty as to currency, mining taxation, and navigation.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) A reply has been received from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, who has reported that he is sending home with his comments a detailed statement of the complaints of British merchants at Shanghai.

  Chinese Coolies in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to ascertain the number of Chinese coolies imported into British North Borneo since the company's charter was granted.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The information asked for by the hon. Member could only be obtained by private inquiries on the spot. Perhaps the hon. Member will inform me if there are reasons which would appear to justify the expenditure of time and trouble i procuring it.

  Men Invalided from Malta Fever.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether
  1372
  he will state the number of men invalided from Malta fever annually for the tern years from 1895 to 1905; and whether any medical inquiry into the cause of Malta fever has been instituted.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) A. Committee, including representatives of the Navy, Army, and Colonial Services, has been making inquiry since June, 1904, into the causation and life history of Malta fever, under the directions and auspices of the Royal Society. Much valuable information has been gained and has been published in interim Reports, which hold out strong hopes of this fever being in the future more successfully grappled with than in the past. The number of men invalided is as follows:—

  Year.

  Number of Invalids

  †1897

  191

  1898

  149

  1899

  68

  1900

  188

  1901

  163

  1902

  250

  1903

  209

  1904

  191

  1905

  (Return not yet complete.)

  Submarines—Number of Men allowed on Board in addition to Crew
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Submarine A 8, at the time of the recent casualty, had eight men on board in addition to her ordinary crew; if so, for what purpose; and whether in future some limitation will be placed on the number of extra men permitted to go down in submarines.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Men under training are invariably taken in addition to the proper crew in the boats running. A limitation as to the numbers taken in addition to crew already exists.

  Accidents to Submarines—Methods of Escape for Crews.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fatal disasters to British and French submarines, the Director of Naval
  † First year in which Mediterranean fever was shown in the Reports as a distinct heading.

  1373
  Construction will be requested to devise methods of escape for the crews in cases of accident.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No subject has been more carefully considered at the Admiralty than this, and if a practical fitting for this purpose can be designed it will certainly be fitted.

  Delay in Repairing Bridge over the Serpentine.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can explain the reason of the delay in repairing the bridge over the Serpentine; and if he can state when the work will be completed.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) It was not advisable to commence the repairs to this bridge during the season, owing to the obstruction which would be caused to the traffic. It is intended to commence them as soon as Parliament rises, and to complete the work by some date in October.

  Postmen Acting as Secretaries to Building Societies.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to rescind the order under which a postman is not allowed to act as secretary to a building society.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am afraid I do not see my way to rescind the rule in question, which for many reasons I consider a salutary one.

  Education Regulations—Removal of I Log Book.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the terms of Schedule IV. (1) (a) of the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools prohibit the removal of the log book from the school to the place where the managers or local education authority hold their usual meetings, or whether the prohibition applies only to the hours during which the school is open for the instruction of scholars.
  1374
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The log book must be kept at the school, but there would be no objection to its temporary removal when required at meetings of the managers or of he local education authority.

  Erection of Derrycroff Bridge on Mitchell Estate, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Mayo County Council as to the necessity for the erection of the Derrycroff Bridge, on the Mitchell Estate, county Mayo, situate on the road leading from Tourmakeady to Westport; and whether, seeing that it would benefit a large number of people, he will use his influence with the Congested Districts Board with a view to its erection at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The proposed bridge would not be on any estate belonging to the Congested Districts Board. It is understood that it would be erected over a public road. The question of its erection is, therefore, for the county council to determine.

  Education of Children in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Ceylon to inquire into and report on the best method of increasing the education of coolie children, and the children of other labouring classes, in Ceylon, have completed their labours; if not, when will their task be concluded, and a Report furnished.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Governor informs me that the Commission is expected to report at the end of this month.

  Army Staff Appointments—Extension of Time of Assistant Adjutant-General.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that, under the Royal Warrant of 189O, the term of a staff appointment is limited to five years, he will explain why the Assistant Adjutant-General at the War Office who has

  1375
  recently completed this period has been retained in his appointment, and for what period has he been given an extension; and whether, seeing that this officer has served continuously on the staff at the War Office for a period of sixteen years, he will say what are the special circumstances for such exceptional preferment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) At the time of the appointment, of the officer alluded to as Assistant Adjutant-General for Recruiting, the Royal Warrant laid down that the term of a staff appointment would be for five years, save under exceptional circumstances. This officer, who lost a leg in Egypt in 1885, held the appointment at the time when, in accordance with the recommendations of the Esher Committee, a change was made in the organisation of the recruiting department, and in the exceptional circumstances then obtaining, the Army Council approved the extension of his time for three years.

  Gambling Operations in Cotton.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the late official investigation of the American Government Department of Agriculture has shown that the bull and bear financial panies of 1900–1901, 1903–4, and again in 1905, which have occurred on the Liverpool and American Cotton Exchanges during those years, were indirectly caused by the manipulation of the Government figures representing the various cotton reports, acreage, and estimates of yields, by officials of the American Government Department who were, it is alleged, in secret compact with the exchange bulls and bears, and that it was their joint gambling operations in options and future fictitious contracts on the Liverpool and American Cotton Exchanges that caused the dislocation of the cotton trade of the world generally and particularly that of Lancashire; and whether, in view of the effect of these gambling operations on other trades and railway stocks dependent upon the prosperity of the cotton industry, he can inform the House what measure His Majesty's Government intends to take to prevent a recurrence of the results of those gambling international operations.
  1376
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that, apart from newspaper reports, there is no official information at the disposal of the Government relating to the circumstances detailed in the Question. The Government do not contemplate submitting any proposals to Parliament upon the subject.

  Minister of Commerce.
  MR. HOULT (Cheshire, Wirrall): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now see his way to give effect to the proposal contained in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, with reference to the appointment of a Minister of Commerce.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) As stated at Question time to-day, it is proposed to bring in a Bill, which, however, can only pass as a non-contentious measure.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Deal Barracks Theatre.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the theatre at Deal within the barrack walls is freely open to the public, on payment, without any kind of introduction, will he state whether steps are being taken to enforce the regulation that the theatre is not open to the public except by introduction.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): There is no regulation restricting admission to theatres in marine barracks, but as these theatres are situated within the barrack enclosure, no one can attend a performance without being first introduced into the barracks.
    MR. WEIR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that persons are admitted without introduction. I have been within the last three days.
    MR. PRETYMAN: I suppose the appearance of the hon. Gentleman was such that the sentry did not think it right to stop him. I will take care he is not allowed thus to enter again.

    Canada and Continental Emigrants.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the contract concluded between the Canadian Government and the Atlantic Trading Company, of Amsterdam, under which the Dominion agrees to pay one pound sterling for every Continental emigrant sent to Canada; whether lie has any official information of similar contracts having been concluded with British shipping companies; and, if not, whether he will take any steps in connection with this preference given to a Continental shipping company in the importation of alien immigrants into Canada.
    MR CHARLES DEVLIN: Is not this a question of purely domestic policy, in which this House has no right to interfere with the action of the Canadian Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this subject has been discussed in the Canadian House of Commons, and that the course pursued by the Canadian Government received the approbation of a very large majority of the Members?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member for Galway has saved me the trouble of answering the Question on the Paper. I could Dot have put my reply more incisively.

    Macedonian Financial Reforms
    MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the system of European financial control in Macedonia, as outlined by Lord Lansdowne on March 28th, continues to be the policy of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether pressure will be put upon the Ottoman Government in order to secure the acceptance of that system without further delay.
    MR. LYELL: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Turkish Government has declined to accept the system of European control of Macedonian finance advocated by the Powers.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Sublime Porte has refused to adopt the scheme of international control of the finances of Macedonia; and what steps it is proposed to take in order to enforce compliance.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I think the hon. Member's Question was placed upon the Paper before the speech made by Lord Lansdowne in another place on Tuesday, in which he explained the system of financial control demanded by the Powers. The Turkish Government have declined to accept the system. The Answer to the first paragraph of the Question of the hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs is in the affirmative. As regards the last paragraph, it would be premature to make any statement with regard to action which might become necessary in the event of a persistent refusal by the Porte to sanction measures which the Powers are unanimous in regarding as indispensable for the tranquillity and good government of Eastern Europe.

    The Wattstown Colliery Disaster.
    MR. T. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of lives lost in the disaster which occurred at the Watts-town Colliery on the 11th instant, to the fact that only one person working in the mine where the explosion took place escaped, and the frequency with which these unfortunate accidents occur, he does not deem it advisable to order a formal investigation into the causes and circumstances of the explosion, under Section 45 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, by a "competent person," who shall, in addition to inquiry into the cause and circumstances of the explosion, also inquire into and report as to whether some method or scheme cannot be found for facilitating the efforts o those who on all these occasions are so ready to undertake the work of rescue.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS Kent,): It is, of

    1379
    course, of great importance that all the facts in connection with the explosion should be fully a certained, and to this end I have appointed counsel to represent the Department at the inquest. I think there are no reasons for supposing that the inquiry before the coroner will not be full and complete What further steps it may be necessary for me to take as a result of the inquiry I cannot say until I have received the reports of counsel and the mines inspector. The latter part of the hon. Member's Question refers, I presume, to the provision of apparatus which would enable the rescuers to breathe in bad air. There are several kinds of apparatus for this purpose already in existence, and I may refer the hon. Member on the question to the Report made by Dr. Haldane in 1896 on the causes of death in colliery explosions.
    MR. T. RICHARDS MR. T. RICHARDS asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the anticipated unsatisfactory reply of the Home Secretary, an early opportunity would be given for discussing the Home Office Vote. If not, he should move the adjournment of the House, as this was an urgent matter of public importance. They had 500,000 men going down into the mines every day, and—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is only entitled to ask a Question.
    MR. JOHN WILSON MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.) asked for more definite information as to the provision of apparatus and appliances at the mines.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot say definitely what apparatus can be supplied, but the question is under consideration, and we will endeavour to hasten the matter.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will there be an inquiry following the coroner's inquest?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: That will depend on the reports I receive from counsel and from the inspector of mines.
    MR T. RICHARDS: I press the Prime Minister for a reply to my Question.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In view of the obvious, and reasonable desire of hon Gentlemen on this side to ascertain the mentions of the Government with regard to these coal mine disasters, does the right hon. Gentleman not see the necessity of allowing the usual three extra days for Supply, one of which might be devoted to the-Home Office Vote?
    SIR ALFRED THOMAS: There is very strong feeling in South Wales in favour of further inquiry, and I therefore hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would remind the House that at the special request of the Opposition and the Irish Members we are taking Irish Supply on Tuesday next and the Colonial Office Vote on next Thursday. I shall be glad, of course, to receive any representation with regard to Supply for the following week. Indeed, if I get a recommendation from the official representatives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall be glad to modify the programme so as to substitute the Home. Office Vote for the Colonial Vote.

    Post Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Committee on Public Acounts in their Second Report, recently issued, call attention to a proposed expenditure on account of the Post Office of a sum of £185,470 for which no details have been tendered, will he state the nature and locality of the works where the bulk of this money will be expended.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord. STANLEY,): The hon. Member's Question refers to the paragraph in the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee which deals with Sub-heads K and O of Vote 7, Class 1 (the Vote for Revenue Buildings), in the Estimates for the year 1903–4. I am not responsible for that Vote; but I may point out that the nature and locality of the works carried out under these sub-heads, and the exact amount expended upon each in 1903–4, are given

    1381
    in the Appropriation Accounts for that year, pages 64 to 79.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): The noble Lord says he is not responsible for this Vote, but is not his subordinate?
    LORD STANLEY: No; the Board of Works do the work for us.

    Standard Form of Accounts for Local Authorities—Appointment of Committee.
    MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee to consider the practicability of a standard form of accounts being prescribed for local authorities has now been appointed; and whether it has begun to take any evidence on the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALIWJR,): The appointment has not yet been made, but I am in communication with the bodies interested in the matter and I hope the arrangements will shortly be completed.
    MR. COHEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of this Committee was promised by his predecessor more than six months ago and confirmed by himself a little later?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of that, and the hon. Member has some cause of complaint. I must, however, ask him to have a little patience. There shall be no more delay if I can help it.

    Redistribution—The Population Limit.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that by changing 18,500 to 25,000, as the proposed population limit for the disfranchisement of boroughs, and 75,000 to 65,000, as the population limit for the disfranchisement of double-Member constituencies, and by providing that no county or borough with more than two Members shall have its representation reduced to less Members than the integer obtained by dividing its population by £50,000, the number of the Members of
    1382
    the House will be left unaltered at 670, whilst the English counties of Cornwall, Devon, Lincoln, Norfolk, Somerset, and Wilts would not be deprived of one Member each; and whether, in view of the advantage thus obtained, he would be prepared to recommend the amendment of the scheme on the lines indicated.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I replied on Monday † to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member on this subject, but the modification now made in the terms of the Question and some explanation which he has been so good as to send me, render necessary a modification in the Answer. I think that the plan which he now proposes would have the result which he anticipates subject to this, that when the borough of Stafford, the population of which is under 25,000, had been merged in the county, the population of the county would entitle it under Rule 3 of the Government scheme to eight Members instead of to the seven now allotted to it. Consequently the effect of the hon. Member's proposal would seem to be to increase the number of Members of the House by one. I could not give any promise that the Government scheme would be amended on the-lines indicated.

    Redistribution Statistics.
    MR. TOULMIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to lay upon the Table the statement containing further figures on the subjected Redistribution.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The issue of this statement does not appear to be urgent at the present moment now that the Resolution relating to Redistribution has been withdrawn, and, as it will be both bulky and full of detail, I think it desirable that more time should be given to revising it before it is published.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Yes, put it off five or six years.

    Sale of the Whitworth Estate Coalfield.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to
    †See page879.

    1383
    the Board of Trade he has any official information to the effect that the sale of the Whitworth Estate Coalfield, near Neath, in South Wales, 6,000 acres in extent, to a German syndicate, on behalf of the German Navy, is being negotiated; and, in such case, if he will have the purchasers warned of the special legislation contemplated by the Government to prevent the coal being shipped for the use of foreign Powers.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,: My hon. and gallant friend must not assume that the mere shipping of coal for the use of foreign Powers in the ordinary course of trade has ever been objected to by this or any other Government. What we should object to is the acquisition of anything in the nature of a monopoly of steam coal under the control of foreigners or of a foreign Government. We have no official information about the particular coalfield referred to, which it is understood has been in the market for some time, and has hitherto not produced steam coal.
    Colonel LUCAS Colonel LUCAS (Suffolk, Lowestoft) asked whether, having regard to the importance of the matter, farther inquiries would be made.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES SIR LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.) reminded the hon. Member that on Tuesday last the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that he believed no such purchase had been completed, and it was extremely doubtful whether any such purchase was likely. Did that statement apply to this particular coalfield?
    MR. BONAR LAW: I cannot say. The hon. Member must put that Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government consider the propriety of reviving the old law which made aliens incapable of acquiring landed estates in this country?
    MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention had been drawn to the official announcement made in the morning papers that the purchase of the Whitworth Coalfield had been completed on behalf of a syndicate in which German financiers bad a paramount interest; on what authority did the hon. Gentleman make the statement a few days ago that he regarded the purchase as improbable; whether he had any further information which would lead him to modify his views on the subject; and what steps, if any, the Government intended to take in the matter.
    MR. PRETYMAN: My attention has been called to this statement; but I see no reason to modify the views which I expressed in the House two days ago. The particular district in which the property alleged to have been purchased is situated is outside the area in which the steam coal suitable for naval purposes has been found. It is quite evident from the figures of the purchase price which have been quoted that the transaction is of an ordinary character and it does not appear to call for any interference.
    MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL said that the question of the quality of the coal had no relation to the statement of the Secretary of the Admiralty the other day, when he said he regarded it as totally improbable that the Whitworth Collieries would be purchased. Did he adhere to that?
    MR. PRETYMAN: That was not the Question the hon. Member asked me, nor the Answer I gave. What I was asked was whether I had any information as to the reported purchase by a German syndicate of a valuable coalfield within the area which is of interest to the British Navy, and I replied that I had no information of any such purchase having been concluded, or likely to be concluded. I was not asked about this particular property, which is outside the area of the steam coal.
    MR. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this particular property has been hawked about in London and South Wales

    1385
    for the last twenty years and offered at £10 per acre?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Express Trains from the North-Dangerous Footboards.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will call the attention of the railway companies to the narrowness of the footboards of the carriages used in the new express services from the North to Folkestone, Dover, and Deal, and to the amount of space between the footboards and the platform at Deal Station; and will he recommend that such steps be taken in the matter as will prevent the lives of the public being endangered.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I have called the attention of the, railway companies concerned to the hon. Member's Question, and I understand that inquiry is being made into the matter.

    The Loss of the "Kyber."
    MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the suggestions made by the Court of inquiry which recently sat at Penaance, relative to the loss of the "Kyber," in March last; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to those suggestions.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the suggestions made by the Court of inquiry in the case of the "Kyber." and they will receive careful consideration.

    The Channel Tunnel.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if any communications have recently taken place in regard to the construction of the Channel Tunnel between the British and French Governments; and if it is proposed by His Majesty's Government to continue the prohibition which has for so many years prevented the further progress of the works on the British side of the Channel.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that any communications have recently taken place or that anything has happened to alter or modify the position which has been assumed with regard to this matter.

    Big Ben.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the cost of lighting the clock known as Big Ben; and whit is the estimated saving by colouring one or more of the dials green as opposed to red.
    LORD BALCARRES: The cost of lighting the dials of the clock electrically amounts to £242 for the year. The green light is incidental to the lamp used experimentally, and the cost of current, if it was adopted permanently, would be reduced some 35 per cent. A red colour is impracticable.

    Beaufort Castle Shooting Case.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he can state when the trial will take place of John Scheffer Phipps and Henry Carnegie Phipps, of Beautort Castle, Inverness-shire, recently committed on a charge of shooting at four men engaged at work on the Beauty River, wounding one man so seriously as to necessitate the removal of one eye, and causing grave injury to the other.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Owing to the condition of the injured man Fraser, I am not yet able to state the date of the trial.

    Limerick Money-Lending Case.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case heard in Limerick a few weeks ago where a Mr. Gaffee, who is a Jew, summoned a woman for the payment of a sum of £3, that the woman declared in her evidence, previous to attacks made upon Mr. Gaffee by the Rev. Mr. Creagh, C.C., she was paying weekly instalments of 3s.; whether, seeing the Court reduced the amount sued for to £1 16s. to be

    1387
    paid in instalments of 3d. per week, and the fast that Gaffee has been seriously injured in business by the attacks of the priest, he can say what steps, if any, he proposes taking, in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: I have made inquiries, but have been unable to ascertain that any such case was heard in any of the Limerick Courts recently. If my hon. friend will inform me more precisely when, and in what Court, the case was heard, I will make further inquiry.
    MR. JOYCE MR. JOYCE (Limerick) asked if the police had been directed to make inquiries into this case?
    MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.
    MR. SLOAN: Was not the hon. Member for Limerick himself a member of the Court?
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: How much of the claim represented usury?
    MR. JOYCE: I was at the Court. As a matter of explanation, may I say I object to the introduction of the Rev. Father Creagh's name into the case. It has nothing to do with the merits. Taking into account the poverty of the woman and the amount she had paid, I made the order of 3d. a week and should do so again in like circumstances.
    MR. SLOAN: In view of that statement, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further?
    MR. ATKINSON: I have made all the inquiries I can

    Roscommon Assizes—Case of William Reid.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he directed the Crown Prosecutor to enter a nolle prosequi in the case of Crown against Reid at the last Roscommon Assizes; and if he can state how many jurors were challenged by the Crown at the two trials of William Reid at Roscommon and Galway.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. Owing to the death of the Crown Solicitor who had charge of this prosecution, I am unable at present to procure the necessary information to enable me to answer the latter inquiry.
    MR. HAYDEN: Why was a nolle prosequi entered in this case?
    MR. ATKINSON: Two trials have already proved abortive, and it was anticipated that a third would only lead to the same result.

    Cork Assizes-Case of Jeremiah Colbert.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Cork Summer Assizes on 15th instant, in the case of Jeremiah Colbert, charged with a White boy offence, thirty-nine jurors were ordered to stand by; whether he can say how many of these jurors are Catholics; and whether the action of the prosecuting counsel in this case had the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown.
    MR. ATKINSON: Thirty-six jurors were ordered to stand aside. Having received from the Crown Solicitor, who is the person responsible, a report stating the grounds on which he acted, I entirely approve of the course taken. I am unable to give any information as to the religion of these thirty-six jurors, as the Crown Solicitor informs me he does not know what their religion was, nor did he make any inquiries.
    MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that so long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman occupies his present position he intends to continue this invidious practice?
    MR. ATKINSON: I intend to carry out the law as far as I can.

    Colonel Warden, of Sneem.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Colonel Warden, of Derryquin, Sneem, is at present receiving police patrols; and whether, seeing that Colonel Warden has sold his estate to the tenants, he

    1389
    can state why these patrols are maintained.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Colonel Warden is not now receiving special police protection, by patrol or otherwise.

    Major French's Roscommon Estate.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has taken any steps to enlarge the smaller holdings on Major French's estate at Clooniquin, county Roscommon; whether all the grass lands on the estate are available for distribution among the small tenants, and, if so, when may the allotment be expected; and whether any of the land is held on the eleven months system, and, if not, upon what tenure do persons in occupation of the grass lands hold.
    MR. WALTER LONG: When this estate has been legally vested in the Board, they intend to enlarge the small holdings on it by the distribution of the untenanted land. Pending the completion of the legal steps, the untenanted land has been temporarily let to the Board, who have taken in cattle to graze on it.

