§ Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) read.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said he wished to repeat a protest he made when the Government adopted the Land Tenure Bill, and declared that the practice was wholly against the interests of private Members and of sound legislation. The arguments he had used on the previous occasion remained unanswered. It had hitherto been the privilege of private Members to have their Bills pronounced upon after a Friday afternoon's debate, but if the practice obtained of the Government's adopting a Bill after Second Reading, undoubtedly the Government would be asked to give a pledge not to take up the Bill, and in the absence of such a pledge the attempt would be made to give the Bill that extended discussion Government measures received. In the preparation of their Bills a Government received aid from skilled draughtsmen which private Members could not command, and this assistance, apart from the principle of the measure, was necessary to prepare the ground work for sound legislation. The proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill illustrated this necessity. The changes the Government were impelled on their motion to introduce into that measure showed that they would have been better advised if they had drafted a measure embodying their own policy. There were special circumstances connected with the present Bill. When in the usual course the Bill came forward on a Friday, the Government, accepting the general principle of compensation for improvements, clearly and emphatically condemned the principle of compensation for disturbance at the end of a lease. The Bill was read a second time upon the distinct understanding that only with the first four clauses had the Government any sympathy, but having, after four hours debate, obtained a Second Reading upon doubly false pretences—as a private Bill and as having Government approval to only a fragment of it—itreceived in Standing Committee Amendments from the Government adopting the principle of compensation for disturbance, and it was. 415 now a Bill quite other than that to which the House was induced to give a Second Reading. Nominally and technically the Bill applied only to Ireland, and did not excite general interest, but there was nothing charcteristic in town holdings in Ireland which should make them the subject of special legislation, and, therefore, by smuggling the Bill though as a private Member's Bill, and disguised out of all recognition as that, and under pretence of being legislation for Ireland, the House was being induced to pass a measure upon which might be founded an argument for the extension of similar legislation to England. They knew precisely what they were about, and they knew exactly the end at which they were driving, and they looked to the methods which were most adapted to meet that end. That method was to induce the House of Commons to debate for four hours a Bill nominally confined to one part of the United Kingdom, and to adopt principles behind the back of the public which they deliberately intended to give extension to at some later moment. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] That might be very ingenious and very politic, but it was not the way to get sound legislation carried in that House. He did not at the present stage quarrel with the policy embodied in the Bill; but a Bill which interfered with enormous interests should be brought forward on the full responsibility of the Government and go through the ordeal of full discussion in that House and in every part of the country where interests were touched, hopes were excited, or fears were raised. Then they might get that considered legislation for which Parliament was truly responsible, whether it was good or bad. If it was bad, the country would suffer, and if it was good the country would reap the benefit. He utterly failed to see how this hole-and-corner method which the Government had adopted of dealing with property could produce anything but the most disastrous results. He was ready to admit that it was a most revolutionary way of dealing with town property, but he was not arguing that point. It might be right to confiscate property, it might be proper to take away with or without compensation a whole area of urban land. All these things might be right, but at all events let them be discussed in the country and the House 416 with that attention and publicity which must be given to them when the public realised that they were being touched, and that the proposal was one for which a responsible Government were prepared to pledge their credit. He deeply regretted the policy the Government had adopted, and in the interests of sound legislation and the dignity of that House he begged to move that the consideration of the Bill be adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said the right hon. Gentleman had favoured the House with a long and impassioned speech, much of which might just as well have been delivered on the Second Reading, and certainly that part of the speech in which he stated that the principle might ultimately find application to England would have been perfectly appropriate to the Second Reading. [Cries of "No."] Yes, certainly it was so. The right hon. Gentleman and those present in the House then could see what the principle of the. Bill was to be, and could discuss whether or not it was ever likely to be applied to England. The rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was very appropriate to the operation of going into Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Bill was sent to the Grand Committee instead of going to Committee of the Whole House. Why was that question not raised when it was proposed to send it to the Grand Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: It was raised.] Whether it was a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill made no difference to the point of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that it was an important Bill which in his view might ultimately be applied to England.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYou have entirely mistaken my argument.
