§ 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."1460
§ 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 (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 (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. 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 said it could be done in all new arrangements.
§ 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 asked whether it was not the fact that the Board of Works charged 6½ per cent, for twenty-two years.
§ 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. 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 (Kerry, N.)
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 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. 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 (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. 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. 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 (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, 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 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 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. 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. 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 (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.1486
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 196. (Division List, No. 303.)1489
|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.|
|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)|
|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. 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.