    Dundonald Cemetery, Belfast.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Jewish community of Belfast have allotted to them a portion of Belfast cemetery, over the interments in which they exercise discretionary authority, and that similar authority is claimed by the Catholics of Belfast, who number over one-fourth of the population of that city, in regard to the ground allotted to them in the new cemetery at Dundonald; and whether, seeing that the corporation of Belfast has refused to admit the Catholic claim, he will take steps, as President of the Local Government Board, in view of the urgency of the question, to insure the admission of the claim without further delay.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board are informed that the Jewish community do not exercise any such discretionary authority as is suggested. The duties of the Board are limited to approving or disapproving of the allocation of the graveyard among the several religious denominations. They have no functions in regard to the arrangements as to interments which may be made between the burial board and the different religious bodies.

    Constable Finnigan's Transfer from Coalisland to Longford.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Constable Finnigan's recent transfer from Coalisland to county Longford was the result of charges preferred against him; and, if so, can he state the nature of the charges, the names of the persons who made them, and how they were investigated.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Inspector-General directed the transfer of this constable in the interests of the public service and at the public expense. He was not transferred on punishment.

    Coalisland-Assault on John McManus.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on 1st instant, at Coal-island, John McManus was assaulted in the presence of the police and a number of civilians by Robert Roach and Joseph Marshall; and, if so, can he explain why MacManus was summoned and fined, whilst no proceedings were taken against his assailants.
    MR. WALTER LONG: McManus, who was drunk, deliberately obstructed a drumming party, and after being removed by the police, attempted to repeat the obstruction, whereupon he received a blow from one of the party. McManus was prosecuted and fined for drunkenness. He informed the police that he himself would prosecute for the assault. The police do not intend to prosecute, having regard to the trivial nature of the assault, and to the fact that McManus was the aggressor.

    Coalisland—Attack on Harkin's House
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it has come to his knowledge that the police of Coalisland are in the possession of the names of twelve persons who took part in an attack on Harkin's house on June 3rd last, the name of a man who fired a revolver shot, the names of persons who beat James Bradley and Patrick Cullen, and also with the names of respectable witnesses who can identify all the persons on the police list; and whether, in the interests of peace in the locality, and as a deterrent against another outbreak in Coalisland, he will direct the police to make further inquiries, and to prosecute all the rioters whose identification can be established.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of June 26th†. It is not the case that the police have obtained evidence as to the offenders in the attack on Mr. Harkin's house, or in the firing of shots. Summonses for assault were issued by aggrieved persons on both sides, but withdrawn. The police did not witness the assaults. Every possible inquiry was made by the police at the time of the occurrence and no further steps appear necessary.
    MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that although a large number of persons were concerned in this matter no evidence can be procured?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I said the police did not think any further steps necessary.

    Trinity College Lands.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any lands held directly or let on lease by Trinity College have yet been sold under the Act of 1903; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to hasten sales of Trinity College lands.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the sale of two estates of which Trinity college is the direct landlord
    †See(4) Debates, cxlviii.,101
    1392
    have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, and these estates will be taken up in order of priority. The Commissioners have no record of the estates in which the College may be indirectly interested, either as lessor or as owner of superior interests.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where these two estates are situated?
    MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG asked for notice.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the sales?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Not without notice.

    Tralee Evicted Tenants.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether two evicted tenants, William O'Neill and Bryan Sheehy, on the estate of Arthur Blenner-hasset, Tralee, which is being sold, are to be reinstated in their farms; and whether the landlord will be asked to do so before the sale is sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The purchase agreements which have recently been lodged in regard to this estate do not include agreements by the evicted tenants named. The claims of any evicted tenants who apply for reinstatement will be considered when the estate is inspected.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake the estate shall not be sold until the claims of these tenants have been considered?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Are their claims to be totally ignored?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Instructions as to the Use of Truncheons.
    *MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in what form have the

    1393
    specific instructions to the Royal Irish Constabulary in reference to the use of their truncheons on the heads of civilians been conveyed; where the terms of such instructions may be seen; and whether he has any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The instructions are contained in the disciplinary code regulating the conduct and action of the police. This code has always been treated as a confidential document and its production refused. The responsibility of the police to members of the public depands on the law of the land and not on the provisions of the code.

    Carroll v. Masterson and Another
    *MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ha has any objection to procure from the learned Judge who tried the case of Carroll v. Masterson and another, in the High Court of Justice in Dublin on May 17th and 18th last, a copy of his lordship's notes of the evidence given in that case, and lay the fame upon the Table of the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The application is, I understand, absolutely unprecedented. I have no right to make such a demand, and I am unable to understand for what object the information is desired or what purpose it could serve.
    *MR. MULDOON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the depositions taken in the case by his own Crown Solicitor?
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Certainly not.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did not Justice Holmes in 1872 lay his charge before Parliament?
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I am not aware, and I do not see how that arises out of the Question.
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, yes, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent. I have given him one. I am enlarging the horizon of his ignorance.

    Captain Sandes' Estate, Queen's County
    *MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Captain Sandes, Garrymore, Mountmel'ick, Queen's County, is before the Estates Commissioners for sale; can he say how many evicted tenants on the property have sent in claims for reinstatement; and what steps are being taken to restore them to their holdings or otherwise provide for them.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. Three evicted tenants have sent in claims for reinstatement which will be considered if the estate should come before the Commissioners.

    H. J. McFarlane's Estate.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of Henry J. McFarlane, which has been in the Land Judge's Court for twenty-five years past, was transferred to Mr. Justice Meredith by the present Land Judge on account of the personal relations which Mr. Justice Ross had with the matter; that Mrs. Ross has since 1900 prevented the sale to the tenants taking place because she could not secure the entire sporting rights, and that Mr. Justice Meredith more than a year ago made an order directing the solicitor having carriage to put up the sporting rights as a separate lot, which order was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and that since then nothing has be n done; and whether, seeing that five-sixths of the holdings on this estate are under £5 valuation, and that the lands over which the sporting rights are claimed would be essential for the purposes of enlargement of holdings, grazing, and reclamation by these tenants he can take any steps to secure that the tenants shall no longer be deprived of the opportunity of becoming the proprietors of their holdings.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Mrs. Ross, whose estate almost surrounds the McFarlane Estate, took some years ago, before her husband became a Judge, a I lease, under the Court, of some bog and rough warren on the latter estate with the shooting rights over it. When Mr.

    1395
    Justice Ross was appointed Judge, he refused to act as Receiver Judge over this matter, and it was transferred to Mr. Justice Meredith, it had previously been managed under Mr. Justice Boyd. When the incumbrancers proposed to sell to the tenants, they asked Mrs. Ross to buy the portion of which she had a lease, and she made an offer of £740, which, the incumbrancers were willing to accept. Some of the tenants refused to buy unless they got the game rights, but that difficulty, I believe, was surmounted. The tenants' offers were accepted without giving them game rights, and Mr. Justice Meredith ordered that the game lights and the rough warren comprised in Mrs. Ross's lease should be sold by auction. The delay has not been caused by Judge or Mrs. Ross, but by the action of the tenants themselves, and by unforeseen difficulties which have arisen with regard to the title and boundaries. Steps are now being taken to carry out the Judge's under, and it is expected that the matter will be concluded within a short time, have no power to interfere in the manner suggested.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it the fact that the case has been in the Land Judge's Court twenty-five years? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman recommend Judge Ross to facilitate its settlement?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I understand it is in process of settlement. I think the Judge has taken the right and proper course in abstaining from interference.
    MR. DELANY: What number of years purchase did Mrs. Ross pay?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
    MR. FLAVIN: Fourteen.

    Irish Mixed Schools
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have taken into their consideration the statement and resolution which the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, with the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh in the chair, adopted on the 14th ult., in opposition to the policy of amalga-
    1396
    mating boys' and girls' schools; and, if so, whether the Commissioners propose I to make any modification of the rules to which the Catholic hierarchy have taken objection.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the statement and resolution referred to were not communicated to the Commissioners, and that consequently they were not formally considered by the Commissioners. The policy of amalgamation is not a new policy, as I have already pointed out that before the adoption of the new rules there were as many as 2,247 mixed national schools under Roman Catholic management. At the meeting of the Commissioners held on April 28th last the Bishop of Kildare's amendment to Rule 186 (the chief rule on this subject) was unanimously accepted by the Board. The Board do not propose to make any further modification of the rule.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Am I to infer that the National Board were not aware of this resolution of the hierarchy because it was not officially communicated to them?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Although it was not formally communicated to them I have no doubt they had cognisance of it from the Press, and no doubt it was in their minds when they came to a decison. I imagine they read the newspapers like other people.
    MR. SWIFT MAONEILL: The Prime Minister never does.

    Tobacco-growing in Ireland.
    *MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount of profit realised from the sale of the produce of twenty acres of tobacco, grown on the estate of Colonel Everard last year, under the auspices of t e Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, after deduction of all costs of cultivation and curing, including also the estimated rent of land, rates, taxes, and interest on the capital sum of

    1397
    £1,728 expended on the erection of a tobacco barn by the Department.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department are not yet in possession of the necessary information to enable this Question to be answered. I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a specimen of the tobacco.
    *MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Seeing that nearly £5,000 has been spent on these tobacco-growing experiments in Ireland, I think some information should be available.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly. But, as the hon. Member knows, the experiment was carried out with considerable difficulty, and it is not desirable we should communicate results until we have reached a more definite stage than at present.

    Irish Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total saving by the Education Office as the difference between the old salaries paid to teachers and the new.
    MR. WALTER LONG: There is no saving. On the contrary, the teachers now receive in incomes from the State about £50,000 per annum more than they received prior to the introduction of the new system of payments.
    MR. SLOAN: Does that take into account the £28,000 coming out of the Government grant for assistant teachers?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say without notice.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no difference in initial salaries of assistant teachers and principals of national schools, except in capitation, between the smallest country school and the largest city school under the new rules; and whether, seeing the Commissioners' rules provide that a teacher appointed to an important school will receive special consideration, he
    1398
    will carefully consider any such cases submitted to him.
    MR. WALTER LONG: All teachers on entering the service are placed in the third grade, and, of course, receive the initial salary of that grade. But the total incomes, including the residual capitation grant, as well as the prospects of promotion, are better in the case of teachers originally appointed to the larger schools. The matter referred to in the latter inquiry for the consideration of the Commissioners.

    Arterial Drainage in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what steps, if any, he has taken towards appointing Commissioners to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland; and, if so what are their names and qualifications and the terms of their reference.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have no further statement to make in this matter at present.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any good reason for not coming to the opinion that he is humbugging the House and the country?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I can give an admirable Answer to that extraordinary Question. I shall shortly announce the names of the Commissioners and the terms of reference.

    Estates Commissioners and the Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can cause the issue of an instruction to the Estates Commissioners, directing them to give precedence to sales of estates the landlords of which have dealt fully and fairly with the evicted tenants.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir. It would be quite impossible to differentiate in the manner suggested.

    Provision for Afflicted Children in Ireland
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Bill for the Relief of Afflicted Children in that country, whether the contribution to be made out of moneys voted by Parliament is to be charged on the Development Fund Grant, or out of the usual grant for national education, or whether it is, as it has been in England and Scotland since the year 1893, a special and separate grant out of voted moneys.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The provision to be made for this service will not be charged on the Development Grant, but in the annual Estimates. If the Bill passes in its present form, as I hope it we11, the Estimate for Public Education will bear the charge.
    MR. CLANCY: Is it to come out of the education grant?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, it will be an addition to the existing provision.

    Roman Catholic Priests and Income Tax.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the whole clerical income of the Roman Catholic Church in the United Kingdom is free from income-tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir, the Roman Catholic clergy enjoy no special exemption from income tax.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Do the hon. Member for South Belfast and his friends pay any rent for the use of the Customhouse steps at Belfast?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Abbeyleix Gun Licence Case
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Abbeyleix Petty Sessions, held on 24th June, a man, named John Devoy, was prosecuted by the Excise authorities for carrying a gun along the public road to a
    1400
    detached farm of his, not having at the time a 10s. licence, and the magistrates dismissed the case on the grounds that defendant was exempt under Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of The Gun Licensing Act, 1870, under which the prosecution was brought; and whether, seeing that the supervisor who prosecuted appealed in Court from, the magistrates' decision, and withdrew the appeal in a week afterwards, he will give directions that in future prosecutions shall not be taken against occupiers of land whilst carrying guns to and from their land for the purpose of protecting their crops.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am informed that the proceedings, to which the hon. Member refers, were instituted as the evidence showed a prima facie case of breach of the Gun Licence Act. The desire of the Board of Inland Revenue is to avoid unnecessary proceedings against occupiers of lands who may be carrying guns for the purpose stated in the Question.

    Irish National Schools—Building Plans.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the proposed new plans for national schools in Ireland have now been approved of; and, if so, can he state when they will be issued.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on this subject on the 12th † instant.
    MR. BOLAND: I will repeat the Question this day week.

    Buncrana and the Telephone Service.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why it was that Buncrana was not included in the Deny telephone area; whether any representations have been made to him on this subject; and whether he can see his way to have this town included at an early date.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that the question of the inclusion of Buncrana in the Londonderry telephone
    † See Page 402.

    1401
    exchange area was raised when the area was specified for the National Telephone Company. Several applications for the inclusion of Buncrana in that area have been received since the passing of the Telegraph Act of 1899, but my predecessor and I have felt unable to assent to so large an extension of the National Telephone Company's area as would be involved in the inclusion of Buncrana in the Londonderry area. I am, however, prepared to open a Post Office exchange there and to provide a trunk connection with Londonderry if adequate support is forthcoming.

    Fermoy and the Telephone Service.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the necessity of extending telephonic facilities to the town of Fermoy, by the establishment of an exchange and its connections with the trunk line system, having regard to the importance of the town as a business centre and military station; and whether, seeing that the National Telephone Company would be willing to grant the required facilities, but are prevented in consequence of some agreement with the Post Office which has placed Fermoy and district within a restricted area, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what action in the matter.
    LORD STANLEY: My attention has been called to the desire for telephone facilities at Fermoy. The cost of connecting Fermoy with the trunk wire system would, however, be considerable, and at present there does not appear to be enough support to justify the undertaking. I shall, however, be glad to be furnished with the names of those who are willing to become subscribers to an exchange at Fermoy, and if a sufficient number are sent in I will arrange for a canvass of the town to be made.

    Irish Trade Statistics.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in preparing statistics for the trade of 1906, he will give instructions with a view to securing that the trade between Ireland and Great Britain be set out separately.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Customs have no means of obtaining complete statistics of the trade between Ireland and Great Britain, there being no power to require the necessary particulars to be supplied. I understand that the question of compiling such information on the subject as can be obtained is at present engaging the attention of the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
    MR. LOUGH: Is there any objection to acquiring the necessary legal authority?
    [The Answer was inaudible.]
    MR. JOYCE: Does not the Board of Trade get the information from the harbour authorities in Ireland?
    MR. BONAR LAW: I understand that is the source from which the Irish Board of Agriculture get the information.
    MR. JOYCE: And the Board of Trade can get it in the same way.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Why distinguish between the trade of Ireland with foreign countries and that with Great Britain? Why cannot you get those returns?
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day said the information was not available so far as foreign Powers was concerned.
    MR. FLAVIN: If the Irish Board of Agriculture has the right to demand the information from the Irish harbour authorities why does not the Board of Trade do it?
    MR. BONAR LAW: We have not the power.
    MR. FLAVIN: Yes, you have.
    MR. JOYCE: I am a member of a harbour authority and know that our clerk has to supply the information.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Oh, what do they know about Ireland?

    Minister of Commerce.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now state whether it is his intention of introducing this session the measure promised in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne for raising the status of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, and creating a Minister of Commerce.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is ready, and I desire to introduce it. But whether it has any chance of passing will, of course, depend on the general approval it meets with on both aides of the House, for it would be impossible to press it through as a controversial measure.

    Redistribution—The Boundary Committee or Commission
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee or Commission upon Redistribution boundaries which the Government propose to set to work will be limited by their instructions to the lines of the Resolution which has been withdrawn, or whether their instructions will permit them to take into consideration other alternatives or amendments; and also, whether, having regard to the fact that the Government proposals proceed upon the basis of population, he will call for in estimate by the Registrar-General of the probable population of the different constituencies in the year 1906, in which the proposed Redistribution Bill is intended to be introduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is somewhat too early as yet to deal with the points brought forward by my hon. friend, but I can assure him that they will receive the attention of the Government.
    MR. PEEL: May I ask whether, in the case of border line constituencies, the right hon. Gentleman will also consider the advisability of allowing the Commissioners to consider the great shifting of population which has recently taken place in consequence of the development of means of communication, which has rendered the old precedents entirely obsolete.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure that I admit the last part of my hon. friend's Question but his suggestion will be kept in view.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether one of the reasons which induced the Government to base their proposals for redistribution on population and not on the numbers of electors was to avoid raising the question of the plural voter; whether his attention has been called to the fact that this argument was omitted from the explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposals; and whether, with a view to providing the House with full materials on which to form its judgment, he will instruct the Committee or other body which he proposes to appoint to inquire, as far us may be, into the number and the distribution of the plural voters.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have in this Bill proceeded upon the precedent set in the preceding Redistribution Bills, and I see no reason to depart from them. If the hon. Gentleman desires us to combine with a Redistribution Bill a Reform Bill, that is not the policy of the Government.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners in 1885 took into consideration not only population, but also the numbers of the electors, mostly plural voters, whose qualifications arose from urban areas? The Commissioners stated then that they kept certain divisions artificially low in order to put in urban voters, who were mostly plural voters.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet is a very great authority on this question, because he was directly concerned in dealing with it in 1885; but I think he will not deny that population and not voting power was, broadly speaking, the basis of the arrangement. The point he has brought to my attention will be kept in mind.
    MR. MCKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct whatever body he

    1405
    may appoint to inquire into the number of the plural voters in particular districts.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am certainly not going to commit the Government as to the precise nature of the instructions to be given. There may be cases, no doubt, in which inquiry may be desirable, but, so far as I have made up my mind on the subject at all, to state the precise instructions to be given, or the time at which they will be given, would be premature.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: If the hon. Gentleman will look to the Report of the Commissioners he will see it wag done in the cases of both Surrey and Middlesex.
    MR. MCKENNA: I bag to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the body which he has in contemplation to set up before the next session of Parliament, in connection with his proposals for Redistribution, is the same body as that contemplated in the Resolutions; and, if not, in what respect as regards powers and duties the body now proposed differs from that originally intended.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly am not going to pledge myself as to the identity of the body that will now be appointed with the body that would have been appointed had the Resolutions been passel; it is a very hypothetical Question. But there will, do doubt, be a very close relationship.
    MR. MCKENNA MR. MCKENNA asked whether the body now proposed to be appointed would be a Boundary Commission, or a Committee with power to advise the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No Commission we can appoint would have powers except to advise the Government; it must ultimately rest with the House of Commons to decide what shall be adopted.
    MR. DALZIEL: May we assume that what is generally understood as a Boundary Commission will subsequently be appointed?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I do not think the hon. Gentleman must take my
    1406
    Answer as of larger scope than appears on the surface. I do not think there is anything to be gained by stating now the precise terms and exact course to be adopted.
    MR. MCKENNA MR. MCKENNA said surely they were entitled to know whether it was proposed to appoint Boundary Commissioners.
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is more entitled to know it than the House of Commons was in 1884 to know the intentions of Mr. Gladstone.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has a peculiar tendency to shelter himself under the name of Mr. Gladstone. But in Mr. Gladstone's case, owing to circumstances into which I need not enter, the matter was the subject of arrangement between the two sides of the House, so that there is no analogy whatever.
    A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; the Committee appointed by Mr. Gladstone was appointed before that arrangement.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, but the Commission was appointed afterwards.

    Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now see his way to proceed with the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill, especially in view of the fact that it is unanimously supported by all Highland Members, and has been brought in by the Government no less than four years in succession.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is a very desi able one, but I do not think it is possible to pass it this year.
    MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire): Seeing that the opposition from this side is mainly financial, cannot the right hon. Gentleman undertake to furnish funds to enable the object of the Bill to be carried out? Or if he would make a definite

    1407
    promise next year that might remove the objection.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would involve a new Bill.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    SIR JOHN TUKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the time now available, he can give facilities at an early date for completing the remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The progress made in Committee last Friday with the Education (Scotland) Bill was of a very unsatisfactory character, and I see no hope whatever for this Bill except by some mutual arrangement between the two sides of the House. If such an arrangement is possible, I will not say the Bill could not be passed, but evidently the time available for such a purpose would be extremely brief.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL called the Speaker's attention to the fact that four of the Questions on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister—three of them relating to Redistribution—had not been asked or answered, and asked whether this was not an abuse of the spirit of the undertaking which was given when the new rules of procedure were adopted, that Questions addressed to the Pr me Minister should be placed in such a posit on on the Paper that they would be reached before five minutes to three o'clock.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to suggest that the Prime Minister has evaded answering the Questions to which he alludes.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, I do.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is not so, for the Questions had not been reached before five minutes to three o'clock, owing probably to the fact that no fewer than twenty-five supplementary Questions have been asked.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN asked what business would be taken next week.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE MR. KEIR HARDIE inquired whether the Unemployed Bill would be put down as the second order to-morrow after the Naval Works Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said it was not possible to act upon that suggestion, because the Amendments of the Government to the Unemployed Bill, which he hoped would make it a non-contentious measure, were not yet on the Paper. The second order to-morrow would be the Scottish Churches Bill, and it would be a great convenience if the first order—the Naval Works Bill—were finished in time to complete the Committee stage of that measure. With regard to next week, lie did not know whether it was proposed to carry the debate on the vote of censure through the evening sitting on Monday as well as through the morning sitting.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not yet sounded the desires of those who sit around me.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR MR A. J. BALFOUR said that, should the House divide on the vote of censure at half-past seven o'clock, he proposed to take at the evening sitting the Report stage of the Scottish Churches Bill, which it was desirable to pa-s us soon as possible and send up to another place.