MR. BRYCEsaid he had endeavoured to give it as well as he could understand it. What was the position in which the House found itself at the present moment? The right hon. Gentleman had laid down 417 the general proposition that it was better that any Bill which the Government was going ultimately to take up should be introduced by the Government. They were all agreed on that general principle, but no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman with his long experience of legislation that those general principles were subject to certain exceptions. When a Bill was found to be of an urgently important character, and it was desirable that a Bill should be passed at once in order to get rid of a grievance which was causing a great deal of complaint and difficulty in the administration of the law and the maintenance of order, it sometimes became necessary for the Government to take up a private Member's Bill and give it the benefit of the time they could provide for it. In regard to the drafting of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were not justified, as he would see when he told him what in point of fact had happened in connection with the measure. This Bill was brought in in a form entirely different from that in which it now stood, except as regarded the first four clauses. Upon the first four clauses of the Bill there was practically little or no difference of opinion in the House. Hon. Members representing the northern constituencies in Ireland, with some minor reservations, approved generally of the first four clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)The right hon. Gentleman is hardly right in saying that they approved of these clauses with minor reservations. There was one important reservation, and that was that the Bill was not to be retrospective. It was to apply only to the future, and it was distinctly stated that the ground of compensation was not to be retrospective.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not think that point was taken up by all the hon. Members from Ulster. It might have been taken up by the hon. Member himself, but he did not understand that to be the general view of hon. Members from the north of Ireland. However that might be, everyone who remembered the debate, or who would turn to the report of it, would agree that the first four clauses of the Bill had the support of hon. Members from the north of Ireland and the 418 general support of Members of the House. If it had depended on the first four clauses, he ventured to say that the Bill would have been read without a division. With respect to the rest of the Bill, it included two questions of principle. One was leasehold enfranchisement. That was strongly disapproved of in the way it was presented in the Bill, and his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who discussed the Bill in great detail, intimated clearly that the Government would not be in a position to give their support to that provision. They said that if it was possible for them to support the Bill at all it would be on the understanding that they could not support that proposal. The other principle was compensation for disturbance. His right hon. friend expressed disapproval of that also in the form in which it appeared in the Bill. It was pointed out in the debate that the Land Tenure Bill of this session provided for the payment of compensation for disturbance, and there was now in this Bill a clause providing compensation for "unreasonable disturbance." Therefore, the Government did not obtain the Second Reading of the Bill in any sense under false pretences. They obtained the Second Reading on the very principle which they then stated and avowed, namely, that they supported compensation for improvements but that they disapproved of the proposals for leasehold enfranchisement and compensation for disturbance as then presented. It was on that understanding that the Bill was read a second time, and to that understanding they adhered. When the measure went into Grand Committee the Government intimated to those whose names were on the back of the Bill that they could not give it any support unless drastic amendment of the proposals to give compensation for disturbance was made, and the leasehold clauses were omitted. The policy which the Government adhered to in Grand Committee was the policy declared on the Second Reading, and as the result of that policy they had the Bill in the form in which it stood to-day. Therefore the complaint made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the drafting did not in fact or in substance 419 apply to the Bill. The Bill was practically re-drafted in Grand Committee, and they had put it on their responsibility in the shape in which it now came before the House. He thought he had satisfactorily disposed of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. So far from this being a hole-and - corner proceeding, the Bill was discussed carefully and exhaustively for four days in Grand Committee in the presence of a number of English as well as Irish Members. Now the Government were taking it up and bringing it to the Report stage, where any objection that could be taken to any of the clauses could be fully stated and argued. There had been no attempt at concealment. The Government had acted in perfect good faith from first to last, and he hoped the House would proceed at once to the discussion in which the Government would be prepared to justify the view they took of the clauses.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim S.)said that the right hon. Gentleman had just told the House that so far as compensation for disturbance was concerned he only gave a modified approval to it; but on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said that apart from the fact that he thought it would be unworkable, he entirely disassociated himself on the part of the Government from giving any approval to the principle of fixing a fair rent or giving compensation for disturbance as proposed in the Bill. He thought that if hon. Members who had already examined the provisions contained in the original Bill in regard to compensation for disturbance and the provisions in the Bill as it now stood, would find that those provisions were practically the same. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Members from the north of Ireland voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. That was not so. Hon. Members from the north of Ireland had taken a perfectly consistent position in regard to the Bill. They had always been in favour of compensation for improvements, but against making the compensation retrospective; and they had always been against proposals for compensation for disturbance. As to the question of leasehold enfranchisement he admitted there had been 420 some difference of opinion; but he desired to emphasise what had been said by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they had been treated very badly in the matter of this Bill. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would remember the kind of treatment to which they were snbjected when the Land Tenure Bill was brought in a few weeks ago in a very unconstitutional manner. Precisely the same thing had been done in the present case. This Bill was being brought forward as a Government measure simply from the desire on the part of the Government at all costs to keep the Nationalists quiet during the rest of the session. It would be within the memory of the House that during the earlier part of the session—he thought in July or June—there was an eviction of a man named Ward in the town of Loughrea. That case was taken up because it was necessary so as to preserve law and order in Ireland.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said that the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was making the present Motion was not the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward, but his fear that the principle might be extended to England. He thought there was a good deal to be said for and against the particular action that a Government might take in regard to private Members' Bills, but he protested against the idea that under no circumstances was the Government to star a private Member's Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURA great controversial measure.
§ MR. DALZIELdenied that this was a great controversial measure. [OPPOSITION cries of "Certainly it is."] Hon. Members from the north of Ireland with scarcely an exception had expressed sympathy with it, and if they did not support the Bill on the Second Reading they found it convenient to be out of the House. If this new theory were to be adopted, private Members might at once give up all hope of passing any legislation at all, and all the work done in Committee 421 upstairs after the Second Reading would go for nothing. He maintained that such a doctrine would deal a further blow at the rights and privileges of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman preached one doctrine on one side of the House and another on the other side.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURFor ten years I was responsible for the business of this House, and never once starred a controversial private Member's Bill.
§ MR. DALZIELThe right hon. Gentle- man shelters himself behind a phrase.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURName one.
§ MR. DALZIELThe right hon. Gentleman starred the Musical Copyright Bill, and then was not able to carry it. [AN HON. Member: That was only controversial to Caldwell.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI deny that it was controversial, and I deny that it was starred.
§ MR. DALZIELIf the right hon. Gentleman consults his chief Whip he will find that he is mistaken, and that the Bill was starred for a considerable time.
§ Sir E. CARSON (Dublin University)It was not starred.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid there was also the sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill. [Opposition cries of "That was not controversial."] Who, after all, was to decide whether a Bill introduced by a private Member was controversial? That should rest with the Government of the day to decide, because they must pay some heed to the opinion of the House as a whole. It should be remembered that this Bill had received the support of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said the House allowed the Bill to pass because it was a private Member's. Bill, but he protested against any such doctrine. A private Member had a right to bring in important measures, and the Government would be failing in their duty after the House had endorsed the main prin- 422 ciple of the Bill if they did not afford an opportunity of passing it into law.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)said the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had tried to make out that this Bill was not of a highly controversial character, but he held in his hand a memorandum of the Bill as it was introduced, and he would remind the House of what took place upon the Second Reading debate. The Bill contained three important provisions: (1) that the tenant was entitled to compensation for improvement, (2) that the tenant was entitled to compensation for disturbance, and (3) provisions for leasehold enfranchisement. That was the form and frame of the Bill when it passed the Second Reading. In the course of the debate, however the Bill was bitterly attacked on the ground of the highly controversial matter which it introduced by the Attorney - General for Ireland, who proceeded to point out that it was almost impossible to conceive two more highly controversial matters than these questions of compensation for disturbance of town tenants and leasehold enfranchisement. He said that if the Bill had been confined to one provision alone, compensation for improvements, he, speaking for the Government, would have given it a favourable reception, but having regard to the unnecessary introduction of these new principles of compensation for disturbance and of leasehold enfranchisement he could not hold out any hope that the Government would facilitate its progress in any shape or form, those matters being so highly controversial that the Government could not give the time necessary for discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to explain that the main objection to compensation or disturbance lay in the fact that before any Court could entertain any question of compensation for disturbance it would have to determine what was a fair rent. That necessarily involved the application to town holding of the principle of fixing fair rents, a process of which he did not approve. He was subjected to repeated interruptions, and finally in answer to one interruption, whether he. would be prepared to accept a 423 clause dealing with compensation for disturbance on the lines of the English Land Tenure Bill, he said the effect of that would be so to change the whole character of the Bill that it would be better and simpler to introduce a new Bill. Shortly after, under the sting of further interruptions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if hon. Members from Ireland were prepared to adopt the English clause he would be prepared to consider whether the Government would adopt it.
§ * The ATTORNEY-GEMERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool, Exchange)The exact words I used were that I saw nothing unreasonable in the words of the clause in the English Bill, but that was a matter to be considered.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLreplied that the right hon. Gentleman said that at the end of a vigorous cross-examination from hon. Members opposite, but at the outset of his speech he had stated that he for one was against the application of the principle, and that he could not understand how it would work out in fixing a fair rent in regard to town holdings, and that it would lead to a perfect deluge of litigation in Ireland. The Chief Secretary, in summing up the debate, left the House under no mistake as to what his view was of this novel principle. He emphatically declared his uncompromising hostility to the application of the principle in any shape or form to town tenants in Ireland.
MR. BRYCEAll that I said referred to compensation for disturbance as proposed in that Bill. My remarks applied solely to the clause then before us, and the distinction I drew between agricultural and town holdings also applied to that clause. My objections to the fair rent system were grounded on the form of that Bill, and do not apply to the clause as we have it now.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had left the position exactly where it was, because under the clause which the Government afterwards introduced it would be necessary in every case for the Court before which a claim 424 was brought for compensation for disturbance under this Bill to find out whether the landlord's offer to renew the tenancy involved a fair rent. That was put in the very forefront of the right hon. Gentleman's section. The first thing the Court would have to determine in embarking upon this investigation was whether the rent at which the landlord was willing to renew to the outgoing tenant was or was not a fair rent. That was the same thing that was in the clauses in the Bill as it originally stood, and he challenged the Attorney-General to show to the House where the section had avoided the necessity for ascertaining the fair rent. The two clauses in this particular were identical. That being so the Bill remained in the condition in which the Chief Secretary called it a highly controversial measure. The right hon. Gentle man had promised if these objectionable features were taken out of the Bill to get it up to the Grand Committee, and on that understanding the House agreed to send it there. In Grand Committee, a new clause was submitted by the Attorney-General giving a liberal scale of compensation for disturbance which was more revolutionary than that proposed in the original Bill. Under Clause 5 as drafted by the hon. Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin, Clause 5 contained a schedule which limited the amount which could be recovered in any case having regard to the rent. That was to say that where the rent was £50 and under, a sum not exceeding one year's rent and so on was provided for on a graduated scale. Under the right hon. Gentleman's clause the schedule disappeared, and his scheme was as wide and revolutionary as the other, the safeguards having been swept away. And that was done by a Government and a Minister who had denounced the whole principle as unworkable and unjust. He took the liberty in Committee to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this large change, and to ask under what circumstances this extraordinary right-about-face had taken place, and the only defence was a suggestion from which the right hon. Gentleman afterwards withdrew, that perhaps he was not correctly reported in Hansard.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not responsible for what appears in Hansard?