  FROTECTION OF LIFE FROM FIRE.
  Report from the Select Committee [Inquiry not completed] brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 254.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 254.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report brought up, and read, with part of the Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 248.]

  SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,415, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I think it will be convenient if I state what are the suggestions that the Irish Government are able to offer in order to cope, in some way, at all events, with the block in the Land Commission. In order to do this I will be as brief as possible. It is necessary that I should not only tell the Committee what the present position is, but also remind them what is the history of the Irish Land Act of 1903. The purchase applications which have been received up to date amount to £27,933,000. The Treasury undertook at the time of the passing of the Act to find £5,000,000 a year, and there was an understanding arrived at between the Treasury and the Irish Government that during the first, three years that the Act would be in operation there should be not more than £5,000,000 issued in one year. The Treasury loyally carried out their part of the bargain, because in the first year they issued stock to the extent of £5,000,000, which produced £4,337,122. In the second year, owing to the representations of the Member for Dover, as the first, issue had failed to produce the amount in cash that the Irish Government had anticipated would have been at their disposal, the Treasury very liberally consented to increase the issue from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. £6,000,000 was therefore issued, and produced £5,354,332, making a total of £9,691,454,
    1410
    and deducting that from £27,000,000 odd, we had a balance of £18,241,550. We have reason to believe that if it were possible by any just and wise expedient to remove that block, it ought to be possible to deal with from £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 worth of property before January next.
    It is quite natural I should be asked why I have not pressed the Treasury to issue another loan before the time I agreed upon has expired. I may remind the Committee that up to the I present date only twenty-one months have elapsed of the first two years of the Act, so that within those twenty-one months we have received more than the; Treasury undertook to provide us with in the first two years. If that Question be asked, the Answer to it, I think, is obvious. If we put aside altogether the question of bargain between the Irish Government and the Treasury, and if be were the case, as I have already shown it is not, that the Treasury has failed to act liberally in response to the demand made by the Irish Government it would still be necessary to consider whether it is desirable to issue another loan of the same character and on the same conditions at the present moment. The Committee must recollect that it is only possible to issue loans for this or I any other purpose from time to time as it is probable that they will be freely accepted by the money market. I would also remind hon. Members that whatever may be the inclination in ordinary cases we ought not in this case to condemn the Treasury for acting in a niggardly way or for being unwilling to come to the relief of another branch of Irish Government, solely because the Treasury in this matter have not themselves to think of. The Committee must recollect that upon every issue the guarantee fund, of which the development grant is the first constituent, is responsible for the loss on flotation. The Treasury might if they cared to do so take up the line that it was no business of theirs. The loss would fall upon the Irish Exchequer, and therefore they need not interfere. But there is, apart altogether from this local aspect of the question, a much larger and wider aspect from which the question must be approached and that

    1411
    is the general effect upon the money-market. I do not think that anybody will deny that, assuming the conditions which I have described, namely, a deliberate bargain made publicly—not privately—but made publicly on the floor of this House, and frequently referred to since it was made by the Treasury and the Irish Government, and the complete fulfilment of that bargain—I do not think anybody will deny that grave risks would be incurred if the Treasury, without good cause and without obtaining some substantial advantage in return, were to break the bargain publicly made on the floor of the House and throw upon the market another loan which would be altogether unexpected by those likely to take it up. It might have a very serious effect not only upon the value of land stock itself, but upon the general condition of the money market as a whole. Therefore, I have adopted the only course open to me when I acquiesced in the Treasury view and accepted the decision that an extra loin on the ordinary terms could not reasonably be issued at the present time.
    I had to ask myself in the circumstances whether it was possible to find any ether expedient which would temporarily, at all events, tend to lessen our difficulties. I have examined many suggestions which Have been made to me, but I have been driven to the conclusion—and I may say that I have come to this conclusion after prolonged consultation not only with my own advisers but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the experts at his command—that the only way in which we can, experimentally it may be, attempt to relieve the block is by making an alteration in the Act of 1903. In the Act of 1903 it is made obligatory that all payments in respect of estates shall be in cash. If we were to alter that so as to make it compulsory upon owners of land to take anything else except cash it would be a deliberate breach of the provision of Parliament and ought not to be undertaken by anybody. But there is a middle course which the Government suggest, and it is that the Act of 1903 should be amended so that the compulsion of taking cash should be altered to this extent: that, while the Act remains as it is, there
    1412
    should be amending words introduced in a single-clause Bill to enable the vendors, if they so wish, and only if they so wish, to take a portion of the purchase money in stock. What I propose is that two-thirds of the purchase money should be-the maximum to be taken in stock, one-third in cash, the bonus in cash, and the stock to be at its face value. If this plan be adopted, it would probably still be necessary to issue more stock, because, as I have already shown, the funds at our disposal are absolutely exhausted.
    When I first became responsible for the Irish Government, all the existing issues and the previous issues had been expanded with the exception of about £1,250,000. That £1,250,000 is practically expended at the present time, so that it would still be necessary, from time to time, to make fresh issues in the market. If this plan which I, with great respect, suggest to the House be adopted, it would have the following advantages. In the first place, assuming that a certain proportion of the vendors took advantage of the arrangement, it would enable the landlords a id the tenants, of the estates affected to complete their I bargains at a very early date instead of having to wait, as it may and probably will be, for years before they can hope to get the money to which they are I entitled. If it is urged that this is an unexpected development, I am bound to remind the Committee that in all the debates that took place at the time my right hon. friend anticipated that the full working of the Act would take a very considerable period of time. I think he estimated it at probably fifteen years. I do not think anybody is to be blamed for making a forecast which has proved to be so erroneous, because I doubt if anybody at the time the Act, was passed contemplated that it would have worked as rapidly as it has done; and, whereas it was anticipated that £5,000,000 would be more than enough in each of the first two years, we find those £5,000,000 are gone before that period, applications having been so numerous. If they continue to come in at the present rate the accumulation of un-disposed of applications will be largely increased, and, if we are to deal with these in anything like reasonable

    1413
    time we mint have an additional, and it may be a temporary and experimental way of dealing with the difficulty.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: But does not the vendor get any interest on the provisional bargain?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly, he gets 3½ per cent. on the purchase price.
    MR. ME. JOHN MORLEY: Then the operation is not suspended. He is drawing a fair interest all the time.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly, it depends upon the bargain he makes with the tenants. Ad interim, he gets 3½ per cent. on the purchase money. It is necessary, however, to remember that until the sale is completed his charges cannot be paid off—and therefore the interest upon them remains at whatever figure it has hitherto been—nor does he get the benefit of the bonus, which is only payable when the transaction is completed. Therefore there would be these great advantages. Not only would the arrangements between the landlord and tenant be completed earlier than otherwise, but the vendors would be able to pay off their charges so as to get the benefit of the interest on the balance in the form of income. I believe myself, and I believe the figures I shall give will prove it, that in the long run the loss consequent upon the difference between the face value of stock and cash would not be by any means serious in amount. Including the money already issued, to carry this Act into successful operation involves the issue of £112,000,000 of stock in order that the money may be found. Now the merest tyro of finance must recognise that for the years during which the Act is running it must throw a very heavy liability upon the stock market of this country. With all the good will in the world on the part of the British Exchequer and the investing public, it must inevitably be several years, possibly many years, before vendors can get their money, and if, therefore, they are inclined to take advantage of this new method, then a very great benefit will be conferred not only upon the community in Ireland, but upon the general stock market. If
    1414
    this arrangement were at all largely availed of, while at present we have to be responsible for the issue in the course of the next ten or fifteen years of some £112,000,000 inclusive of the £11,003,000 already issued, it is quite conceivable hat that issue might be reduced £50,000,000 or £60,000,000. It is not necessary for me to remind the Committee of the buoyant effect that result would in all probability have upon the stock market of the country as a whole. Therefore, from a local point of view, and from a general point of view, I think I may claim these advantages for the scheme I propose.
    Let me remind hon. Gentlemen who sit for Irish constituencies that, if we go on as we are at present, there is a very grave risk, to put it mildly, of the development grant being entirely absorbed. If we can lessen these costs by an expedient such as I have suggested the development grant would be the first to benefit. I do not think it necessary to say a word about this expedient from the point of view of the tenants. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the purchasing tenants will be in no way injuriously affected. On the contrary, the completion of their transactions will be expedited, and, so far as they are concerned, whether the payment is made wholly in cash or in stock is a matter which does not affect them. With regard to the position of the vendors, this is an experiment which may be only of a temporary character, and no vendor can be called upon to take this stock unless he, of his own free will, consents to do so. Therefore, I do not think it can be said that it is a hardship, oven though it may be a new departure which they may regard with some suspicion. I admit at once that the Landlords' Convention have considered this matter and decided that they are not in a position to agree to it. Therefore, I make, the proposal with the full knowledge that it does not start under very good auspices, and the Government would not have made it had they not felt it was their bounden duty, at all events, to make a proposition to the House which if it commends itself to Parliament will. I believe, result in lessening the block which at present exists.

    1415
    I will give the Committee a very simple illustration of the effect of the suggested change. I take an estate which is encumbered to about two thirds of its value. The purchase money is £21,654, and the rate of interest, for the interim period 3½ per cent. The present charges amount altogether to £605, which deducted from an income of £758, leaves a nett income during the interim period of £153. Suppose the landlord adopts the suggested change. The sum required to pay oft the incumbrances is £11,667. The landlord will receive in cash one-third of the purchase money, £7,218, and a bonus of £2,598, making a total of £9,816, so that to make up the £11,667 there will be required an additional sum of £1,851. To provide this sum by selling stock at 92 he would sell £2,012. The total stock he receives, therefore, is £14,436, of which he will retain £12,424, and the annual income which he will derive in dividends from this stock at 2¾ per cent. is £342. Therefore, while there is a loss in capital value to the landlord, during the three, four, or five years which must elapse before he can get his purchase completed he will have an income of £342 as against £153. The result in another illustration which I might give is that on an state sold for £29,299, very heavily encumbered, the net income is £6, which by the adoption of this plan would be increased to £257.
    Having regard to the immediate pressure in many cases and the urgent necessity of finding some honest and practical way out of the difficulty, I think I may fairly urge that the adoption of this suggestion will carry no injustice to the purchasing tenants, and that while it will inflict some capital loss on the landlord it will give him so great a relief in regard to his immediate receipts that the proposal is worthy of careful consideration. I have every reason to hope that it may not be necessary actually to issue the stock in the course of the oming months. Once in the position of offering cash with stock it means the purchase of more than twice the amount than if cash alone were available. I should then think it my duty to make such arrangements with the Treasury as I could, and avoid, if possible, the issue of stock, and the prevent the risk of additional loss On
    1416
    flotation. The period to which I have referred is between now and January 1st. I have already obtained from the Treasury very considerable augmentation of the staff of the distributing branches of the Land Commission, and I am also considering with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General what is the best way to deal with the difficulty in the Judicial Commissioner's Court, I think everyone will admit that the work he has done is almost unexampled in amount, and if we Can give him assistance we ought to do so. I hope I have made these proposals clear to the Committee. I apologise to the Committee for the time I have occupied, and I further ask that at the hands of the Committee and Parliament they may have fair and unprejudiced consideration.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford) said the right hon. Gentleman had no need to apologise for the time he had taken, but he had some reason to apologise for the fact that in the concluding days of the session when full discussion was impossible he should propose a fundamental change in the Land Act of 1903. He had said that he made this suggestion after prolonged consultation. Consultation with whom? Not with the representatives of the Irish people in that House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: My own officials in the Irish Office.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Quite so; then the right hon. Gentleman had reason to apologise for coming to the House at the end of the session with a scheme without ascertaining the views of those who represented the mass of the Irish people, in the House and outside it—a scheme which necessitated legislation at a time when it could not be at all properly discussed. Into the merits of the proposal he was not entering. This was the first he had heard of it, and he declined to discuss a scheme which was thrown at their heads in this way without any consultation with or intimation to those most deeply interested. If it was to be proceeded with it would have to be by the introduction of a Bill and he, for one, would consent to no Bill

    1417
    dealing with this important subject unless he and his colleagues were afforded ample opportunity for consideration and discussion. They had too often made the mistake of giving way to the stress of the moment and accepting legislation of this kind without discussion. As far as he was concerned he came years ago to the conclusion that no matter how simple a Bill was, and how good its object, he would decline to make himself in any way responsible for its passage without full and adequate discussion. Apart from the merits of the scheme he gave the right hon. Gentleman fair warning that he and his colleagues would not agree to the passage of any Bill without adequate discussion in the House.
    But he had a wider objection with regard to the passing of these small amending Acts. The truth was that the working of the Land Act of 1903 had in its essential portion broken down. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct when he spoke of the rapidity with which the Act was working as judged by the amount of money that had been applied for. But that did not convey an accurate idea as to whether this Act was working successfully or not. What was the primary object of this Bill? It was not merely to facilitate the transfer of land, for that was only the means. The object was to settle the Irish land question and put an end to the Irish land war. The In ill land question was, to a very large extent, centred in the poorer parts of the country where there was congestion on the one side and large depopulated tracts of grazing land on the other. If every estate of the well-to-do were sold tomorrow on fair terms the land question would remain so long as the question of congestion and cattle ranches remained untouched. The working of the Act showed a complete and absolute breakdown in dealing with congestion and the breaking up of grass lands. With regard to the evicted tenants the Act had been equally a failure. But he took a broader, objection to the passage of small amending Bills such as that which was now suggested. Until they were in a position to force the Government to give them the opportunity of proposing an amendment of the Act in order to make it work where it was really needed, it would be foolish
    1418
    of them to simply facilitate the hasty transfer of estates in rich parts of Ireland.
    The question arose quite recently in connection with the action of the Government itself regarding the issue of new regulations. The House would remember how I that matter stood. Until the other day they were unable to elicit the directions and regulations and instructions under which the Estates Commissioners were acting. The Report which the Estates Commissioners issued stated explicitly that instructions had been given to them which had had the effect of fettering their discretion and preventing them from following out the administration of the Act on the lines which seemed best to them, and when they asked for the production of those instructions they were told that they were not instructions in accordance with a certain section of the Act, but were given in official correspondence, and could not be produced. He did not intend to go back on that controversy, although it would be a favourable subject for discussion.
    He came now to the new regulations. The right hon. Gentleman, promised when he entered office that he would make new regulations; and that they would be placed before Parliament. He had done so, and these new regulations completely knocked the bottom out of the Land Act so far as the evicted tenants and the congested districts were concerned. The first regulation the right hon. Gentleman had issued was one which in his judgment ended all possibility of the Estates Commissioners obtaining untenanted land anywhere in Ireland, either for the purpose of restoring evicted tenants or for the improvement and enlargement of holdings. This new regulation provided that the applications in Court should be dealt with on the principle of first come first served. Now that might seem at first sight a fair principle, to lay down, that there should be no distinction between applications, but to anyone who understood the Land Act and how it was working it must appear very different. Of the £28,000,000 applied for up to the present almost all had been applied for under sections of the Act, that was to say, applied for in direct sales, between landlord and tenant. In those

    1419
    cases it was impossible for the Land Commissioners to obtain possession of untenanted land. And in the case of all the estates which were being sold direct from the landlord to the tenant, what was the landlord, doing? He was dividing his estate up before the sale took place, putting up lots to auction, and selling them to the highest bidder. Then he went to the Land Commissioners and sold the new holdings to them. In very many cases by this process the landlord got paid twice over. That procedure was on foot all over Ireland, with the result that the Land Commission had no chance of getting possession of untenanted land. It was in cases in which the sale took place from the landlord to the Commissioners and from them to the tenants that the Commissioners had the chance of obtaining untenanted land. They could always obtain it by sales through the Land Judge's Court. The new regulation, however, provided that all the cases already in Court which came entirely under Section I must have precedence, with the result that it postponed for years and years the possibility of the Commissioners obtaining possession of untenanted land. Thus it constituted an absolute block in the working of the Land Act in the only field in which it might be hoped to carry out its object of settling the Irish land question. He, for his past, would oppose any scheme for facilitating the obtaining of money for this object, so long as there was a regulation in force which compelled the whole of the money to go to the purchase of estates when there was really no land question at all, and which prevented any of the money going to the poorer parts of the country.
    It might be asked what he suggested He admitted it would not be work able to allow absolute discretion to the Commissioners to pick out this estate and that estate and take the applications in any order they pleased. What he suggested was that there should be a fair division of the money made available for each different class of sales. Judge Ross in the Land Judge's Court had complained that the work had come to a standstill, and that it would be absolutely impossible for him to carry out his object of
    1420
    clearing that Court, and the new regulation made that a permanent state of things by forbidding any of his cases to be taken in priority to the £28,000,000 worth of cases already in the hands of the Commissioners under Section 1. He suggested that, in future, if £5,000,000 was devoted to land purchase, a certain proportion should be put on one side to deal with cases in the Land Judge's Court; that the tenth of it, side £3,000,000, should be put aside to deal with direct sales, and the balance be put at the disposal of the Land Commission to deal with cases under Section 6, where they bought direct from the landlord, in which case they could hope to obtain the breaking up of these large grazing farms. Any scheme of that sort would receive from them careful consideration. When a block had been come to and when there were great interests at stake affecting the vast majority of the people of Ireland, it was not reasonable or business-like for the Chief Secretary to come there with a cut-and-dried scheme, after prolonged consultation with a few English officials sent over to the offices in Dublin, without any consultation with the people affected or their representatives. This was an Ac t amending the Land Act of 1903, not dealing with the really important parts of the Land Act, but providing money to facilitate sales in the richer parts of Ireland where there was no great hardship.
    The next regulation was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. He would read a portion of it—
    "In every case in which an application is made to the Estates Commissioners they shall inquire whether any intimidation has been exercised, directly or indirectly, in reference to or in connection with such replication or the subject matter thereof, or the estate or land "Effected thereby."—
    Would the House seriously consider what that meant? Here was a body of Commissioners cons sting of three very able officials, civilians not connected in any way with the law. They had the duty of carrying out the sale of estates and the Executive came along and said to them, "When an application is made to you, you must first inquire whether there has been any intimidation in connection with the application or the land affected?" What was intimidation?

    1421
    Were the Estates Commissioners to go out like two removable magistrates and hold a Court in the district, and try the question whether there had been intimidation or not? What did intimidation mean? The object of this regulation, in his view, was to intimidate the people. It was to try to bring about the sale of estates all over Ireland without allowing the people anything in the nature of public action or freedom of speech to discuss the Act or the prices under the Act. It seemed to him that this regulation would have the direct effect, if carried out, of intimidating the people. The mere proposal of it was certainly calculated to create an utterly false impression in that House and in the country, because a proposal of this kind could scarcely be justified unless the Government that made it was able to show that there was in the country some widespread system of wrong-doing and intimidation.
    The proposal was quite remarkable. The Commissioners were to inquire as to whether there was any intimidation or not. How were they to inquire? Suppose that a local policeman wrote to the Commissioners saying, "I hear that there is a proposal for the sale of such and such an estate. I beg to call your attention to the fact that the enclosed anonymous threatening notice was found posted Oil a dead wall in the neighbourhood." Was that intimidation? Certainly it was an accusation of intimidation. Was it not ludicrous under these conditions to instruct that an application was to be put on one side, and that Mr. Wrench, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Finucane were solemnly to go down and hold an inquiry as to whether intimidation was really in existence there or not They were forbidden to enter into the matter at all until they had satisfied themselves on that matter. Take another case. Suppose that negotiations were going on for the sale of an estate in Tipperary or anywhere they liked—let him say, to make the case a very aggravated one, that the Member for Tipperary went down among his own constituents—an audacious thing for him to do in Ireland—and that he was accompanied by two or three parish priests and other friends of the tenants, and held meeting at which the question of sale
    1422
    was discussed openly and in preference to the Press; and resolutions were come to saying that the landlord should make this concession, asking that certain other concessions should be made, and inquiring what was the best price that the landlord would take. Of course he knew that might be held to be intimidation under the Coercion Act by two removable magistrates. But was it seriously suggested that; on account of a public meeting of that kind to advise the people as to what they were to do in regard to holdings in the neighbourhood, the Commissioners were not to be allowed to entertain applications until they had made inquiry as to whether intimidation had been practised or not? This regulation was a most insulting one, and an unworkable one. It seemed to him that if the Commissioners attempted to carry it oat they would be bound to inquire into every expression of public opinion so long as public opinion made itself heard at all. So long as the views of the people were freely heard it would be impossible to carry out any sales at all because the Commissioners would be engaged all their time inquiring into these matters.
    The third regulation absolutely prevented the improvement and enlargement of hoi lings in the first place, and actually prevented the restoration of the evicted tenants in the second place. The first regulation prevented the possibility of the Commissioners getting hold of un tenanted lands. The third regulation said that even when they did get posession of untenanted land they could not divide it up in the way suggested, either for the improvement of holdings or the restoration of evicted tenants.
    Let him read the third regulation—
    "Having regard to the provisions of Sections 2, 4 and 8 of the Act, and of the enactments repealed by the Act, untenanted lands when purchased by the Estates Commissioners, whether they form part of an estate sold or have been acquired under the provisions of Section 8, should be utilised for the enlargement of the uneconomic holdings of agricultural or pastoral tenants, or for providing landa for the persons, or for the purposes described in Sections 2 and 4 of the Act, and not for the purpose of erecting tenancies for the benefit of, or making allotments to, persons other than those described in the last-mentioned sections."

    1423
    The persons described in the last-mentioned sections were of four classes—the tenants on the estate, the sons of tenants on the estate, the evicted tenants, and tenants in the immediate neighbourhood whose holdings were under £5 valuation. Up to the issue of these regulations, if his information was accurate, the Commissioners were endcavouring to do what they could in the way of enlargement of holdings and in the way of the migration of tenants irrespective of these limitations. They were forbidden now to go outside these four classes. What did that mean? He did not know if there was anyone on the other side of the House acquainted with the state of things in the immediate neighbourhood of the congested districts in the West of Ireland, but let him take an example from that part of Galway which was much in the public eye at the present moment, and in respect to which the trial was going on of fifty or sixty peasants on charges of unlawful assembly. He might say, incidentally, that it was a district surrounding the Olanricarde Estate, and consisted of a whole series of great cattle ranches. There were no tenants there, and therefore if the Commissioners got possession of it and evaded regulation number one, they could not deal with it by giving it to tenants. There were no tenants' sons. The evicted tenants who were the third class could never get it as he would show in a I moment when he came to deal with their case under the same circular, and as to the fourth class there were scores of these ranches where there were no such tenants in the immediate neighbourhood, and if the Commissioners succeeded in getting these tracts into their hands under these new regulations they could not use them for the purpose of improving or enlarging holdings.
    He would now deal with Sub-section (a) of the third regulation, which was in the following terms—
    "The Estates Commissioners should only consider the question of providing a holding for a tenant evicted from any holding comprised in an estate upon the sale of that estate, and where there is untenanted land available for such purpose either comprised in an estate, or aquired by the Commissioners under Section 8 of the Act."
    1424
    What did that mean? Before steps could be taken for the restoration of an evicted tenant the estate upon which the evicted holding was must be sold. That put an end to the possibility of the restoration of evicted tenants in Ireland. Take, again, the case of Lord Clanricarde. His hon. friend the Member for East Galway lived in a parish in which there were fifty evicted families living on the roadside, or upon the support given to them by their neighbours. They had been evicted for the last fifteen, eighteen, and some of them twenty years. They were on two estates, Lord Clanricarde's was one, and the other was the Lewis Estate. He thought there was no possibility, so long as these men were alive, of the estates being sold, and although the Commissioners thought they had power and were certainly exercising power of that kind, endeavouring to deal with the evicted tenants, they were now told that unless the estate was sold nothing could be done for those men. That was a most iniquitous regulation. It prevented the working of the evicted tenants' portion of the measure, and for his part he objected to any small amending Act being rushed through the House, without discussion, at the end of the session without the representatives of Ireland being given an opportunity of exposing the state of things.
    He repeated, therefore, what he said the other day in answer to a reply given across the floor of the House by the right hon. Gentleman, that he would oppose, as far as he was concerned, by every means in his power every amending Act to facilitate sale in Ireland where the sale was of comparatively small importance so long as these iniquitous regulations were in force. The real truth of the matter was that so far as the essential portions of the Land Act were concerned they had broken down. He and his colleagues were of opinion that they would never work in the West of Ireland until the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners were invested with compulsory powers to deal with landlords of the type of Lord Clanricarde. There was a strong feeling in some parts of the country that compulsory powers ought to be conceded in regard to the

    1425
    congested portions in the West, and in regard to the problem of the great grazing ranches. He, for one, would not consent to any rushing through of the measure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply he would tell the House when he proposed to introduce the Bill, when he proposed to take the Second Reading, and what time would be offered for the examination and I discussion of the measure.
    *MR. MULDOON*MR. MULDOON (Donegal, N.) said he rose for the purpose of seconding the Amendment that had been, moved. He agreed with the assertion of his hon. and learned friend that in its main features and in its main purposes the Act of 1903 had been a failure, and if its operations proceeded at the same rate of progress as now he was afraid that the Irish land question ten years hence, would be in a far worse condition than; when the Land Act was first passed. He confessed that when the Chief Secretary rose he expected to hear from him some apology for the failure of the Act, which was confessed in the Report recently issued by the Estates Commissioners, He did not think that any Blue-book ever presented to this House within twenty-one months of the passing of an Act contained a more humiliating confession of the failure of British legislation for Ireland.
    There were other causes besides want of money for the non-success of the Act. Not only had the Act been a failure, but every promise, every prospect held out by the Chief Secretary had failed. The, responsibility for that failure, he admitted, was to be found in many causes; but chiefly, he thought, in the action of the Irish Executive themselves in reference to the Estates Commissioners. These Commissioners were gentlemen of great experience in regard to Irish land, and had been entrusted by the House with the exclusive administration of the Act. Notwithstanding that, the first act of the Executive was to issue regulations to them which were not made public, and which affected the main features and legal administration of the Act. Agents for the ligants appeared before the Commissioners to argue a point of
    1426
    law which had already been decided by instructions issued from Dublin Castle. Nevertheless, the farce had to be gone through.
    The first of these cases was the important question under Section 5 of the security for the loan. That was argued before the Commissioners, although the decision had already come from Dublin Castle secretly. He said nothing about the Judicial Commissioner, because he believed that the Irish Executive had not treated him fairly in this matter, but he joined in the tribute which had bean paid to the work but had gone through. When a point of this enormous importance in regard to the security, affecting public interests in Ireland to an enormous extent, came before the Judicial Commissioner the Irish Executive waited for a case in which the solicitor for the landlord and the solicitor for the tenant argued the same proposition of law. In the King-Harman Estate the contention put forward on behalf of the landlords was the same as that put forward by the tenant. The same happened with regard to the Blake Foster Estate. That estate came up for sale under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896, and the price was agreed between the landlord and the tenant at fourteen years purchase. That amounted to £6,000. It did not go through because the Irish Land Commission reported that the security was bad and they refused to advance one penny. Under the Land Act of 1903, Section 1, the landlord and tenant made arrangements for nineteen years purchase and the amount involved was £8,900. The Land Commission, under the powers of Section 1, were asked to do nothing but approve of the advance, for no other reason in the world than that the tenants in that case were" getting, by reason of the lower interest, a reduction of nearly forty per cent. The counsel for the tenants went before the Judicial Commissioner, who was to decide an important point of law which would effect an enormous au Tiber of tenants all over Ireland, asking him to approve of the price. The argument was that the Commission had no jurisdiction, except to express approval under the first Section of the Act. There

    1427
    was another case, in which the Treasury went before the Judicial Commissioner to argue that any money advanced for the improvement of land must come out of the reserve fund. There was no appearance for anybody except the Treasury. That case was argued for the Treasury by Mr. Matheson, and really it amounted to a farce. He had the report, which appeared in a legal paper, The Jurist, which stated that when Mr. Matheson had finished his argument for the Treasury, the judicial tribunal invited him to argue the case for the other side. Then Mr. Matheson proceeded with what he conceived might be argued by the other side, upon which the Judicial Commission said that he was bound to acknowledge that Mr. Matheson had not gone the length of imperilling to any great extent his own argument in behalf of the Treasury, but that he was sure that Mr. Matheson had done all he could. He put it to the House whether decisions on the interpretation of an Act of Parliament of enormous importance and involving great consequences should be taken under circumstances like that. It was not fair to the distinguished gentleman who filled the office of Judicial Commissioner. He put it to the Attorney-General whether it would not be possible to have matters of that kind—questions of abstract law—settled when both parties were represented. He could imagine nothing of more importance to the people of Ireland.
    Almost every promise which had been made from the other side of the House when the Act of 1903 was passing through the House had either failed in operation or had been broken. The failure of the legislation of 1903 could only be measured by the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Dover when the Bill was being passed. On March 25th, 1903, the right hon. Member for Dover said that—
    "Some of the holdings ought not to be sold unless they were increased in size, and in the neighbourhood of estates where there was a congested population this ought to be dealt with."
    Now, the instructions received by the Estates Commissioners from Dublin Castle showed, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Waterford, that that promise would not be carried out. It
    1428
    was the policy of Dublin Castle to prevent it being carried out. Again, on March 25th, 1903, the right hon. Member for Dover said—
    "The agrarian situation in Ireland is to be built up from the bottom, It is our object to enable every occupier to purchase an economic holding capable of maintaining himself and his family in decency and comfort."
    The Estates Commissioners had adopted the system, outlined in their Report, of allowing the landlords to sell their estates block by block, and that rendered it impossible to carry out the promise of the right hon. Member for Dover. The landlord selected town lands where the tenants were under heavy arrears of rent; these town lands were sold and that set a precedent for all the other land. There was no question of congestion; no question of untenanted land; and no means of carrying out the policy outlined by the right hon. Member for Dover when the Act was passed through the House. There might be, in the immediate neighbourhood of that estate, a congested population, but it was not possible to deal with it. Nobody could pretend that there had been any effort to carry out the policy of the Act of 1903. Never had there been a bigger confession of failure than the present condition of things in the West of Ireland. It amounted to a confession on the part of the Executive that it was impossible to carry out their policy under the law as it now stood. The Estates Commissioners were given all the powers of the Congested Districts Board to sell to the tenants economic holdings, and to improve estates, yet no sooner were the Estates Commissioners installed in office than that particular section of the Act was repealed—practically repealed by His Majesty's Treasury.
    With regard to the instructions lately issued by the Executive to the Commissioners, he could only say that, if he expressed exactly what he thought, he would be, called to order, which was a thing he did not at present desire. The instructions said that in every case in which an application of any kind came before the Commissioner the first duty was to go into a roving commission to see if there had been any intimidation. This instruction simply repealed the whole of Section 1 of the

    1429
    Act, because there there was only jurisdiction to approve if the price was within the limits mentioned. It was simply grotesque to suggest that these Commissioners were to go down and inquire in every case whether a threatening letter had been sent. As a result of all this the efforts to relieve the congestion of the West had dwindled down to the purchase of three estates only. A more complete failure could not be conceived, and the Committee would see that, having regard to the present condition of things, and to the acute situation which had arisen in the West of Ireland, it would be necessary for a new Bill to be brought in that the promises of the Act of 1903 might be fulfilled, a Bill which would not leave it in the power of the Cattle or the Treasury to annul or destroy its provisions.
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,315, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. John Redmond)
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.) said it had been stated that the Irish Land Purchase Act was an utter failure. It was a curious thing that failure of the Act in one direction was caused by its success in another. The failure of the Act, as far as he understood, was simply one of money, the great success of the Act was shown by the enormous number of applications, under it to sell estates and to purchase farms. The House must remember that this Act was brought in for the sake of the tenants. The tenants, as the House was aware, were the origin of the land question in Ireland, which had always been the great difficulty in the way of administration. In order to settle that question some way was required to settle the tenants, and the way the Act proposed was that the tenants should become the owners of the land they tilled. He had been accused by hon. Gentlemen opposite of opposing all Land Bills; but he absolutely denied that charge, for he had always supported them. He had always held that Irish tenants I first of all required protection, and that the best solution of the question was to make the tenants the
    1430
    owners of their own land, and so he gave his cordial support to the Land Act. He did not think even Nationalist Members would maintain that a Minister would bring in a Bill involving £112,000,000 merely to back up landlords. The only reason the House passed the Act was because it was supposed to put an end to a hopeless political situation in Ireland. He was sure that if the Land Bill had been introduced to assist Irish landlords it would not have been received with much favour by any part of the House. That being so, he listened to the proposal of the Chief Secretary with great interest, because he looked upon that proposal as directly on the side of the tenants.
    Admittedly there was a deadlock for want of money; how was that money to be provided? His right hon. friend had shown, at any rate, a possible solution. That solution had not met with the approval of Irish landlords. Those landlords contended that the Act promised payment in cash; this proposal proposed two-thirds payment in scrip, and the landlords refused that proposal. He personally was in favour of it. He looked upon it as probably the best offer the landlords would ever get and although undoubtedly at first sight it seamed unsatisfactory to take £92 instead of £100, yet he thought anyone who knew the history of finance would not fail to see that, in all probability, the land stock of the Government would soon be on the rising grade, and those landlords who did not like, and who refused to accept, the issue of stock at £92 would, if they accepted it, probably find that in a few years the stock would have gone up in the direction of par. Therefore, he did not think landlords, if they were wise, would reject this offer, because, undoubtedly, if his hon. friend's scheme were carried, it would to a great extent remove the block which now arrested the purchase of land in Ireland.
    The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford did not hold out much hope that the land question would be settled in the time of the present generation, because he said he intended to oppose any proposal made by any Government which did not deal with the graziers in the West of Ireland, which, of course, meant the same

    1431
    thing as turning out these graziers in order that their grass land might be cut up for the use of their neighbours. He (Colonel Saunderson) did not hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman what he was going to do with these unfortunate graziers after he had turned them out; he had certainly said nothing about compensating them. These poor graziers were apparently to be turned out of their farms on to the roads without any compensation whatever.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: That us not an accurate description of my speech.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON COLONEL SAUNDERSON said it was as accurate as he could give it. At any rate the hon. and learned Member intended to oppose any measure brought forward that did not at the same time include the taking up of grazing lands, and the reinstatement of evicted tenants. Therefore, the settlement of the land question would not depend upon how this Act succeeded, but whether a Bill was introduced at some future period dealing with these two questions. He did not think the present Government were likely to last long enough to bring in any such Bill, and he doubted whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who might form the next Administration would be very anxious to concede legislation of that kind. He thought the hon. and learned Member must have felt that his opposition to this Bill placed him in rather a difficult position, as he must know that a vast number of the Irish tenants were eager and anxious to become possessors of land, and landlords desired to sell, and that everything depended upon whether money was forthcoming or not. That was the question in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member got out of the difficulty by saying that his sympathies were so deeply engaged in the West, among the evicted tenants, that he opposed what would undoubtedly be a very popular measure among all classes until some legislation was brought forward dealing with these two questions.
    The question was—had the Act been a failure in Ireland? They could not expect in two years to produce a great change, but proof that the Act was succeeding was shown by the immense number of applica-
    1432
    tion from both landlord and tenant. No doubt they all hoped that in the future the vast sums of money spent in Ireland would bring about a better state of things. He believed it would. When the tenants were in an independent position under this Act he thought they would probably look askance at a political agitation which up to the present meant cheap land for themselves. What did the House expect? They had been pelting sovereigns at the heads of the Irish tenants for twenty-five years, sowing money. Up to the present what had been the crop? The real crop was that which sat below the gangway. But in the future there was no doubt that the great object with which the Bill was passed two years ago would come to fruition, and Ireland would become a peaceful and prosperous part of the United Kingdom. He hoped this Bill would receive the sanction of the House, He feared there was not much chance, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member, of its passing at this late period of the session. If it did not, the fault would be, not with the Government, but on the shoulders of the hon. and learned Member and his friends who, for reasons of their own, opposed a measure which certainly would facilitate to a very considerable extent the progress of land purchase in Ireland.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL*MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.) reminded the Committee that there was the question of land tenure, which was of some importance, to be considered. The last Report of the Land Commission was issued twelve months ago, and showed that there were 13,082 cases of appeal in fair-rent cases pending on April 1st, 1903. On April 1st, 1904, after the new scheme had come into operation, the number had increased to 13,808. They could, however, get no Report of the Land Commission save when it was fifteen months old. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Chief Secretary could give any information as to the progress made in the appeals in fair-rent cases during the past twelve months. He had recently listened to a debate in another place on this subject of the-new Act and he felt that those who took part in it wanted cash, for themselves

    1433
    and coercion for their tenants. That was the sum and substance of the debate.
    As to the regulations dealing with intimidation he said there ought to be perfect freedom between the vendor and the purchaser. This House refused to grant compulsion upon the landlord—a compulsion they ought to have granted—but being refused there ought to be complete freedom between vendor and purchaser. The purchaser, if he were guilty of intimidation, or so-called intimidation, would be seriously punished under these regulations. He would be wholly deprived of the right of purchase, as the estate would go to the bottom of the list, and might be heard of twelve or fifteen years hence. But how was intimidation on the part of the landlord dealt with? It was not dealt with at all. He could quote communications from tenants in different parts of Ulster stating that they had been compelled to sign agreements giving what they considered to be absolutely unfair prices for the land. The compulsion upon them was that the landlord held the bog which was an absolute necessity of the farmer's life in Ireland, and unless the people paid the price demanded the bog was taken from them. There was no provision in the regulations for dealing with cases of that sort. Alleged intimidation on the part of the tenants was to be inquired into, but there was no proposal for inquiring into such duress on the part of the landlord, which was plentiful all over the province of Ulster. As to the facts, what means had the Estates Commissioners of finding out whether or not there had been intimidation? Were the Irish Office to define intimidation for their benefit? The Chief Secretary would surely not deny that controversy in a district over the price to be paid and the circumstances attending purchase was perfectly legitimate and even necessary. There was an actual case within his knowledge in which arrangements for purchase were going on, and agreements were being signed, when the board of guardians denounced the terms that were, being arranged on the ground that they would prejudice the tenants on other estates in the neighbourhood. He was not sure that that was not perfectly legitimate, but what he wanted
    1434
    to know was whether, in such a case where the neighbourhood might be thrown into a state of excitement for which the tenants were not in any way to blame, would that be counted by the Estates Commissioners as intimidation? Were the tenants to be penalised because of the action of men in the neighbourhood who had no connection whatever with the property? That that was not at all an impossible event was shown by a recent case in Galway, where the tenants were anxious to buy. Lord Ashtown cruelly bought over their heads, and the Judge held that there had been an attempt to boyoott graziers, although he had to admit that the tenants themselves were entirely innocent of it. Was the Chief Secretary going to give any guidance to the Commissioners as to what would constitute intimidation in these cases?
    He held that the landlords in the West of Ireland were entirely to blame for the state of affairs that had arisen under the Act. They had been guilty of a gross breach of faith. These western tenants, many of whom were being prosecuted at Galway Assizes, were told that the Act of 1903 would add to their wretched uneconomic holdings grass lands to make them fit to live on. That was the avowed policy of the Land Act, which was passed as the result of an understanding between the representatives of the landlords and of the tenants. The basis of that understanding was of a two-fold character. The landlords agreed t> sell their property on receiving a fair equivalent for their second-term rents. That was agreed upon at the Land Conference, and ratified by the Landlords' Convention, and it was the principle upon which the Bill became an Act of Parliament. The landlords also agreed to special terms being given to the West of Ireland and to the evicted tenants. Personally he was anxious to get rid of landlords anywhere. He did not take part in the Land Conference or the debate upon this question of the West of Ireland, because he was anxious to abolish landlordism everywhere. The agreement was that whilst it was a good thing to get rid of landlordism there were special circumstances connected with the West of Ireland that made the necessity for dealing with the problem there urgent.