MR. BRYCENo; but I never accept responsibility for what I find in those books unless the speeches are starred. On the other hand, I told him that the report appeared to be a correct report, and what I said then is sustained by my present attitude.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that meant that the report quite represented his views. That made the mystery all the greater, because the language was incapable of being misunderstood. At any rate, it was a wholesale condemnation not of the Clause, but of the principle, and that was the principle which was now to be found in his own new Clause. He thought the House was entitled to know how this right-about-face happened. In Ireland they all knew what had occurred, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would let the cat out of the bag and tell them why the Government "climbed down" upon this measure as they had done in regard to almost every measure they had introduced. What had happened to warrant this change? About a fortnight after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman a man called Ward was threatened with eviction at Loughrea and Sir Antony MacDonnell—the right hon. Gentleman's alter ego—went down to Loughrea and had some negotiations or bargain with this tenant who was defying the law. In consideration of the tenant's obeying the law some promise was given.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLSome arrangement was made.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he accepted unreservedly the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but he hardly thought that he was cognisant of what 426 had been done by Sir Antony MacDonnell in his absence.
MR. BRYCEsaid there was no bargain of any sort or kind whatever made, and Sir Antony MacDonnell expressly stated, as he had said before, that no bargain whatever was made, and he was not to be taken to have made any arrangement of any kind in connection with this Bill.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman left the mystery greater than before. But the Chief Secretary would kindly tell them how it came to be that a principle which was so emphatically condemned by the Government's advisers in Ireland was now embodied in the Government's clause in this extraordinary Bill. The Ulster Members were, as before, strongly against this unfair and unjust clause, which proposed to make retrospective compensation for improvement. Why had the Government changed its position in this matter? In June in reply to a question, Mr. Bryce promised to give facilities for the Bill—
on the understanding that the parts of the Bill which might give rise to lengthened discussion would be dropped in Committee so as to facilitate the passage of the measure.The House had therefore been misled, and the reference of the Bill to Grand Committee, and its passage through that Committee, had been obtained by what amounted to false pretences. False pretence number one was that the Government were hostile to the obnoxious principle of compensation for disturbance because it involved the fixing of fair rents, and false pretence number two was that all contentious portions of the Bill were to be dropped in Committee so as to facilitate the passage of the Bill. The Bill in its present form was a distinct violation of these conditions, and he would therefore support the Motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
§ * MR. CHERRYthought the House would agree that the greater part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was more relevant to the clause than to the Motion for Adjournment. The right hon. 427 Gentleman was anxious to show the Government up, and he had charged them with dealing with the House by false pretences. That was a strong phrase to use. The false pretences were alleged to have occurred in a speech which he had the honour of making in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill. He was the first Member of the Government to speak upon the Bill, which he dealt with in detail, and the Chief Secretary only spoke upon that occasion for a very few minutes. He thought he could show that everything that had taken place since the Second Reading of the Bill was perfectly consistent with what he said on that occasion, and that what he then indicated had been carried out by the House and the Committee upstairs. The Member for Dublin University had said that there were three subjects dealt with in this Bill. As a matter of fact there were four subject-matters when the measure was first introduced, and he pointed out that they were four very difficult and complicated subjects. The first was compensation for improvements; the second, compensation for disturbance; the third, leasehold enfranchisement; and the fourth, the power of setting aside leases generally in Ireland in reference to town holdings. At that time he pointed out most distinctly that the third and fourth were such as the Government could not accept, and the clauses dealing with leasehold enfranchisement and the power of setting aside leases generally in Ireland in reference to town holdings were, with the consent of the hon. Member who moved the Bill, entirely dropped in Grand Committee. As regarded the other two subject-matters, he stated that the Government were in favour of compensation for improvements both those executed after the date of the passing