    1435
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover made promises with regard to the West of Ireland, and the Irish landlords got £12,000,000 as a bonus—which meant a gift—to induce them to accept the Land Act. What had happened? In the county of Galway there were great grass holdings and crowds of cotter tenants. When the Land Act was passed these cotters were told that they would get their holdings enlarged by the sale of these grass lands. The late Chief Secretary said that was his main purpose, and why should these poor suffering cotter tenants not think that the House would be as good as its word? It was absolutely wrong that these people should have sent threatening letters to graziers, but it should not be forgotten that these people had a right to expect that the landlords, having got £12,000,000 of public money in excess of the proper price of their land, would have stood to their part of the bargain. That policy had not been carried out, and the Chief Secretary had actually issued regulations that strangled and throttled the Act itself.
    What were the landlords in the West of Ireland doing? Were they content with the equivalent for their second-term net income? Why, they were refusing to sell either to the Congested Districts Board or to the Estates Commission. Because if they did so they knew their land would be inspected by expert valuers, and they would get just the value of their land and no more. These landlords would not sell to the Land Commission, because they could make far better terms with the wretched tenants laden with arrears of rent and the bog they could take from them, and they could get any price they liked from these wretched people. Consequently they preferred direct sales and they were getting under the zones an equivalent to the prices paid for the best land in Antrim and Down. These landlords were now absolutely refusing to carry out their part of the bargain, and they were actually selling their wretched bogs and swamps—some of which were floating away—in the West of Ireland to the State at a fancy price. With regard to the grass lands, by which alone
    1436
    the policy of the Land Act could be carried out and the holdings made economic, the moment they were applied for by the tenants the landlords were up in arms and declined to sell. It was wrong for these tenants to send threatening letters, but it was much worse for the Government to make a set of regulations which practically repealed the Act in many important particulars.
    With regard to the Land Judge's Court, what did the Chief Secretary mean by the first regulation? He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman so much, because it was impossible that the ablest Englishman could learn the lesson of Irish needs during three months experience of Ireland. He did, however, blame those who advised the right hon. Gentleman. Here they had applications of a direct character for £30,000,000, and the Estates Commissioners were instructed to time their applications to the Land Judge so as not to interfere with the priority of applications. If this was not really so serious it would be absolutely comic. The Estates Commissioners must buy when they got the chance in the Land Judge's Court. The Land Judge did not suit himself to their necessities. How could they time the application when the Land Judge sat every Thursday for the purpose of disposing of these estates. When they had not the money to come in and purchase them when they were exposed for sale, how were they ever to get them? Did the Chief Secretary know that the session before last the House passed a Resolution, with the consent of the Government, to wind up that Court? He did not know whether it was seriously passed or not. Probably the breakdown gang did not arrive in time. A division was imminent, and all the well-known Gentlemen who took part in such operations had said their say. At any rate, a Resolution was passed with the consent of the Chief Secretary. Now let him ask the Chief Secretary how could the: Land Judge wind up his Court if he was fettered with a regulation like that, and if they prevented the Estates Commissioners from going into the Court and purchasing the estates that were for sale. They were going in the teeth of a Resolution of the

    1437
    House by these regulations. They were wiping out every promise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover made with regard to the poor tenants of the West of Ireland and with regard to the Land Judge's Court.
    He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that nothing could have been simpler, when they raised a loan of £5,000,000, to apply £3,000,000 or £3,500,000 to direct sales, to give Judge Ross £500,000 or £600,000, and devote the rest to the uneconomic holdings of the West of Ireland. There was some spite to the Member for Dover in it. He went too far to please the Irish landlords. His work must be undone, and his speeches rubbed off the slate, and the slate made clean. This was really what was being done, and nothing else.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member must not impute a motive of that kind. Whatever view we take of the administration of the Act it is difficult enough without imputations of that kind.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL*MR. T. W. RUSSELL said the right hon. Gentleman might say what he liked. He knew what was going on in Dublin. He knew that there was a conspiracy to undo the philanthropic part of the Act. Take the case of the evicted tenants, they had only to read the regulations to see that it would be impossible to carry out the intentions of the Act. The regulation hindered the evicted tenant from being reinstated until the estate was sold, and it effectually prevented his migration to other parts of the country.
    There was another regulation to which no one had yet referred. He thought it the most interesting of all, and he should like to know its history. There were three Estates Commissioners. When a question of law was referred by the Estates Commissioners to the Judicial Commissioner in the event of any Estates Commissioner dissenting from the form of the reference agreed to by the majority, the dissenting Commissioner was to furnish the Judicial Commissioner with a note
    1438
    setting forth his reasons for dissenting. What did that mean? They might have called it the Wrench regulation. He had no feeling against Mr. Wrench. He was one of the few Members in the House who said a good word for Mr. Wrench when he was appointed under the Act of 1903. The hon. Member said he would be obliged to the Chief Secretary if he would produce anything like that in any Court in the world. The judgment of a Court was its judgment. Why should the judgment of the dissenting minority be sent up to the revising Court. The case ought to go to the Judicial Commissioner—let him decide it. Mr. Wrench was to be able to send up his opinion on a point of law to the Judicial Commissioner. What value was his opinion on a point of a law? It showed the spirit in which the whole code had been drawn.
    He was not going to take any position on the financial proposal made by the Chief Secretary, save to say that he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford in objecting to legislation regarding Irish affairs being brought in in the month of August, when nobody was in the House, and rushed through without discussion. He would be no party to that, no matter how small the Bill was. But was the case quite so bad as the Chief Secretary made out from the landlords' standpoint? What were the facts? When an estate was sold the landlord got 3½ per cent. or 3¾ per cent, or even 4 per cent., for the tendency was upwards now, on the purchase money until the vesting order was issued and the purchase was concluded. He ventured to say that 3½ or per cent on the purchase money was pretty nearly equal, not to his rental, but to the rent which he actually received. Therefore why the hurry for the landlord? He could have understood the hurry for the tenants, but they had never been, referred to that day. It was all in favour of the landlord. The tenant was delayed in getting the vesting order. Those years did not count as the years of purchase. He could see there was a great grievance of the tenants, but he did not see the grievance of the landlords. Did the right hon. Gentleman, tell him that Members of the House of

    1439
    Lords flocked there in order to remedy tenants' grievance?
    MR. WALTER LONG: In making my statement I endeavoured as clearly as I could to show that I did not refer to the tenants' aspect of the case, because the adoption of my suggestion would be to their benefit.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL*MR. T. W. RUSSELL said the landlords might accept or refuse the right hon. Gentleman's offer. The Bill embodying it might be opposed or passed without discussion. The grievance was largely a tenants' grievance, because the vesting order did not issue until the sale was complete. The Chief Secretary had been bound to admit that all the pressure he had received came from the landlords and not from the tenants on this matter. The Chief Secretary had got an immense number of applications, butneitherthestaff nor the buildings were adequate to deal with them. There was nothing worse in the public offices than the buildings in which these men carried out this great work which meant a revolution in land tenure in Ireland. Only £5,000,000 sterling of the £11,000,000 voted had been disbursed. Why was not the rest paid away? Simply because the clerical staff was insufficient for the work. There was no use getting more money if it was to be hung up as it now was. The first necessity was to get a capable and competent staff to carry out the work.
    He had not the slightest hesitation in telling the Chief Secretary that in the twenty years he had had to do with political work and land agitation in Ireland, nothing more—he was going to say infamous—but nothing worse than these regulations had issued from Dublin Castle. They had been drawn up by men whom the Chief Secretary did not know now but would know by-and-by, by men who never approved of the Land Act and never believed in the late Chief Secretary. They were drawn for the purpose, not of forbidding direct sales, where the Irish landlord would get cash down, but of preventing the philanthropic work in the West of Ireland over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover almost shed tears in that House. The Chief Secretary and
    1440
    those members of the Government who probably desired to see this work carried through were in the hands of far more crafty and worse men than themselves, men who wished to stop all reform, to prevent people getting the chance and of a decent living. The tenants were all in a hurry to buy. He told them there that night that there was no hurry. There was no freehold of the Treasury Bench; there was no freehold of Dublin Castle, and he could conceive no Government worthy of the name succeeding the present Government who would not wipe these regulations out from first to last.
    MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.) said he associated himself with the protest which the hon. Member for Waterford had made. He was not acquainted with the details, and therefore he would not discuss the matter further. He took great interest in the suggestion which the Chief Secretary had made with regard to the expediting of purchase which was going on in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had been accused of making the suggestion solely in the interest of the landlords. The Chief Secretary had indicated that if something was not done there would be a tendency for the legislation of 1903 to come to a standstill altogether owing to the block in Dublin, and he had indicated to the House that, in the interest of all concerned in Ireland, it would be a good thing if the proceedings could be expedited. He, himself, had ventured to suggest months ago that perhaps something could be done to facilitate matters in Ireland on the lines of the London Water Bill. Although the scheme now submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman differed from that adopted by him in buying out the London water companies, it was one to which it was well worth while to give a little attention, because something would have to be done soon if the position in Ireland was not to become perfectly farcical. There was no reason why a bargain to purchase should be prolonged for twenty years. A transaction to buy an estate should be completed as soon as practicable, and therefore provision must be made to complete the transaction in two,

    1441
    three, or four years, instead of a period akin to a quarter of a century. The Committee, therefore, should look at the suggestions of the Chief Secretary from that point of view.
    In making the contrast between the purchase of the water companies and the present scheme, he showed that both proposals entitled the vendors to obtain cash if they wished. There was the difficulty, however, to raise the loan out of which the vendors of the water companies had to be paid, and the idea, of the right hon. Gentleman was to offer these vendors stock at the price at which it could be sold on the market. Water stock, therefore, instead of being a drug in the market, went up in price, and it could be sold advantageously, within a few weeks or months when cash was needed. The money market was satisfied with it, and the whole thing went off exceedingly well. The cost of the investment was saved by that transaction, and a very wise and most successful financial operation was carried through. The right hon. Gentleman now made a very small suggestion to the Irish landlords to facilitate the work over there; but that suggestion was entirely different from what was offered to the vendors of the water companies stock in London. The right hon. Gentleman offered the stock at par; but if stock were offered at par, which was only worth 92 in the open market at the present moment, not much facilitation would be given to land purchase.
    Now, it was not in anybody's interest that land purchase in Ireland should be hung up. The settlement of the land question in the West of Ireland could only be achieved by making the purchases more rapidly. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any necessity to put in any amending Bill a provision in regard to the price at which the stock was to be offered to the landlord. Probably the right hon. Gentleman bad been led to offer the stock at par because of the necessity to see how much stock the landlords would have to get so as to have a fixed and definite price. That might be all very well if the price of the stock was at 96 or 97; but seeing that it was only at 92, with no reasonable
    1442
    certainty that it would get higher soon, he thought the difference was too big to make the scheme successful. The right hon. Gentleman might agree to declare, from time to time, a price between the two figures. That might go some way to meet the difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman, under Treasury Order, took power to declare the price at which the stock would be issued, that might help the landlords over the gap, and prove a great facility in making laid sales.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.) said he did not know that he quite understood the somewhat tedious argument of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. It seemed to him that it amounted to the landlord taking a franc for a shilling. He hoped that the attitude of the Irish Members would not be misunderstood; and, to borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, he trusted that the philanthropic portion of this Act would not be lost sight of. They viewed with something more than alarm—with heartbreaking anxiety—the fact which stood out with deplorable plainness, that while, large transactions were taking place between landlord and tenant where the question was less acute, the Act of 1903 was practically a failure in the congested districts and those parts associated with the evicted tenants. Surely that was a most serious matter. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh seemed to think that the Nationalist Members looked upon the Act with hostility. That was not the case; but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman forgot that some of the most important questions connected with the Act of 1903 related to the congested districts and to the evicted tenants. These were the most important questions in Ireland at the present moment. The Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland could not controvert the fact that there would have been no possibility of the Act of 1903 passing through Parliament—certainly not with the approval of the Irish representatives—had it not been for the provisions in the Bill relating to the congested districts and the evicted tenants.
    He thought that at this time of day it was most unjust to misconstrue the action

    1443
    of the Irish Members of all classes in regard to the Act of 1903. There was a unanimous desire, on both sides of the House, to work out a solution of the land question. There was no arrüre pensée in regard to that. But, after nearly two rears administration of the Act, when they found that the most pressing grievances in relation to the whole land question, especially in the West of Ireland, were being put aside, and that the Act was not operative, they were justified in expressing their opinion, thereon. The Irish Party would be no consenting party to an amending Act which touched only one portion of the problem, and left the larger problem outside. He would be very glad to see some scheme of financial reform by which the transactions of land sale and purchase could be facilitated, but not at the cost of the evicted tenants or any other section of the Irish population for whom they had pleaded year after year and for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had pleaded with feeling and power in that House. It seemed as if the present Chief Secretary and his advisers were anxious to wipe the speeches and promises of the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Dover off the slate. It looked uncommonly as if that was the wish of the officials in Dublin Castle.
    It had been said more than once that more depended for good government en administration than on legislation; and that was true in regard to the Act of 1903. They on the Irish Benches were anxious to know what was the explanation of the policy of concealment in regard to the rules and regulations issued by the Irish Executive 10 the Estate Commissioners and to which the Estates Commissioners referred in their Report. He understood that all instructions of that kind, dealing with principles and vital details, would be communicated to this House. Why were the regulations of 1904 cinceuled, and why had the Irish Members had no opportunity of seeing them? He was firmly persuaded that these regulations of 1904 were issued at the psychological moment. The great argument in favour of the zone system was that it dispensed with the inspection which was at once a pro-
    1444
    tection for the tenant and also to the ratepayers. But with regard to the non-judicial holdings that was not so. A fair rent had not been fixed, and accordingly inspectors were required to inquire into the security for the holding and as to the equity of the price to all parties concerned. The interim Report showed quite clearly that some subtlemend had been at work in. Dublin Castle to prevent the Act being carried out as it was intended. Whoever had taken that responsibility, there could be no doubt there was a wide difference between the instructions given to the Commissioners and the directions given in the Act. Directions were given to the Estates Commissioners as to how this Act was to be worked, and, those directions coming from the Executive Government, the Executive Government and the Chief Secretary were responsible.
    One very important fact in regard to the instructions recently issued was that by those instructions the Estates Commissioners felt themselves coerced into accepting whatever price the Land Judge's Court fixed under the 40th Section. The Estates Commissioners should not be coerced in that way. If in the exercise of their discretion they said the tenant should not give more than a certain price for the land there was delay, and through the Land Judge's Court pressure was put upon them to give more than the value of the land. The paragraph in the instructions with regard to intimidation was the most curious paragraph that could ever have appeared in a State document. How were the inspectors to judge what was intimidation? Everyone knew how easy it was to bring a charge of intimidation against anyone, and how hard it was to rebut. Who was to define what was intimidation and what was not? The smallest boy in a school could draw a skull and crossbones, and half print in ink words of a threatening character. Would such a thing as that be interpreted as intimidation? In a case where there had been intimidation, the estate, when it came into the hands of the Estates Commissioners was to be put at the bottom of the list of those estates which were to be dealt with. Anything more cruel

    1445
    could not be conceived. Let them suppose a case of an estate on which one tenant was so disgusted that he wrote an intimidating letter to his landlord. Were all the other tenants on that estate, because of the act of this one man, to be denied their rights for four or five years for the reason that the estate had been intimidated?
    He would also like to know the meaning of Sub-section (a) Regulation 3, with regard to the evicted tenants. He had always been led to understand that the most criminal of all the classes of tenantry were those who entered into a combination to intimidate, but he found now that if only one person intimidated an estate all the rest of the tenants were to suffer with him. Prom the regulations it appeared that those who had taken part in a general rent dispute might be considered, while evicted tenants who through the caprice of rackrenting landlords had been driven out were not to be considered at all. What justification was there for the issue of these regulations to the Estates Commissioners to restrain and confine their action; and how was it there was no opportunity for discussing the former instructions of February, 1904? There seemed to be some sinister underhand operations at work. The Act was passed two years ago with the blessings of all Parties. All classes in Ireland welcomed the Act in the hope that is would settle the land question. That hope had been cruelly blasted; the promises made by the Government had not been kept, for as soon as a body of men had been appointed to carry out the Act fairly and equitably they were hampered in this way, and the old sinister influences of Dublin Castle prevailed.
    MR. MURPHY MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.) said it, appeared to be useless to argue under present conditions. Enough arguments had been brought forward to convince any man who had any desire or inclination to be convinced, and no defence whatever of the present state of affairs, had been attempted except by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh. The administration of the Land Act was directed wholly for the benefit of the landlords, while the interests of the tenants and the future of
    1446
    the Irish nation were left entirely out of consideration. The Chief Secretary confessedly knew nothing whatever about the-country, an I it was extremely difficult to get from him a straight Answer to any straight Question in connection with the administration of the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman depended for his technical and local knowledge upon the Attorney - General, and he could not depend upon a more objectionable and unreliable source, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman never hesitated to take his stand by the side of the minority and the landlords, as against every other interest. The only consolation was that the time was coming when the Attorney-General and his friends and relatives would no longer be the rulers of the country, or the makers of new regulations under the Land Act.
    During the passage of the Land Bill in 1903 he was explicitly informed that the Estates Commissioners would have power to deal with a farm from which a tenant had been evicted as a separate estate. In county Kerry, although there had been rent disputes on a Urge scale, and the relations between landlord and tenant had been extremely strained, yet the plan of campaign was not adopted, except, perhaps, in one case. Nevertheless, there were in the county no less than 411 evicted tenants, and nothing whatever had been done for them by the Estates Commissioners with a view to reinstating them in their former holdings. He instanced two cases in which the landlords had shown their willingness to do their part, but, in spite of repeated application, no assistance whatever could be obtained from the Estates Commissioners, although a little assistance now would mean all the difference between prosperity and ruin to the men. He had no objection to evicted tenants in other parts of Ireland being well treated; Irish Members had no limit to their constituencies in this matter; but he did complain when there were so many as 411 in one county that nothing whatever should have been done, in spite of all the hopes that were held out in connection with the Land Act. He strongly held that the Estates Commissioners had been dilatory in the performance of their duty. Another matter of which he complained was that instructions

    1447
    should have been issued under which, to give a particular instance, the Commissioners were compelled to pay £571 for an estate which they themselves said was worth only £400. That such a condition of things should prevail was a disgrace. The question deeply concerned the future of the Irish people, because any losses that might arise from the maladministration of the Land Act would have to be paid for out of Irish resources and would be a burden on the Irish nation in the future.
    He submitted it was time the Chief Secretary discarded the advice, instructions, and prejudices of Gentlemen like the Attorney-General, and tried to get to the bottom of the Irish question. These instructions ought to be withdrawn and the Estates Commissioners given an opportunity of dealing in a judicial and impartial manner between the different classes in Ireland. It was necessary to protest very vigorously and constantly in that House because they could not expect English Members to listen to their arguments, for they believed their grievances were of a local character. The only remedy was to leave the Irish people to settle their own business according to their own methods. They could not expect the Chief Secretary, belonging as he did to a Party hostile to the Irish people, and allied with the Irish landlords, to grasp all the facts of the Irish claim. The Chief Secretary had told them that his Bill was based upon information from Irish officials, who were generally either Englishmen or anti-Irishmen, who could only obtain their official positions by betraying their country. He had concluded that it was impossible to convince this House by argument, and Ireland's only opportunity would come out of England s difficulty. Probably that opportunity would soon arrive in the case of the present Government. Tin Land Act was not in itself bad but, like many other Acts, it was the administration of it that made it a curs, and in the county of Kerry, at any rate as far as the evicted tenants were concerned, the administration of the Land Act had been more of a curse than a blessing.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.) said he wished to explain his own
    1448
    position in regard to this measure. He did not agree with the Landlords' Convention with whom he usually acted upon this matter, and although he preferred the scheme suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, he presumed that scheme was impossible for some reason unknown to him. With regard to the scheme put forward by the Chief Secretary, being perfectly voluntary it was one which would tend to reduce the difficulty of the land problem, and although a considerable number of landlords would not for various reasons accept those terms find take two-thirds in stock, there would be a considerable body who would. Some would prefer those payments in order to have their claims settled. He thought that the sum which would be cleared off immediately by that means would be £30;000,000. They had already cleared off, or would shortly clear off, £15,000,000, so that £45,000,000 out of the £100,000,000 would be accounted for. Unquestionably in that case it could not be said that the Act had not worked. There was no doubt that the Act had been a remarkable success in regard to the number of persons who had come in to buy. At the present t time they did not want to flood the market by issuing any more stock than would be required. His right hon. friend appeared to think that the Leader of the Irish Party had avowed his hostility to this scheme, but he understood the hon. and learned Member to say that sill he desired was an opportunity for a full discussion, and he did not think that he went as far as hostility to this proposal. He wished to express his own approval of the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.) said he did not intend to discuss the Chief Secretary's proposal now. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that, this proposition should have been introduced earlier in the session. The Act of 1903 had been an absolute failure, because the price charged under that Act had far exceeded, in almost every case by 33 per cent., and in some: cases by 50 per cent., the price charged under the Ashbourne Acts. In his own

    1449
    county the Act had brought no appreciable relief, because, inevitably, the landlord would screw the difference out of the tenant. The tenant would be called upon under this scheme to pay the difference between £92 and £100, and not the landlord at all. At the present time there was general dissatisfaction existing amongst the tenants, and more especially amongst the evicted tenants. In Longford something like eighty-six claims had been lodged and sixteen properties had been sold. To prove the absolute failure of this Act as far as the evicted tenants were concerned, he only needed to mention that in regard to the properties he had mentioned only three out of eighty-six were connected with evicted tenants. He had repeatedly asked if nothing could be done to restore these evicted tenants or find equivalent holdings for them elsewhere. There were a number of patches of untananted grazing land which by the consent of all parties could be acquired for the purpose of providing equivalent holdings for the evicted tenants if a little trouble were taken. If the land was placed in the hands of the Commissioners they would probably then take some steps to acquire it, but they would not go out of their way or take the smallest trouble to search out some equivalent holdings which could easily be pointed out, and which could be acquired at a fair price if proper instructions were given.
    Was there any serious intention of giving effect to the promises and pledges of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland as regarded these evicted tenants? So long as they left this question unsettled, and allowed the tenants to see side by side with their miserable hovels and cabins large areas of green grazing land in the occupation of graziers who had no legal title, how could they have peace in Ireland, or how could they expect the land question to be settled between landlord and tenant? So long as the Chief Secretary only took care of the big landlords, and neglect d the interests of the poor and suffering, so long would there be discontent. There was a gentleman, one of the Judicial Commissioners for hearing appeals, who knew as much about the value of land as he himself knew of what was going on in the moon. He took his cue from the
    1450
    assessor who sat with him. The assessor was a land agent whose interest was not to give the tenants lower rents. He knew of a recent case in which there was an appeal both by the landlord and the tenant and where the assessor actually doubled the rent which was fixed by the Sub Commissioner in the county of Longford. What training had this gentleman for the position which he occupied and which enabled him when dealing with an appeal to make such a differentiation of rent from that fixed by the Sub-Commissioner.
    An extraordinary thing about the appeal department of the Land Commission was the delay which took place. It took three years, sometimes five years, to get an appeal through, although there were two legal gentlemen connected with the department. He hoped that some attention would be given by the right hon. Gentleman to the question of the sittings of the Appeal Commission. It was an intolerable thing that tenants had to continue paying the old rents for two or three years while waiting the pleasure of Justice Meredith or Justice Fitzgerald to go down to the county town to hear a batch of appeals. Those Judges took three or four months holiday during the long vacation. It would tend a great deal more to the success of the working of the Act if they gave at least half of that time to the disposal of appeals. He entirely associated himself with everything that had been said by the Leader of the Irish Party and the-other Nationalist Members who had spoken. They had put before the right hon. Gentleman what was the true solution of the land question. They could tell him that so long a3 he took advice from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House rather than from the Irish representatives on this side, there was no-hope of his settling the land question.
    MR. BOLAND MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.)said he knew of cases in county Kerry where there were evicted tenants who should have been reinstated, but, as the estate from which they had been evicted had not been offered for sale, this had not been practicable. Small properties might have been acquired, however, on which the Estates Commissioners could have given