of the Act, and those which had already been made—he stated that the Government were strongly in favour of the principle, and would support the Second Reading of the Bill which embodied that principle. With regard to the question of compensation for disturbance, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he did actually say. The Bill as introduced followed the precedent of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870 as regarded agricultural holdings. It 428 gave a right to every tenant of a town holding on being disturbed to receive compensation, and it fixed the scale of that compensation. He stated that he could not accept that principle, because he thought there were grave objections to it. The clause now in the Bill was taken from the Land Tenure Bill for England, but it was upon an entirely different principle, because it did not recognise the tenant's right at all, and only gave compensation to a man who was unreasonably and vexatiously disturbed from his holding. At the time he read out to the House the exact terms of the clause, and he read it out by way of contrast, and as not being subject to the objection he had taken to the previous section. Upon that occasion the hon. Member for North Dublin interrupted him with the words—
Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the words in the English Act?In reply to that he said—I see nothing unreasonable in the words of the clause of the English Bill, but that is a matter to be considered.He quoted that clause with approval, and in Grand Committee the hon. Member for North Dublin expressed approval of it, and said he would accept it. Consequently he brought up the clause, and it was now in the Bill in the form in which he read it to the House. So that everything they had done in reference to compensation for disturbance exactly followed what he had said in the debate on the Second Reading. Leasehold enfranchisement and. the setting aside of leases had been entirely dropped. The hon. Member for Dublin University had endeavoured to find out what had. caused the Government to "climb down" and alter their position, and he had found a most delightful explanation—that it was due to the Ward case. He would remind the House that the Ward case was referred to by the mover of the Bill on the Second Reading and he read out the letter which appeared in Hansard written by Lord Clanricarde's agent.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the notice of eviction was served, but it was only after the Second Reading that the 429 landlord proceeded to evict and the disturbance arose, and. it was then that the Government got frightened.
* MR. CHEERYsaid that, as a matter of fact, the clause with reference to compensation for disturbance was supported by hon. Members from Ireland on account of this Ward case which was referred to by the mover of the Bill and others on the Irish Benches. The hon. Member for South Tyrone also referred to it as justifying the proposal of the Bill in regard to compensation for disturbance. Therefore everybody knew that that principle was going to be inserted in the Bill. Did Lord Clanricarde ever repent an eviction or stay his hand when he commenced? Was there ever an hon. Member of this House who did not know perfectly well that Lord Clanricarde would carry out what he had threatened to do? Therefore the accusation that the Government wore frightened by the action of Lord Clanricarde fell to the ground entirely. He would leave it to the House to judge whether the Government had not done exactly what they said they would.
§ Major SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)said that those sitting on the Ministerial Bench had been accused of false pretences, and that was an accusation which would cause many of them to consider what course they ought to adopt if it were true. The gravamen of the charge was that the Bill was brought to a conclusion on the Second Reading by the intervention of Mr. Speaker, and that the matter was taken up by the Government. It might be supposed that Mr. Speaker would not have acted as he did had he had reason to think that the Government would take up the measure. If that had been true he would have voted for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but there was not a word of truth in the statement, and he now called upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the allegations he had made, knowing full well that he was so eminently fair, because had he been in the House at the time he would have known that there was no closure on the Second Reading of the Bill. What was really in fault was not the meanness of those on the Ministerial side, but the pusillanimous conduct of 430 the Opposition when their present Leader was not in the House to lead them. It was perfectly possible for hon. Members opposite to have kept the discussion of this important matter of principle going until the discussion came to an end automatically, but they did. nothing of the kind. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was clearly under a misapprehension he might just as well withdraw his accusation.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)said the hon. and gallant Member had drawn a picture of what took place on the Second Reading of this Bill, and had stated that if the closure was moved he would have voted with the Opposition.
§ Major SEELYasked if the hon. Baronet was present on that occasion.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was not, but if he had been very likely the closure would have been moved. It was exactly the same thing during the proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill, because the closure was not moved on the Question that the Bill be now read a Second time, but on the Question that the Bill should be sent to a Committee. The Government starred that Bill and proceeded with the Report stage last week. If the closure had never been moved it would never have gone to the Committee, and therefore there was a distinct breach of faith. Never in his recollection had a private Member's Bill of so contentious a character been starred. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said the Magical Copyrights Bill was starred, but certainly it was not contentious, there being only two Members against it. It had been shown that at least two Members of the Government spoke against the principle of compensation for disturbance, but now they had turned completely round without giving any reason for it. The whole procedure of the House of Commons was being altered by this habit of taking up private Members' contentious Bills and starring them: they did not know where they were. Under such a system what was there to prevent the Government making an arrangement with a private Member to bring forward a measure which was very obnoxious to 431 the Opposition and passing it into law in this way? They only needed to look at the proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill as an example of this kind of legislation. They did not want the precedent of the Land Tenure Bill to be continually followed in this House, and he would have thought, after their experience in regard to that Bill, right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been loth to bring before the House another measure in the same category. He hoped those Members, irrespective of Party, who had some regard for precedent would vote for the Motion.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said the hon. and gallant Member who had called upon the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his remark that the Government in acting as they had done had been acting on false pretences, had based the whole of his argument on the single fact that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried without the closure. That had nothing to do with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition, and nothing to do with the case in point. The hon. and gallant Member had suggested that members of the present Opposition were not so successful in impeding business as he and his friends were, and had imputed to them a want of courage, but he passed that by. What was the situation at the close of that debate? It had already been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University that the Attorney-General led them to believe that the doctrine of compensation for disturbance which was included in the Bill would not find favour with the Government, and that they would do what Governments generally did when they disapproved of the guiding principles of a Bill—take steps themselves to see that it was not adopted.
§ Major SEELYWas the right hon. Gentleman present at the time?
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was not present. He was not in the least afraid of being challenged in this House for that or any other action.
§ * MR. CHERRYYou did not vote.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not, and he was going to say so himself without the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption. The contention of his right hon. and learned friend the Member for Dublin University was that the impression left upon the mind of the House was that the Government did not approve of the policy of compensation for disturbance, but they now found that the Government had introduced Amendments on the subject which not only upset the principle on which the House believed the Government were agreed, but carried the original proposals of the Bill still further. What was the view taken by advocates of the measure at the time? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said—
He had, heard the speech of the Attorney-General with great regret. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would vote in favour of the Bill, but went on to criticise almost every detail.The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford expressed a view which was held, he undertook to say, by every Member who took part in the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman challenged him for not voting in the division. They all made mistakes, and he might have been mistaken, but his conviction was that the Government intended to remove from the Bill all those parts to which he in the main objected, and the result of that debate was to lead to the belief that the Bill would cease to be a controversial measure, because the parts which led to controversy and difficulty were to be removed at the instance of the Government themselves. While he was not prepared to vote for a Bill to many parts of which he objected, he was not prepared to vote against it in face of what he thought to be the definite declarations of the Government. With regard to the Loughrea controversy and the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland that the incident had nothing to do with the action of the Government in regard to this Bill, the House knew at all events that the incident was in existence when the Bill was introduced. The Government sent a representative who came to an arrangement with the tenant. They were told that there was no arrangement made on that occasion, but, at all events, the hon. 433 Member for Mayo speaking, he believed, to his own constituents, had referred to this Bill as the result of the Loughrea incident, and to the fact that His Majesty's Government had made up their minds to star it and to give it their authority as a direct consequence of what had taken place at Loughrea. So that if the Opposition were under a misapprehension in regard to this matter they were not alone in putting that construction upon the Government's action. The hon. and gallant Gentleman took offence at the phrase "false pretences." He admitted it was a strong phrase, but it was abundantly justified having regard to the action of the Government
§ in reference to this Bill and the Land Tenure Bill. If the policy of adopting private Members' Bills at the shortest possible notice and giving them precedence over Government Bills was to be followed it would be much more difficult for private Members to have full enjoyment of their rights in future than it had been in the past, besides inflicting an injustice on the Opposition. He maintained that his right hon. friend's Motion was abundantly justified.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 278. (Division List No. 414.)