    1451
    them holdings, and he thought if the powers of the Commissioners could be broadened a little to enable them to acquire land a short distance away from the estate where the evictions took place, a great deal of the difficulty as regarded evicted tenants could be got over. Much had been said since the Land Act had been in operation as to the desire of the landlords to meet the tenants fairly in any negotiations which took place. He would give the House an example of what occurred in a well-known part of Kerry as illustrating the ridiculous demands made by agents of the landlords. In Greenbeigh the agent acting on behalf of the landlord, in his presence, had the audacity to ask for twenty-four years purchase for the holdings of the tenants. But in the course of six or seven weeks he was prepared to negotiate on the basis of twenty years purchase and he was hopeful, now that the tenants were an organised body treating directly, that in a very short time they would be able to purchase their holdings on reasonable terms. It was said that the tenants went in for intimidation, but he contended that a landlord and agent who could come down in their price to the extent of four years purchase in five or six weeks should be taken at their own valuation.
    The Land Act had also worked unfairly in another part of his constituency. He referred to the Warden Estate, near Sneem, which had been a by-word throughout the whole of Ireland. There were about twenty-six evicted tenants on that estate, and it was arranged that they should be restored to their holdings, but so far as he knew in not a single case had this been done. He had been informed that one of the reasons why the Warden Estate had not passed into the possession of the tenants was that there was not a sufficient staff to carry out the proposed improvements. He thought in a district like South Kerry, where there were no large grazing tracts, where very often the estates had to be settled as they were, and where the sale had to be carried through without the possibility of actually enlarging the holdings, there was no reason why there should be such an extraordinary delay as had taken place on the Warden Estate. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that the Estates
    1452
    Commissioners sent down men to carry out the necessary improvements on that estate so that the evicted tenants might be restored to their holdings.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.) expressed the hope that when the right hon. Gentleman cams to explain what inspired him to issue the instructions he would deal with the question of intimidation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House why, in dealing with intimidation, he had confined himself absolutely to the cases of tenants and taken no steps to deal with cases of intimidation on the part of landlords. He had seen in the north of the county of Mayo, perhaps one of the most impoverished parts of Ireland, the cruelties which resulted from the exacting system of ruthless landlords, who demanded the exorbitant price of twenty-two years purchase for bog land. When the tenants refused to satisfy such an exorbitant demand, notices of ejectment were served, in some cases merely for the hanging gale—simply because there were six or twelve months rent due. He asked the Attorney-General why there was one law for the landlords and another for the tenants. They had been told by the Chief Secretary that public meetings of tenants called for the purpose of riveting attention on the evils under which the tenants suffered amounted to intimidation.
    He was interested and amazed at the speech delivered by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who stated that the Land Act of 1903 was an Act purely the interest of the tenants. He did not know whether the right hon. and gallant Member had ever heard of the proposed sale of be Moore Estate in Antrim. It was offered five years ago for twenty years purchase. The tenants refused to buy the and because it was too dear. The spokesman of the tenants was a Protestant minister. Since the Land Act was passed the hon. and learned Member who owned the estate had asked twenty-eight yea s purchase and had got it. Of course, all this splendid arrangement was in the interest of the tenants, and not of the landlord. When, in the face of such a transaction as that, the right hon. and gallant Member said that the Land Act of

    1453
    1903 was in the interest of the tenants, he only showed how little he thought of the intelligence of the British Members. The Land Act of 1903 would never have been accepted by the Irish Members and the people of Ireland as a solution of the difficulty unless it had dealt with two vital matters, namely, the restoration of the evicted tenants and the question of the congested districts in the West of Ireland. The Act had been a perfect farce so far as these two things were concerned. The Act had been used by the landlords of Ireland for the purpose of extracting exorbitant terms out of the tenants. The tenants' representatives in that House accepted the scheme by which the landlords got a bonus of £12,000,000, not because they believed the landlords were entitled to it, but because they believed that no sacrifice could be too great to stay the opposition of a class who had ground down the best peasantry in the world, and made it impossible for them to eke out an existence in their mountain homes. The habitations of the people in some parts of Ireland were not fit for dogs.
    The strong Chief Secretary who was to make law and order respected in Ireland had told them that day that intimidation was on the increase. If, so why was it? The people of Ireland relied upon the promises of the Government. They depended on the so-called spirit of conciliation, and because once again Ireland had listened to the promises of British statesmen, which had not been kept, Ireland had had to return to the trade-union methods carried on in England. They had been forced to realise that it was only by the strength of a banded people against the strength of a band of robbers that they could obtain anything like their rights. The right hon. Gentleman had been long enough in Parliament to know that every measure of land reform or material progress which had been passed for Ireland had been extracted almost at the point of the bayonet by a courageous people fighting for the right to live on their native soil. This Bill was passed two years ago, and the British Parliament gave the Irish landlords a bonus of £12,000,000 to sell their lands to the tenants. They were also to get three years more purchase than under the Ashbourne Act, and yet they were not
    1454
    satisfied. The Nationalist Members were contending for the rights and the livelihood of the agricultural population of the country. They saw 30,000 of the beet brawn and brain leaving Ireland every year and going across to America. They saw these men and their children growing up with a hatred of England. Look at the great grazing lands in the West where the growth in the number of cattle went side by side with a decrease in the population by emigration, while those that were left were in the most deplorable condition. It was all very well for the Chief Secretary, with skilful dialectic, to talk of the increase of intimidation. There would be intimidation if there was not justice. The powers of organisation of the people would be biought into play; and if the right hon. Gentlemen the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General could find no better method of dealing with Ireland than by issuing instructions to block the Town Tenants' Bill, they might find something more to do in the coming winter in dealing with an incensed people.
    MR. COGHILL MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent) said that all would remember the promises held out to the House on the passage of the Land Act in 1903. Universal peace was to descend upon the whole of Ireland, He ventured to gay at the time that he did not think the truce would last long. He had not had to wait long for the fulfilment of that prediction. He reminded hon. Members of what had been done by the Government as far as the British taxpayer was concerned. They had given the Irish nation a gift of £12,000,000. What had been given in return I Absolutely nothing. The only thing they had got was a shilling income-tax last year, a shilling income-tax this year, and the prospect of a shilling income-tax for some time to come. This was greatly owing to the Land Act so recklessly passed two years ago. He thought they had a right to be disappointed with the result. He did not know what the present Chief Secretary was going to do, but he hoped that any concessions he might make would not take the form of allowing any more public money to be used for the purposes of this Act. His own view was, and always had been, that no matter how much

    1455
    money they might give for the purpose of land purchase in Ireland, that money would be absolutely and entirely wasted. They might go on throwing money into the sea; Parliament might pass Land Act after Land Act, but no final and complete solution of the Irish land question would ever be arrived at. He did not think they had had satisfactory results from the Act so far, and if ever he had wanted any justification for the course taken in opposing the Second Reading he found it in the frequent debates in that House with regard to the working of the Act.
    SIR ERNEST FLOWER SIR ERNEST FLOWER (Bradford, W.) said that the hon. Member for Stoke alleged that the Land Act had been a failure. How could anyone call an Act a failure which had resulted in so many agreements having been concluded between landlord and tenant—a number which had absolutely surpassed the expectation of its promoters? He admitted, and he thought anyone who knew Ireland would admit, that the final settlement of the Irish land question must be a long process. They could not hope to do it in two years time; but surely up to the present a great deal had been achieved in this direction. Irish Members who indulged in flights of rhetoric and eloquence were carried away further than they perhaps expected. Evictions were not so cruel as they had been in the past. The general condition of Ireland was extremely good, and there was a general readiness on the part of landlords and tenants to come together under the terms provided by the Land Act. So long however, as the block in the Land Court prevailed, the continued smooth working of the Act was out of the question. Landlords and tenants could not come to a purchase agreement with the prospect of a long series of years before the tenant could enter into possession and the landlord get his money. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that some machinery should be devised to accelerate purchase and to facilitate the working of the Act.
    He himself thought that the plan of the Chief Secretary was the very best that in the circumstances could be suggested. He was a landlord who had come to an
    1456
    agreement with his tenants which had met with approbation on both sides; but why should he wait indefinitely for his money? The right hon. Gentleman had said that an increase of the floating debt; could not be contemplated, and that in the present state of the finances not more than £5,000,000 could be got each year for purchase. The right hon. Gentleman then came along with an offer of stock, and the landlord, instead of getting £100 in money, would only get stock worth £92, which was a loss of 8 per cent. To a great many landlords whose margin between solvency and insolvency was very slight, there might be some difficulty about that. It was only fair to say that though the convention of Irish landlords was antagonistic to the proposal of the Chief Secretary, he believed, none the less, that the; scheme, would find a large measure of acceptance among Irish landlords: generally. The experiment, at all events, was worth a trial; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Stoke would not so coldly despair of the Irish land question being solved in the future. He himself believed that it was in the course of being solved, although slowly.
    MR. LUNDON MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.) said in contributing his quota to the debate before the House he did not intend to trouble the House with a speech of long duration. However, so many and such varying and conflicting interests came within the scope of the Amendment that, although disposed to be brief, he might yet have to speak at some length. From time to time within the past few months the Irish Members had pressed for some explanation from the Government on the nature of the instructions given by them to the Estates Commissioners for the discharge of their public duties in connection with the Land Purchase Act of 1903. Those instructions were at one time said to be confidential, at another time of a verbal character, but, finally, under the authority of His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant, they had been published, but did not appeal to them as likely to inspire much confidence in their spirit of fair play or impartiality. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, with

    1457
    his usual acumen and ability, had analysed and dissected them.
    The Act of 1903 was hailed all around as a great legislative enactment and one calculated in Ireland as likely to heal up old sores and if properly and fairly worked by its administrators to go very far in settling the great land problem. The Irish Members, overconfident in the good faith of the landlord party, boomed it much beyond its worth. He confessed that, although a humble Member of the rank and file of the Irish Party, his views in regard to it were by no means optimistic. He always bore in mind that classical saying, Timeo Danaos et dora ferentes, and he held that subsequent events bore out his forebodings. Surely, on the face of it, it looked a big thing for the Government to be prepared to advance £112,000,000 of money wherewith to pay off landlords for their land and to give the Irish tenants sixty-eight and a-half years for the repayment of the money to the Treasury. But that was the best feature of the Act. Everything solid, substantial, and unchangeable was on the side of the landlord; the conditions under which the tenant could obtain fulfilment of his side of the bargain were fluctuating, undecided, hard-shipping, and oppressive. The £5,000,000 per year were mainly devoted to the direct sales as between landlord and tenant on the good lands on which tenants were mainly solvent, and scarcely a tithe of the annual sum advanced was available for the most pressing needs of the situation; that was the acquisition through the Estates Commissioners of money wherewith to purchase the untenanted anches in Connaught and elsewhere whereon to plant the soldiers of the land war, the evicted tenants, the struggling labourers, and the poor occupiers of uneconomic holdings.
    According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary about £28,000,000 worth of land had been arranged for since the passing of the Act to be transferred from landlord to tenant. The amount necessary to cope with that state of things was not forthcoming from the Treasury nor scarcely one-third of it, but the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to
    1458
    meet the crisis by a short Bill paying off vendors in scrip presumably 8 per cent, below par, but if he knew landlords rightly, they would make sure of bringing the value of their sales to par by putting on the screw through the arrears due, and the mad craze for purchase which had seized the tenants, particularly in Leinster and the North of Ireland, where there was no public opinion to guide them. In the Land Act of 1903 the landlord had all the advantages, the tenant scarcely any. Under the Ashbourne Act and the Act of 1891 the average prices were seventeen and a-half or eighteen years purchase, but now, favoured as he was by the zone system, and secured from diminution of price by the doing away of the inspection of holdings, the landlord could exact a price fully 30 per cent, over the Ashbourne standard with that nice penny called the bonus thrown in for a solatium. Where was the benefit to the tenant of the purchase money being advanced at 3 instead of 4 per cent, interest when it all turned over into the pocket of the landlord, and where were those decadal reductions foreshadowed in that precious document the Conference Report? He would set down the Irish landlords into three classes, the big important men who loved to be landlords and to have serfs under them for all time; the-middle class landlords, many of whom were desirous of selling for purposes best known to themselves; and those of them whose estates were mortgaged up to the hilt; the last, mentioned class did not by any means want to sell provided they could get from the mortgagees and receivers as much as would keep body and soul together and a decent rag of clothing, they prefered being reckoned poor landlords rather than poor beggars or inmates of a workhouse.
    With regard to "conciliation." There was no such a thing in reality as a "conciliation policy;" it was pure humbug, pure moonshine, and, on the landlord side, pure deceit. The Irish peasant farmer or labourer was naturally conciliatory; his religious teaching, his code of ethics, applied as best he could by his own lights, even the humility begotten of his position, all tended to make him conciliatory even to those who ill deserved his kind act, but the recommendations of the practice

    1459
    of such a virtue towards the landlord who, vampire-like, was sucking away the blood of his victim was simply Cruel. He could compare such conduct as between landlord and tenant only to the work of a cow let loose from her slake and goring the other cow still bound almost to death. Some of those landlords, I wiser in their generation than the big; crowd, entered into a conference with representative men of the Irish race. The result of their deliberations helped a good deal to formulate the Act of 1903, but that Act was far behind the recommendations of the conference. The landlords took, apparently with a good grace, what suited them in the Report and made up then minds to fight on for the remainder of their almost impossible demands.
    And, lit 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.

  EVENING SITTING.
    SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
    As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

    SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

      CLASS III.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,415, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during I the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
      MR. LUNDON,MR. LUNDON, continuing, said particular stress was laid on the importance of reinstating the evicted tenants, but when the sales of the estates came around the very landlords who were signatories to the compact tore the document into tatters, and even one of them, that noble Earl who wished to give them that nondescript thing called "Devolution" in order to sap the foundation of their nationality, would not reinstate his evicted tenant John Ryan, This poor victim of landlord rapacity had been a long time on the roadside. He lived within two miles of Adare Mansion, the seat of the Earl of Dunraven, and just outside the demesne wall of Mr. Peter Fitzgerald. It was over a year since poor John Ryan came to a meeting they were holding in Limerick, and told them in his own plain way that Dunraven was selling and that he was now getting back, but on last Saturday three weeks he mot Mrs. Ryan and she told him they were now as far as ever from reinstatement. That was a sample of the "conciliation policy."
      Some of the English Members in this House were at a loss to know how the working of this Act had been an absolute failure considering the "entente cordiale" to speak in diplomatic terms, which seemed to exist when the Bill on which, the Act was based was going through the House. For their information, he would tell the Committee. There were two parties, landlords and tenants, mainly concerned in this Act; a third party, and a powerful party by reason of their money, lay behind these, that was a party of mortgagees and gombeen money-lenders who, because they had money to advance to the needy landowners, obtained from them on their appointment as agents carte blanche to act as they pleased. Most of those mortgagees were obtaining 6 per cent, interest on their money and 5 per cent for the collection of rents, that was 11 per cent, in all, and, with such a return from their money, he would indeed be a simple man who could expect that those characters would be in a hurry with the sales of the estates. Those gombeen agents when approached for sale generally put on a fancy figure which in most cases acted as a repellant; but where negotiations were protracted and

      1461
      under the pressure of arrears they succeeded in obtaining their pound of flesh, a temporary arrangement was arrived at, but only in a few days to be rearranged by the man of usury with another year for arrears to be added on the credit side of his ledger. The percentage on the difference as between the former rent and the future instalments under the purchase had the changes mug on it, and the "concilation policy" once again was given to the breeze with a vengeance.
      As so many able Members from their benches were prepared to speak on this Amendment he would endeavour to be brief and practical. One of the hon. Members on the opposite side of the House said the Purchase Act was a great success and no doubt he spoke in all sincerity, he also said that when the Bill was before the House he voted against it on Second Heading although a staunch supporter of the Government. This led him to believe that he estimated the success from a landlord's standpoint; so far he was telling the truth. Another hon. Gentleman from the same side, who spoke after him, considered the advantages of the same Act were of a rather doubtful nature, but he had been selling his estates and perhaps not getting as much for them as he considered they were worth and it might be that the price was not forthcoming as quickly as required, It was sometimes rather annoying to be waiting for money if one was much in need of it, but, if the Members from Ireland were able, some of those landlords would have a long wait for a "Landlord Relief Bill" unless there could be attached a clause dealing with the compulsory reinstatement of the evicted tenants. How those poor victims of landlord oppression and rapacity had been dealt with was simply scandalous, and all this was done to keep them in the position of scarecrows to deter others from allowing them elves to get into arrears, and to make them pay up the arrears though they had to beg, borrow, or steal the rent.
      They had an Evicted Tenants' Association in Limerick endeavouring from meetting to meeting to make their cases heard through the length and breadth of the land but the Government who should have relieved them through a law passed in this House or a more liberal administration of
      1462
      the law in existence had steeled their hearts against them. £250,000 could with difficulty be voted in that House for their reinstatement, and, £250,000,000 was voted for an infamous war in South Africa to deprive the brave Boers of their lives and liberties. They had evicted tenants in the parish of Crean in his constituency on the Erasmus Smith and the Lloyd-Apjohn properties; they had them in Doon on the Erasmus Smith and Marshall properties; they had them in Herbertstown and Ballybricken on the Tuthill and Croker properties; they had them on the property of Lord Cloneurry in Furcaleigh, Hath, and Dromealy. They had evicted tenants in Knockling on an estate managed by Messrs. Robert and Charley Sanders. There were evicted tenants on the property of Parson Lee in Bettyville, managed by the notorious Ernest Brown and White, who took the palm as an evicting agent and worked the Ballynanty evicted farms for Smith, who inherited the principle of eviction from his father and grandfather. He wanted to know what progress had been made with the Mounshannan Estate, and with those tenants selected for migration into it.
      Now about this matter of intimidation. He was aware that in the constituency he had the honour to represent the intimidation was all the other way. Last winter; when addressing a meeting in Fedamore I on the subject of acquiring untenanted land for the poor tenant's and the labourers around there, the Mayor of Limerick and himself were surprised, on arriving in the little town, to find the walls placarded with intimidating notices stating that Mr. Peter Fitzgerald and some big functionary connected with the Court of Chancery would try titles with them over their right to address a public meeting on a lawful subject. Mayor Joyce, now here by his side, on this bench, set Mr. Fitzgerald's intimidation at nought. He did the same, and they had not heard since of Mr. Fitzgerald or his plank-bed proclamation. This Land Act of 1903 dealt with the question of town tenants if properly and honestly worked. They were endeavouring to buy out the town of Kilfinane from Colonel Gascoigne side by side with the rural tenants, and they were buying out the town of Cahirconlish

      1463
      as the residue of the Lefroy Estate, and they hoped that His Excellency's instructions to the Estates Commissioners would not debar the tenants rights under the Purchase Act. He believed that the Estates Commissioners were honourable and competent men prepared to act honestly and impartially as between landlords on the one side and the tenants, evicted tenants, and labourers on the other side, but their hands were virtually tied up.
      The labourers, the poorest class of all, were shamefully treated when the Purchase Bill was going through this House. The then Chief Secretary promised a Labourers Bill on a liberal scale for 1904. Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus. The mountain in travail a miserable mouse is begotten. They improved the Bill upstairs in Committee. He proposed that the £233,000, the Exchequer Grant unused in the North should be turned up to Kilmallock, Tipperary, and Limerick Unions, so that it should not revert to the Treasury. The Chief Secretary at first partially assented; next at the bidding of the Orangemen put on time limit; next tergiversated more and more and finally withdrew the Bill. In an amending Act which would be passed by the Liberals when in office next year, they would be atle to see that fair play was done by the evicted tenants and the labourers.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,315, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lundon.)
      *MR. KILBRIDE*MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.) said that, judging from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would be inclined to think that there was nothing wrong with the land legislation of 1903 except the scarcity of money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had said the best proof that the Land Act of 1903 had been a success was the act that agreements for sale and purchase between landlords and; tenants had been made, affecting property to the amount of £28,000,000 or £29,000,000. The hon. and gallant Member had not alluded to the fact that
      1464
      there were difficulties with regard to some of the main objects which the right hon. Member for Dover had stated as reasons for the measure. The right hon. Member had told the House when the Land Act of 1903 was before it that the principal objects of the proposed legislation were to increase the size of uneconomic holdings in the West, the giving to the people of Ireland a chance of living in decency and comfort in their native land, and the improvement of the land. Would the Chief Secretary tell the Committee whether the provisions with regard to the evicted tenants were working well. He believed it was impossible under this Act to increase the size of uneconomic holdings and to carry out improvements on the land, and he would like to know from the Attorney-General whether, after the decision of Judge Meredith, it was thought necessary to make some alterations in Sections 43 and 45 of the Land Act, 1903, in order to bring them into harmony with Section 12.
      He remembered very well during the discussions on Section 12 in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover repeatedly refused Amendments from the Nationalist Benches, but promised that the words should be made so wide and so general that the Estates Commissioners would have the greatest possible amount of discretion. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly most faithfully kept to his undertaking as far as Section 12 was concerned, but unfortunately that section did not stand alone. The Committee stage of the Bill was not reached until well into the month of June. It was a long, complicated, and difficult measure, and the session had progressed so far before the 43rd and 45th Clauses were reached—clauses on Which Section 12 was largely dependent—that they were allowed to pass practically without Amendment. And now, when they came to the practical working of the Act, they found that the learned Judge held that under Clause 12 the Estates Commissioners had power to make improvements on holdings whether sold direct by the landlord to the tenant or whether bought by the Estates Commissioners themselves. Yet when they came to Clause? 43 and 45 Mr.

      1465
      Justice Meredith pointed out that there was no machinery provided under these two clauses by which money expanded on improvements could be added to the purchase money. This applied especially in the case of estates which had never come into the possession of the Estates Commissioners at all. If that were so—and it appeared to be so from the judgment given—the whole machinery for improving uneconomic estates either in the West of Ireland or elsewhere was bound to prove abortive, as it was impossible for the Estates Commissioners to add to the purchase price the cost of the improvements. Again, they were told by the learned Judge that advances could not be made to the tenant purchasers, and therefore uneconomic holdings could not be improved. That gave no fair chance of a final settlement of the Irish land question. What was the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point? No doubt the Estates Commissioners possessed some powers with regard to loans for improvement, but in the name of goodness how could an impoverished tenant, in the occupation of an uneconomic holding, fulfil the terms of repayment? Those agricultural slums were in fact the great difficulty in regard to the expenditure of public money for improvements, and they could not expect small tenants in any part of Ireland to comply with the conditions. They could not afford to pay more than 2¾ per cent. interest.
      They were asked to allow the Chief Secretary's Bill to go through without the slightest opposition, but the fact was the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to acknowledge that its main provisions were completely nugatory. What powers had the Estates Commissioners to make a free grant to tenants where they purchased an estate direct from the landlord. During the passage of the Land Bill they were told that it was proposed not only to reinstate the evicted tenants, but also to give them a decent start in life, but no one suggested that a shilling of British money should be expended in the process, After the Boer War this House voted £3,500,000 for the reinstatement of the Boer farmers who took rifles in their hands against this country, but not a
      1466
      single penny was voted for the reinstatement of the wounded soldiers of the land war. Recourse was to be had to a reserve fund which had accumulated under previous Lands Acts. It was said that this fund amounted to about £240,000, and if the Treasury admitted that it was as much as that the actual sum was probably a great deal larger. It was from this fund the evicted tenants were to get free grants and loans to restart them in life. The Estates Commissioners, however, seemed to be extremely doubtful whether they had power to do this or not. He therefore asked the Attorney-General to say what he understood to be the present state of the law—whether he believed that it carried out the intention of the House and the policy the Land Act was supposed to embody. If it did not, Nationalist Members would be the veriest fools in Christendom to allow any amending Act to pass for the sole benefit of land-lords, without getting some quid fro quo from the Government.
      I In any case he was not enamoured of the proposal to pay two - thirds in; scrip and one - third in cash. The right hon. Gentleman had said that land stock would be worth about 92. Did anybody believe that the landlords would consent to lose 8 per cent, of their purchase money? He knew them too well to be under any delusion on that point. Where would it come from? Doubtless from the tenants. He would like the Attorney-General to say whether the preliminary agreements entered into on the form "Undertaking to purchase" were binding on both parties. He believed, as a layman, there would be considerable difficulty in compelling either landlord or tenant to carry out those agreements, and if they were not binding, the landlords, when they knew they were to get one-third in cash and the remainder in depreciated land stock, would declare the agreements no longer binding. Believing that prices were already too high, he was certainly not in favour of legislation which would have the result of increasing the price to the tenant farmer.
      The great rush that had taken place on the part of tenant farmers to purchase was due to the desire to get

      1467
      rid of landlordism, and land hunger existed as keenly to-day as before the Act of 1881, but it was also due to another fact. Not 20 per cent, of the Irish tenant farmers were in a position to pay their rent to March 25th last and keep their land fully stocked, and the rust had taken place because they were in arrears with their rent; they were financially between the devil and the deep sea, and they knew that when the purchase agreements were entered into special arrangements would be made with regard to arrears. On the Leinster Estate the agent succeeded in getting the tenants to pay twenty-five years purchase because a half-year's rent was remitted and another half-year's rent added to the purchase price, so that for a whole year the tenants paid no rent. It was not a sound business transaction, and it was brought about in consequence of the unsound financial condition of the tenants themselves. Another point was that the section of the Act of 1903 with reference to the proper housing accommodation for the labourers had been an absolute failure, only an insignificant number of cottages having been provided. In conclusion, he would like the Attorney-General to say whether, where an estate was sold direct to the tenants, the Estates Commissioners were entitled to make a free grant; and whether, where an estate was bought by the Estates Commissioners and resold by the Estates Commissioners, they were entitled to make both a free grant and a loan for improvements.
      THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.) desired, in answering the Questions put to him, to make it quite clear that no opinion which he could give, in the House or elsewhere, had any binding force or authority whatever on the Estates Commissioners. He had steadily refused ever since the Act was passed to give, either directly or indirectly, any opinion to the Estates Commissioners upon points of law. By Section 23, Sub-section 28, of the Land Act of 1903 he provided a ready means by which they could always obtain legal directions upon any point that arose before them. They could go to their referee and get from him direction on any point of law they required, and they had availed themselves of this
      1468
      privilege on many occasions. It had always seemed absolutely repellant to him that by any advice given in secret to such a tribunal as the Estates Commissioners the rights of individuals should be affected, and decisions touching those rights given. Therefore, he had never given any advice to the Estates Commissioners, but had invariably said that they should take their law from the Judicial Commissioner, and not from him.
      *MR. KILBRIDE: Have you ever issued any regulations?
      MR. ATKINSON: Never. He had no power to do so, and he never saw any. The hon. Member opposite had asked whether, in the event of the Chief Secretary's scheme being adopted, the landlords would be able to put on the screw and get out of the tenants the difference between stock and cash. They would not be able to do that until the £28,000,000 of loans had been disposed of, and that was a long way off.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL said it could be done in all new arrangements.
      MR. ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON said there were contracts for £28,000,000 of loans in front at present. They had been disposed of to the extent of perhaps £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, but even then there I remained over £20,000,000 of contracts I for sale. In most cases of direct sale those contracts were binding. Therefore, even assuming the landlord was as rapacious and the tenant as submissive as they were represented to be, and the sinner as anxious to extort from the saint as had been suggested, nothing could be done in that way until the greater part of those £28,000,000 had been disposed of. Another question was whether, in the event of an advance, being made to a tenant who had bought direct from the landlord, the advance could be added to the purchase annuity. He did not think it could. But a part could be given as a free gift, and in addition the tenant had power to borrow from the Board of Works for the purpose of improving his holding, the money being repayable on easy terms by annuity. He had also power under the

      1469
      Act of 1889 to buy additional land not exceeding ten acres to add to his holding, and could get an advance for that purpose. So that while under Section 3 of the Act of 1903 advances for the purpose of improving the holding could not be added to the purchase money so as to be repaid by purchase annuities, it could be done where there was a sale direct.
      *MR. KILBRIDE*MR. KILBRIDE asked whether it was not the fact that the Board of Works charged 6½ per cent, for twenty-two years.
      MR. ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON said he did not know what the exact terms were. When the Estates Commissioners bought direct they could undoubtedly expend money on improving the estate, sell the farm so improved at an increased price, and have that increased price repaid by annuity.
      *MR. KILBRIDE: Can they make a free grant in that case?
      MR. ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON said as far as he could see there was nothing to require that some of the money advanced may not be given as a free grant.
      MR. FLAVIN: Where a tenant buys direct from the landlord, has the landlord the right, within the zones or outside the zones, to add £100 money to the actual purchase so that he may get the bonus on it?
      MR. ATKINSON: Of course not. He had intervened mainly for the purpose of dealing with the question of the regulations, which he thought had been vastly misunderstood. When the discussion upon this question arose, the hon. Member for Longford, and many others pointed out that it would be quite improper and intolerable that the Government of the day should intervene and direct the Commissioners how they were to act in isolated cases. On July 1st, 1903, the hon. Gentleman pointed out most forcibly and clearly that, while it might be proper for the Government to make general regulations laying down general principles of action, to attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners or to guide their action in individual cases would be absolutely intoler-
      1470
      able and wrong. Yet scarcely a day passed but the Chief Secretary was asked to direct the Commissioners to reinstate some individual tenant, and to take action to expedite some individual purchase, or to restrain the Commissioners from doing some individual wrong. It would be monstrous if the Executive Government were to interfere with any tribunal of a quasi-judicial character in the daily discharge of their business, and to induce them to give priority of relief to one man over another. On the contrary, it was suggested that general directions should be given laying down principles of action. Such general regulations were given from time to time. His right hon. friend the Member for Dover was most anxious that new machinery of this kind should have a certain time to act, so that the defects might be seen, and then by some general regulations it could be put on the right line. He did not think that that system commended itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were daily complaints that the regulations were not laid on the Table of the House. No regulations had then been made, but certain confidential communications had taken place. It was said that those communications were only of a tentative and confidential character, but he did not think the Answer was considered satisfactory. Ultimately the Chief Secretary published regulations which dealt, or sought to deal in a practical way with a most pressing problem. He thought it was much to be regretted that when one came to discuss the means to be adopted to deal with a difficult and pressing problem he should not get some credit for anxiety to forward a line of policy that had for the last twenty years been the policy of this Government, namely, the conversion of the tenantry of Ireland into peasant proprietors; and that credit should not be given for an anxiety to carry out the Act which was the culmination of that policy.
      Now, what was the practical problem they had to deal with? They had contracts for sale representing £28,000,000. They had, he supposed, contracts representing £18,000,000 which there was no money to feed. A great

      1471
      deal had been said about it being an injury merely to the landlord. His sympathies were entirely with the tenant, because it meant a very considerable loss and inconvenience to the tenant. If the tenant's purchase was complete he would only have to pay 3¼ per cent., and 10s. of that per annum would go to the sinking fund. But while the interregnum lasted he had to pay 3J per cent.—that was 5s. per cent, more and not a penny went to the sinking fund. So that the practical result was that he had to pay 5s. per cent, more than he would pay if the purchase were completed, and practically his term was lengthened by the interregnum, whatever that interregnum might be. Under that state of things could there be any greater injustice than to abstract from the money that would go to feed that purchase a sum to carry out purchases of a different character, and so by the amount abstracted prolong the agony of the tenant who dealt direct. Assuming for a moment that there were direct sales, representing £10,000,000, that the tenants in those cases were waiting for their turn to be reached, and that there was money to the extent of £5,000,000 a year to meet them, he said it was a wrong to them to abstract £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 from that fund and give it to vendors who were posterior in date to the vendors who sold to them. The first of the regulations was intended to prevent that wrong to the tenant by providing that no undue advantage, having regard to the date of the sale, should be given to one vendor more than another, so that a man who sold direct in 1904 should not be postponed to the man who sold to the Commission in 1905.
      The hon. Member for Waterford had said that the regulation entirely prevented the sale of untenanted land. It did nothing of the kind. He considered the regulations most carefully with his right hon. friend, having in view the fact that if money was obtained it might be desirable to appropriate certain portions of it for sales of untenanted land and no unfair advantage would be given to anyone under the regulation. The object and intention of this regulation was simply to secure fair play and prevent the giving of any undue pre-
      1472
      ference to one class of vendor over another. If this regulation was having the effect which had been put forward, of course it could be modified to-morrow, and if it was found that it was actually having any effect beyond that which the Government intended, namely, to secure fair play, nothing could be easier than to modify the regulation. They had a perfectly just and fair object in view, and, in his opinion, the regulation carried out that object.
      There had been some unworthy suggestions that there was a disposition to defeat the benevolent purposes of the right hon. Member for Dover. No more unfounded accusation was ever made. He knew the feelings of the right hon. Member, he helped him through the entire of the Bill, and he could disclaim altogether that there was any desire whatsoever to defeat the Act; on the contrary, the regulations were drawn in the very spirit of his right hon. friend's public declarations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover laid down three propositions for dealing with this question. The first was that there was to be no compulsion; the second, that there must be equal treatment for all classes of persons with whom the the Act would deal; and thirdly, that there must be no special mention of the evicted tenants. He wished to point out that the reinstatement of the evicted tenants was not the main purpose of the Act; it was an ancillary object in the great purpose of converting the tenants into proprietors. And was the Government to allow an Act which was designed to be voluntary to be made compulsory through intimidation and crime? It had been asked, Why apply it to the tenants alone? He had not done so. Intimidation was intimidation, no matter by whom practised. That was the practical question. Was the Government to stand by and wink at the crime of intimidation and boycotting, the meanest and most cowardly of all crimes? Were they to allow a voluntary Act to be turned into a compulsory one, or the machinery they had set up to be made an instrument through crime for turning the Act into a compulsory Act? It was their first duty to prevent it; and they never could prevent it if they

      1473
      allowed intimidation to be practised. Intimidation had been defined in at least half-a-dozen Acts of Parliament, and it meant putting a man in fear of danger or injury to himself or to his personal property, or forcing him into doing something which he was legally entitled to abstain from doing. There was no mystery about it at all. It was notorious that in a certain part of Ireland there was an organised system of endeavouring to get possession of certain lands, and the Government could not stand by and allow crime to be committed, although it might be committed for a good object.
      There was no foundation for the assertion that tenants could be coerced into accepting bargains which they were not willing to accept under ordinary circumstances, and there was already power under the 10th Section of the Act of 1885 to set such bargains aside, and the Court had all the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to set aside any contract brought about by duress. There was cheap and easy machinery by which every purchasing tenant could get relief from a contract that had been forced upon him by duress. There had been great misconception as to the regulations in regard to the reinstatement of evicted tenants. What the evicted tenant wanted was to get back to his old holding, among his old friends, and what he disliked was migration to other districts. All that the regulation did was to regulate the order of applications. It denied no man's right, and it took away no man's right; it merely postponed the case and laid down a rule of procedure upon it, so that the evicted tenant might have a chance of purchasing when the estate on which his old farm was situated was up for sale.
      Objection had been taken to the practice of the dissenting Commissioner recording his views for the information of the Judicial Commissioner in eases which went before him for his decision. Surely, however, it was right that when two members of the Commission took a particular view on a point of law, the remaining Commissioner should be able to put his view also before the Judicial Commissioner.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL said it was not right. It was to enable Mr. Wrench to I put his view before the Commissioner.
      MR. ATKINSON: If the dissenting Commissioner takes a different view to; that of the other two Commissioners he is allowed to state his view in order that both views may be placed before the Judicial Commissioner. I think the statement just made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone is most unfair and most unjust.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I take the responsibility for that statement.
      MR. ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON said that in an ordinary Court of law the dissenting Judge had the opportunity of giving his view. It was most unfair, when a reference was given which might be in a form which one of the Commissioners thought did not fairly put forward his views, that he should not have an opportunity of putting in notes showing that he disagreed.
      MR. CLANCY MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.) said they had not complained of the publication of those regulations, but, on the contrary, always asked for them. He believed that the Attorney-General drew up the regulations, and that the Chief Secretary fathered them, but that the real authors were the Treasury. It would be strange indeed if the present Government did not try deliberately by regulations to defeat the object of their own Act. He was only giving a just amount of credit to those connected with the Government of Ireland when he said that he did not think they would have issued those regulations if in Ireland they had had supreme control in regard to this matter. The object of the Treasury always had been not to disturb the money market in England; and the interests of Ireland were subordinated to the commercial interests of Great Britain. The Government securities were low because of an infamous foreign policy which had been most costly to the country, and hence it was that the Irish Government, following Treasury instructions, worked the Act in the interests of the British Exchequer. That was the meaning of the whole thing.

      1475
      The effect of the first regulation was to postpone certain purchases at the expense of others. It appeared from the Report of the Land Commission that it had been the practice to deal with cases as they came. If that was the case, what was the object of issuing the first regulation at all? It must have some meaning, and he claimed that it meant the postponement of purchases of those un-tenanted lands which were absolutely essential for the settlement of the most urgent part of the Irish land question. It appeared from a statement at page 17 of the Report that it was the practice of the Estates Commissioners to buy untenanted land until they were stopped by the Treasury. That, to his mind, explained the whole object of the first regulation. If the intention was to prevent the purchase of untenanted land, then he said that one of the prime objects of the Land Act of 1903 was assailed by this regulation, and they would have in ten years hence the same trouble in Ireland, or at least in parts, if they insisted on the regulation being carried out.
      As to the second regulation dealing with intimidation, he really believed that it was put in to throw dust in the eyes of the landlords, a section of whom, the Government were pleased to think, had been attacking them for six months or more in respect to intimidation alleged to be prevailing in the West of Ireland. He felt certain that the Government did not believe a single word they said about, intimidation. There was no intimidation in the sense in which the Attorney-General had explained it that night. No one had been put in fear as to person or property. Meetings had been held and strong declarations had been made as to the way in which the Land Act ought to be administered, but nothing more had been done. The Government could never carry out this regulation. The Attorney-General had not tried to give an Answer to the Question as to who was to inquire into the intimidation. What was to be regarded as intimidation? Who were the persons to decide? How were they to form their judgment? No Answer had been given to these Questions, and no Answer could be given. The intimidation clause was all humbug. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that no case could
      1476
      or would occur of a purchase being refused in the West of Ireland, where this intimidation was supposed to be rampant, without the fullest investigation in that House and elsewhere.
      He wished to draw attention to the regulation dealing with town holdings—a matter of the first importance from the point of view of many people in Ireland. In the Land Act of 1003 express power was given to purchase town holdings when they constituted part of an estate which was otherwise mainly agricultural or pastoral. That being so, the question had been brought before Mr. Justice Meredith, and he had decided, as they should have expected, that the Act of Parliament meant what it said. He had decided that town holdings-might be bought when they did not form the main part of an estate. Was it not extraordinary that the Government should think it necessary to warn the Estates Commissioners that, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Justice Meredith had given that decision, and that they were to have regard to certain other considerations before they sanctioned the purchase of town holdings, they were to have regard to the definition of a holding in the Act of 1881, which was not incorporated in the Land Purchase Act? The meaning of that, he contended, was that the Estates Commissioners were not to sanction the purchase of town holdings wherever they could avoid purchasing them. It was a fresh device of the Treasury to prevent the expenditure of money under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, even in cases where the Act of Parliament said, and a judicial decision said, that money might be justly expended. It seemed to him that where the regulations were not superfluous they were directly intended to prejudice land purchase, to stop it, wherever it could be stopped, in the interest of the Treasury, and at the same time to postpone the settlement of the most urgent part of the Irish land question—sales direct to tenants by landlords.
      As to the Bill which the Chief Secretary had mentioned that night, all he could say was that he could not believe that the land-lords were against it. He understood that I the landlords at their convention did not

      1477
      accept the new proposal. But he preferred to regard the right hon, and gallant Member for North Armagh as a better spokesman of the landlords of Ireland. The point he wished to make was this. The Chief Secretary that night said that he had consulted only his own officials. He wished to know, if that statement was correct, how it was that the landlords had the proposal before them at their convention.
      MR. WALTER LONG: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I made a statement which is not correct? He must know how the landlords came to know. It was because one of them, speaking in the House, said that this matter had been before them, and that they had brought it before the Government six months ago.
      MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be rather heated.
      MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman stated quite clearly that I had made a statement which was not correct.
      MR. CLANCY: I made a statement which I will repeat, and which I think is perfectly correct. I want to know—and I ask the Question publicly—Did the right hon. Gentleman consult anybody but his officials? I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not.
      MR. WALTER LONG: I stated that I consulted my officials in Dublin; I also consulted the representatives of the Treasury.
      MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he consulted the experts in Dublin Castle and certain officials of the Treasury. I ask Mm, did he consult anybody else? Did he consult the landlords?
      MR. WALTER LONG: Really the hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill. I have stated that this suggestion was brought before me directly I came into office.
      MR. CLANCY: That is not an Answer.
      MR. WALTER LONG: I have stated exactly what I did. I consulted my own officials and the officials of the Treasury.
      MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not consult the landlords or the representatives of the landlord body in Ireland? He does not deny it.
      MR. WALTER LONG: It is useless to deny it if the hon. Gentleman will not accept any statement I make.
      MR. CLANCY: If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not consult the landlords or the representatives of the landlord faction in Ireland, then, of course, I do believe him, and accept the statement, but I do not understand him to make any such statement. Here we have the fact that the landlords in their convention discussed this proposal and apparently knew all about it before anybody else heard of it, and they refused to accept it. I want to know how the landlords heard of it. If the right hon. Gentleman did not consult them, did not an understrapper from Dublin Castle consult them? The hon. Member said one of the things which the Nationalist Members complained of was that in carrying on the administration in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman consulted the representatives of a small and dwindling faction while he neglected to take into his confidence h s hon. friend the Member for Waterford, who represented the vast majority of the Irish people. This was only another instance showing that the Government of Ireland was carried on in the interest of one small dwindling faction.
      MR. FIELD MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick) asked how came it to pass that regulations had been introduced with reference to the purchase of town holdings which practically substituted the regulation made by the Lord-Lieutonaat under Section 230, Clause 8, of the Irish Land Act of 1903?
      MR. ATKINSON,MR. ATKINSON, replying, said that under the Land Purchase Act and the Act of 1881 they could only advance money to buy a holding. That holding

      1479
      should be good security, and the difficulty was about the re-sale of small towns when they were bought. The intention of the Commissioners was that for the purposes of re-sale regard must be had to the security that was available for the amount advanced.
      MR. WALTEE LONG MR. WALTEE LONG said he desired to say a word or two first of all about the proposals to which he made reference earlier in the evening as a method of escaping, temporarily at all events, from the difficulty in which they found themselves in connection with this Act. He was not surprised that those suggestions had been criticised, but he was surprised at the form which the criticism had taken. What surprised him more than all was the extraordinary suggestion that he had improperly, and with injury to the Nationalist Party, taken the landlords into his confidence on this proposal. What was the proposal? It was not a proposal which in any way injured the future ownership of the occupier, and it did not throw upon him any liability for the existing £27,000,000. All the Bill proposed to do was to enable the vendors to take stock in part payment, which under the Act of 1903 they could not do, it being obligatory that the payment should be made in cash. It would take more than one issue—at least two, he should think—before the present block could be removed. Therefore, they were a very long way from reaching the point where the landlord would be able to lay this heavy burden on the tenants. When he was accused of committing some heinous offence because he had consulted the landlords, he searched his memory to know what could possibly be the foundation of the charge. It suddenly occurred to him that he had an interview with representatives of the landlords in Dublin three or four months ago. They did not, however, come to represent anything injurious to the tenants of Ireland or anybody in Ireland connected with the land question. They came to represent that there was a block in the Land. Commission proceedings, and that that block was caused by want of money, and they made a variety of proposals. He was new to the question, but he had had experience of a similar question when
      1480
      dealing with the London water companies, and he threw out a suggestion then and there, not in the least intending it to be confidential. He thought a way might be found out of the block. From I that time to this the matter had been discussed in public, and it was absurd to suggest that he had been guilty of some act of bad faith or want of courtesy or fairness.
      The hon. Member for Warerford misapprehended the effect of the regulation. If he had £5,000,000 in cash, plus the addition of stock, it was obvious that he would have £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 to deal with for the purchase of estates, and that they would be able to relieve the block in the Estates Commissioners' Court. He would also be able to deal with the works of the Congested Districts Board and with various other branches under the purview of the Estates Commissioners. He maintained that the regulation about priority could not be interpreted in the sense in which hon. Members opposite had endeavoured to interpret it. It was an order to endeavour to secure that justice should be done and that one claim should not have a year's priority over the other. That would not interfere in the slightest degree with the expenditure of the fund. If they were not to leave the Executive Government to indicate to the Commissioners in what order of priority they were to take cases, what other course would be open to them in dealing with all the cases. They were doing no injury to any particular class by issuing a regulation of this kind.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman had waxed wrath about the intimidation regulation; but his right hon. friend the Attorney-General had dealt with that fully and he need hardly say that he endorsed entirely what his right hon. and learned friend had said as to the object of that regulation and as to the way it would be carried out. Some one had that afternoon made one of those unworthy suggestions of which they had so many. The hon. Member stated that this was an insidious attempt to defeat the policy, and to discredit the action, of his predecessor. What were the facts? The right hon. Member for Dover was invited by Lord Clonbrock to express

      1481
      the opinions of the Government on this question; and he wrote a letter in which he explained that the policy of the Government was identical with the policy to be found in this regulation. The hon. Member for Dublin County said that this was a new policy—something new—something that had never been heard of before in Irish land administration.
      MR. CLANCY: I never said anything of the kind. I said that it was a device of the present Executive.
      MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG said it was stated by almost every speaker that this was a new departure of his, and that it was done behind the back of his, right hon. friend the Member for Dover. He had shown that the right hon. Member for Dover had expressed his view on the subject. The Congested Districts Board, which was not controlled by the Executive, had issued precisely the same regulation, signed by every member of the Board. As to forcing this policy on the Estates Commissioners, they had simply declared that if intimidation were employed on a particular estate, they might not be able to deal with that estate. In the administration of a perfectly voluntary Act, no Government worthy of its name could stand by quietly and see the owner of land coerced by threats and boycotting into coming under the Act. The Government hoped to discourage such coercion by showing that it was a policy that would not pay. It might not be a very grand way of achieving the object, but he was surprised that his hon. friends opposite should denounce it by their criticism. Surely there could not be a better instance of the old saying that prevention was better than cure. The object was to prevent all these illegal methods and to show that they would not pay.
      As to the number of appeals, thought they increased in 1903 and 1904, they had since shown a large falling off. The accommodation for the Estates Commissioners had been increased and the number of the staff had been added to. The sort of debate to which the House had listened
      1482
      was not encouraging to the British taxpayer. This Act was not two years old. It was passed with the assurance that it would be worked cordially on both sides, and now they were told that it had quite broken down, and that where it had been effective it had only been effective in the interests of the landlords. It was easy to make a statement of that kind, but it was not easy to support it. Under previous Acts which had been in force for twenty-three years they had expended £1,000,000 a year in land purchase, but under this Act they had expended over £4,000,000 a year. The allegation that too high a price had been paid to the landlords was surely met by the fact that the reductions had been on the whole reasonable. The average percentage of reduction of rent was 26·2 and the number of years purchase was 2·92.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Averages are very misleading.
      MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG thought he was entitled to give the averages. These should be regarded as really satisfactory.
      They were told that nothing had been done in the West of Ireland. In regard to that matter hon. Gentlemen opposite were not quite fair. Before the Act passed, the Congested Districts Board dealt with 144,000 acres of tenanted land and 27,000 acres of untenanted land, or a total of 171,000 acres. Since the passing of the Act of 1903 they had dealt with 154,000 acres of tenanted land and 61,000 acres of untenanted land, or a total of 215,000 acres, as compared with 171,000 acres. When hon. Gentlemen opposite accused them of having deliberately interfered with the reinstatement of evicted tenants, he thought they were going too far. Every one would be glad to see the evicted tenants back on the land, even if they could not be reinstated in their original holdings, but hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that there were practical difficulties in the way of the completion of this work. The difficulties in connection with the migration of people to districts where untenanted land was available were almost insurmountable. He believed that under the Act they had created

      1483
      many peasant proprietors who were grateful to Parliament for the benefit which, had been conferred upon them; but it was not only unreasonable, it was unfair and ungrateful to come to Parliament to-day and say the Act was a complete failure, and that nothing had been done to deal with the uneconomic holdings, when everybody knew perfectly well that the questions involved could only be dealt with by degrees. The Government had done nothing, either through their regulations or by their administration, except with the one desire to carry out the Act so that it might be a real benefit and blessing to the people of Ireland. He believed it was too soon to criticise the Act; but, even on the present short record, it showed good results, and that they were on the high road to doing satisfactory work in the interests of Ireland. Therefore, he asked the House to reject the Amendment.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Time, time. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."]
      MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG said he was bound to say, in view of the fact that he had purposely refrained from intervening in the debate so that hon. Gentlemen opposite might speak, that that was a most discourteous interruption.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland) said he regretted the interruption, but all the same the debate, which was a most important one, had not had the advantage of being listened to by many hon. Members opposite who were there now. He wished to disabuse the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that they on the Irish Benches considered him as a wicked Chief Secretary. They regarded him as a very innocent and ingenuous Chief Secretary, who, however, was the tool and instrument of Dublin Castle. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman never said anything in the House which he did not sincerely believe, and that his intentions were honest. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, very inexperienced in the hands of the Castle bureaucracy, which was as hostile to the opinion of Ireland as the
      1484
      bureaucracy which led the Czar of Russia astray. While the Irish Members opposed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, they did not wish to strike at him, but at the officials. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that the Act had succeeded, and in defence of that had said that so much more money had been obtained than was believed possible some time ago. That was perfectly true; but their complaint was, not that the Act was not proceeding with a good deal of speed, but that the money had been spent for the purpose of giving relief where it was least needed, and had not been spent where relief was most needed. In other words, the money had been spent in relieving well-to-do tenants and well-to-do landlords, while it had left untouched the sorely congested districts and the uneconomic holdings. The total amount of advances in Ulster was £561,962, in Munster £667,388, in Leinster £2,280,548, and in Connaught, £299,000. That was to say, that the least money was spent in the poorest province, and by far the greatest I amount spent in the richest province.
      Their second complaint was—and the right hon. Gentleman apparently was rather disturbed by the statement—that the price of land was increasing. A remarkable instance of that was the Lake Foster Estate. On that estate the landlord and tenants agreed to fourteen years purchase, or £6,000 in all, but sanction to the agreement was refused on the ground that the land was not sufficient security for the £6,000. Since the passing of the 1903 Act the tenants came before Mr. Wrench and he fixed the price at £8,900, while the landlord, in addition, would get the bonus. The average under the Ashbourne Acts, without the bonus for estates, was seventeen years and a-half purchase; now under the present Act the average was, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, 22·9 years purchase. He insisted that the Act had also failed in restoring the evicted tenants. Out of 4,275 evicted tenants only 221 had been restored to their holdings. He insisted that they must have full and adequate opportunity of discussing the Bill announced by the right hon. Gentleman, and that no measure

      1485
      should, in his opinion and in that of his friends, be brought in which did not accelerate the work of restoring the evicted tenants.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 196. (Division List, No. 303.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

      Field, William

      Muldoon, John

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE

      Murnaghan, (George

      Allen, Charles P.

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Murphy, John

      Ambrose, Robert

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Asher, Alexander

      Flyn, James Christopher

      Newnes, Sir George

      Asquith, Rt.Hon.Horbert Henry

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N.

      Baker, Joseph Allen

      Fowler, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth South

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Gilhooly, James

      Nussey, Thomas William

      Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

      Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

      Bell, Richards

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Benn, John Williams

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

      Black, Alexander William

      Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

      O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

      Boland, John

      Hammond, John

      O Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Harcourt, Lewis

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Brigg, John

      Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr TydviI

      O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

      Bright, Allan Heywood

      Harmsworth R. Leicester

      O'Dowd, John

      Broadhurst, Henry

      Heath, Ernest Frederick Geo.

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Brown, Georges M. (Edinburgh)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson.

      Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

      O'Malley, William

      Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

      O'Mara, James

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Shoe, James John

      Burns, John

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Parrott, William

      Burt, Thomas

      Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Buxton, N.E.(York,NR Whitby

      Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

      Philipps, John Wynford

      Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar

      Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Caldwell, James

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Priestly, Arthur

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby

      Rea, Russell

      Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Reddy, M.

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Jordan, Jeremiah

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Cawley, Frederick

      Joyce, Michael

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Chance, Frederick William

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W.

      Robson, William Snowdon

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Kilbride, Denis

      Roche, Augustine (Cork)

      Churchill, Winston Spencer

      Kitson, Sir James

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Labouchere, Henry

      Russell, T. W.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Lambert, George

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Lamont, Norman

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Cremer, William Randal

      Langley, Batty

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Crombie, John William

      Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W)

      Seely, Maj J.E.B. (Isle of Wight)

      Crooks, William

      Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Cullinan, J.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

      Daiziel, James Henry

      Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

      Sheehy, David

      Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

      Leigh, Sir Joseph

      Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

      Delany, William

      Levy, Maurice

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

      Lloyd-George, David

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

      Lough, Thomas

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Doogan, P. C.

      Lundon, W.

      Spencer, Rt.Hn, C. R. (Northants

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Dunn, Sir William

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Sullivan, Donal

      Edwards, Frank

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Elibank, Master of

      M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Ellice, Capt E. C. (S Andrw's Bghs

      M'Fadden, Edward

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      Emmott, Alfred

      M'Kean, John

      Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

      Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Toulmin, George

      Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Eve, Harry Trelawney

      M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

      Ure, Alexander

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

      Fenwick, Charles

      Mooney, John J.

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      Ferguson, R. C. Munto (Leith)

      Morrey, Rt.Hon.John (Montrose

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay

      Ffrench, Peter

      Moulton, John Fletcher

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Weir, James Galloway

      Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

      Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf d

      Sir Thomas Esmonde and

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Young, Samuel

      Captain Donelan.

      NOES.

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Forster, Henry William

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Gardner, Ernest

      Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

      Mount, William Arthur

      Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn. HughO

      Gordon, Maj.Evans-(T'rH'mlets

      Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Goulding Edward Alfred

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Bagot, Capt. Joscelins FitzRoy

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

      Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)

      Groves, James Grimble

      Percy, Earl

      Balfour, Capt. O, B. (Hornsey)

      Guthrie, Walter Murray

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Balfour, Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

      Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

      Pilkington, Colonel Richard

      Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch)

      Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

      Plummer, Sir Walter R.

      Banner John S. Harmood-

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

      Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir.MichaelHicks

      Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

      Purvis, Robert

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Hay, Hn. Claude George

      Pym C. Guy

      Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

      Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Heath, Sir J. (Staffords, N.W.)

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Helder, Augustus

      Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

      Bond, Edward

      Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

      Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

      Renwick, George

      Brotherton, Edward Allen

      Hickman, Sir Alfred

      Ridley, S. Forde

      Brymer, William Ernest

      Hoare, Sir Samuel

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas T.

      Bull, William James

      Hogg, Lindsay

      Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

      Bucther, John George

      Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

      Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

      Carlile, William Walter

      Hoult, Joseph

      Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

      Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hudson, George Bickersteth

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A.(Worc.

      Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

      Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

      Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

      Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

      Chapman, Edward

      Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

      Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col. Edw.J.

      Clive, Captain Percy A.

      Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

      Coates, Edward Feetham

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

      Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool.

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Lawson, Hn. H.L.W(Mile End)

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

      Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S

      Smith, Rt.HnJParker(Lanarks

      Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

      Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

      Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)

      Spear, John Ward

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

      Davenport, William Bromley-

      Lowe, Francis William

      Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

      Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.SirJosephC.

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

      Stroyan, John

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Doughty, Sir George

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G.(Ox'fd Univ.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Malcolm, Ian

      Tollemache, Henry James

      Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

      Manners, Lord Cecil

      Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Tuff, Charles

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

      Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliam H.

      Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

      Maxwell, Rt.HnSirH.E(Wigt'n

      Warde, Colonel C. E.

      Fergusson, Rt. Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

      Melville, Beresford Valentine

      Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E(Taunton

      Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(Invernss

      Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

      Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

      Flower, Sir Ernest

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

      Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

      1488

      1489

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

      Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

      Alexander Acland-Hood

      Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.

      Wrightson, Sir Thomas

      and Viscount Valentia.

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      When the CHAIRMAN announced the figures of the division there was vociferous cheering on the Irish and Opposition Benches.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Resign, resign.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: You will want a tramway over the bridge yet.
      MR. FLAVIN: What is the Prime Minister going to do now?
      And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

      SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
      Order for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A ACLAND-HOOD*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington) moved the adjournment of the House.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have, Sir, as may be expected, a very simple and obvious Question to address to the Prime Minister, and that is whether, in view of the defeat of the Government, he has any statement to make.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the House will probably anticipate my
      1490
      answer as easily as they have anticipated the Question put by the right hon. Gentleman. The Answer I have to make is that it is, of course, impossible for me on the present occasion to make any statement at all. [Cries of "Redistribution" from the IRISH Benches.]
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman means that he is adjourning until to-morrow or Monday his statement as to the course which the Government will adopt. I cannot conceive that his statement means that he intends to take no notice of this vote. He is the Loader of a Government which for nearly two years has had from every constituency to which they have appealed a declaration of want of confidence. And, Sir, he has taken up the position, to my mind the utterly unconstitutional position, that, no matter how the want of confidence in the Government may have been expressed by the constituencies, he would cling to his office so long as he was not defeated in this House. He has been defeated in this House; and, Sir, I say that if, disregarding the declarations of want of confidence in the country, he now elects to disregard the declaration of want of confidence in this House that he will be taking a course—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no," and "Monday"]—I repeat the declaration of the want of confidence in this House—taking place the day after his meeting at the Foreign Office, when he called his Party together and appealed to them to pave him from hostile divisions here—if he takes that course he will be taking a course not only out of record with the whole history of political Parties in this House, but a course which I say will be unworthy of a Leader of any political Party in this country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman before we separate to tell us what he means by saying that he cannot be expected at this moment to make any declaration. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Monday."] If the right hon. Gentleman will say that on Monday

      1491
      he will make his announcement, then I am satisfied; but if his announcement means that he is going to swallow this humiliation as he has swallowed every rebuff for the last two years for the sake of attempting for a few miserable months or days to keep his Government in office; then I take the liberty of saying, with all respect to the regular Opposition, that the duty will be thrown upon them of using every means to bring to an end a state things which is an outrage upon the constitution of this House.
      MR. A. J. BALF0UR: I am not sure whether the brief reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite is to be taken as a speech. [General cries of "No, no!"] The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to have greatly agitated himself about a matter which will be settled in due time, but need not be settled to-night. He has denounced me in stentorian voice for having suffered every species of humiliation. I am not conscious of these humiliations.
      MR. SWIFT MACNIELL: "Naked but unashamed." [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order," and interruption.]
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: TO discuss the administration for which we have been responsible would be out of place on this occasion, but I may remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that until this evening my colleagues on this bench and myself have received the unfailing support of the Party, and that Party constitutes the large majority of the House of Commons. The hon. Member has quoted words of mine, and in quoting them has unintentionally misquoted them. I have said, and I am quite prepared now to repeat the statement if necessary, that unless it is possible for me to carry on the business of the country in this House with the dignity—[OPPOSITION ironical laughter and cheers]
      1492
      —with the dignity which I think should attach to every Government—[OPPOSITION ironical laughter and cheers]—and which certainly is not going to be disturbed by such interruptions in a moment of self-forgetfulness like those to which I have been treated—unless my colleagues and I can carry on the business of the country with dignity we certainly shall not attempt to carry it on. We have been defeated to-night, as many previous Governments have been defeated, upon a Vote in Estimates. Whether it will be our duty to repropose that Vote to the House—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and MINISTERIAL cries of "Order"]—and ask it to reverse the decision which it has come to—a course which has often and most properly been taken by Governments—is a matter upon which I certainly am not going to pronounce without further consideration. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."]
      The hon. Gentleman was careful, I notice, in his speech not to suggest that the Government did not still continue to enjoy the support of a majority of this House—[OPPOSITION ironical laughter and MINISTERIAL cheers]—because he knows that by an accident—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!." and interruption]—perhaps the House will allow me to finish my sentence—I admit an unfortunate one, they have been placed in a minority on a division. There will be an ample opportunity in a few hours to ascertain whether the Government does or does not enjoy the confidence of their supporters. [OPPOSITION cries of "With dignity."] But I entirely concede the point to the hon. Gentleman, if he desires it, that the mere fact, taken by itself that on a vote of censure the Government can command a majority is not necessarily sufficient. I have never pretended that it was; I do not pretend so now. But neither is it a conclusive reason why a Government which does enjoy the confidence of a majority of the House should not continue its services to the country because they have been defeated by one vote in Supply. [An

      1493
      HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: In a small House.] Yes, Sir, but there would have been no difficulty in the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, had they felt that they did enjoy the confidence of the House, in carrying on the effective constitutional procedure of having that vote reversed, and it is a matter of perfect notoriety, not denied by anybody that that has been done, if the right hon. Gentleman denies that—
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not for me either to deny it or to admit it; and you have no right to ask it.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I think it is undesirable to put any Cabinet Minister into a position of having to affirm or to deny a point of that kind. It would have been better, perhaps, if that observation had not been made, for I quite recognise the obligations which impose a most proper silence upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will, therefore, simply say that it was in the power of that Government to have challenged a reversal of that vote, but when we remember that their majorities had been going steadily down—[OPPOSITION ironical cheers, and cries of "Oh"]—and that they would probably not have obtained upon a vote of censure a quarter of the majority—I believe I am putting it much too high—that this Government has, it is natural enough that they should have decided not to reverse the vote, which they accordingly took as a conclusive reason why they should resign office. I am under no obligation to make any decision of the kind on the present occasion; the circumstances;
      1494
      seem to me to be wholly different. I shall require to consult with my colleagues before announcing any decision to the House. Nor shall I give the decision to the House tomorrow morning, it being a Friday sitting, when we meet at twelve o'clock; and as it is, of course, impossible to take the Naval Works Bill, as originally arranged, because we have not obtained the Report of the money Resolution to-night, I shall put down the Scottish Churches Bill for to-morrow, and shall make an announcement of the course we mean to pursue at the meeting i of the House on Monday.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Mr. Speaker; I do not know whether I should be in order to move an Amendment. [MINIS-TERIAL cries of "No."] Being a consistent supporter of order, I respectfully submit that any question of order must be settled by the Chair, and not by a disorderly crowd opposite. I was about to ask whether it would be in order for me to move an Amendment to the Motion—namely, that the House should adjourn till Monday. It seems to me that, pending the consideration of the matter by the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet, it would be a perfect farce for the House of Commons to meet to-morrow for public business, when we shall not know until Monday whether or not the public business is any longer to be carried on by the present Government.
      *MR. SPEAKER: It is not possible after midnight to move an Amendment to the Question that the House do now adjourn.
      MR. MCKENNA: Could not the First Lord

      1495
      of the Treasury himself move the Motion that the House do adjourn until Monday? [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.]
      MR. ASQUITH: I venture to suggest that it is obvious the House cannot meet for the discussion of business to-morrow. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] And I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he will consult the general convenience of the House if he will move an adjournment until Monday. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"]
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman is really an impracticable one. The Motion has been made and we cannot divide at this hour. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw it."] But I further suggest that, as an announcement tomorrow will be quite impossible, and as the decision of the Government may, for anything I am at present in a position be say, be that we shall ask the House to reverse this vote and finish the business of the session—[OPPOSITION cries of "Dignity," "Oh!" and MINISTERIAL cheers]—I think it would be a pity not to spend to-morrow upon a subject upon which the whole House is agreed. I agree to ask it to deal with Party questions or matters upon which there was really a strong difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as such would not be a desirable course. On the Bill I am speaking of there may, of course, upon detail be some difference of opinion but there is no difference of opinion, dividing the two sides of the House, and I there
      1496
      fore think it would be a convenient course.
      MR. BRYCE: Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment and substitute a Motion for an adjournment until Monday?
      *MR. SPEAKER: He would have to get the leave of the House to withdraw.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR May I, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, remind him that I think, if he will refer to the precedent already alluded to to-night, the precedent of the cordite Vote in Supply, he will find that other business was taken after that [OPPOSITION cries of "No!] before the final decision of the Government was arrived at?
      MR. MCKENNA: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to follow that decision?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman refers to a matter in which I played some part, I may confirm what the right hon. Gentle man says. The moment that vote occurred and the division was reported. I moved immediately to report Progress, and other business was proceeded with for part of the evening.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: That day, but not the next day.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.