437| AYES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Du Cros, Harvey | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Duncan, Robert (Lanark Govan) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Bandies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fell, Arthur | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J.(City Lond.) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Finch, Bt. Hon. George H. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fletcher, J. S. | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Haddock, George B. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hamilton, Marquess of | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Starkey, John R. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Heaton, John Henniker | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Helmsley, Viscount | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Liddell, Henry | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Younger, George |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres. |
| Cross, Alexander | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Beauchamp, E. | Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beaumont, Hn W. C. B (Hexham) | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beck, A. Cecil | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn |
| Alden, Percy | Bell, Richard | Burke, E. Haviland- |
| Ambrose, Robert | Bellairs, Carlyon | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Benn, Sir J Williams (Devonp'rt) | Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bennett, E. N. | Byles, William Pollard |
| Astbury, John Meir | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Cairns, Thomas |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cameron, Robert |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Billson, Alfred | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Boland, John | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Barker, John | Bramsdon, T. A. | Churchill, Winston Spencer |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't) | Branch, James | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brodie, H. C. | Clarke, C. Goddard |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brooke, Stopford | Clough, William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) |
| Cogan Denis J. | Jardine, Sir J. | O'Shee, James, John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cooper G. J. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Crean, Eugene | Joyce, Michael | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crombie, John William | Kekewich, Sir George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Crooks William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Radford, G. H. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Davies M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Laidlaw, Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Delany, William | Lambert, George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lamont, Norman | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Dickinson, W. H (St. Pancras, N.) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Layland-Barrett, Francis | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton) |
| Dillon, John | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lough, Thomas | Robinson, S. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lundon, W. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lynch, H. B. | Rogers, F. K. Newman |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Rose, Charles Day |
| Elibank, Master of | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rowlands, J. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Erskine, David C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Essex, R. W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. | Sears, J. E. |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Killop, W. | Seddon, J. |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Micking, Major G. | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Maddison, Frederick | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Field, William | Markham, Arthur Basil | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Massie, J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Masterman, C. F. G. | Snowden, P. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Meagher, Michael | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Ginnell, L. | Meehan, Patrick A. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | Menzies, Walter | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Mond, A. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Montagu, E. R. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Grant, Corrie | Mooney, J. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Gulland, John W. | Morrell, Philip | Summerbell, T. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morse, L. L. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Halpin, J. | Murnaghan, George | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Hammond, John | Murphy, John | Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murray, James | Thorne, William |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) | Myer, Horatio | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Napier, T. B. | Toulmin, George |
| Harwood, George | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster) | Ure, Alexander |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nolan, Joseph | Verney, F. W. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Norman, Sir Henry | Vivian, Henry |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nuttall, Harry | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ward, W. (Dudley (Southampt'n) |
| Henry, Charles S. | O'Connor James (Wicklow, W) | Wardle, George J. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Dowd, John | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Hare, Patrick | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | White, J. O. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) | |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Malley, William | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Mara, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer | Young, Samuel | |
| Wiles, Thomas | Yoxall, James Henry |
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved the omission of Clause 1. He understood that many Members were in favour of giving compensation to tenants for improvements, but they were not in favour of giving compensation for improvements that had been made when no such principle was in contemplation by either the landlord or the tenant. They were in favour of some principle of compensation, provided it was not made retrospective. Of course, no one could object to legislation as unjust which altered the existing method of procedure, provided that it was not made retrospective. So far as he was concerned, if the clause had not been retrospective he probably should not have moved its omission though he was against the principle of interference with contracts between man and man in matters of this kind. He went rather further than hon. Members from Ulster. If Parliament was to be continually interfering between man and man on the question of what they were to do with their own money and, generally, how they were to conduct their own affairs, provided that there was no question of fraud, he held that they would be introducing legislation which would do no good to any man, and would not assist those whom it was supposed to assist, but which would hamper capital and prevent desirable improvements. If this clause became law every landlord would say, "How can I avoid making myself liable for compensation for things of which I do not approve?" It might be said that there were clauses in the Bill which would allow the landlord to have something to say, and that an improvement could not be made unless it was approved of by him. If it was an improvement to which the landlord objected on the ground that it was unnecessary or that it would not add to the value of the house or property, he could go to a Court of law. All that was encouraging lawyers and preventing people from carrying on their own affairs. The words in the clause "or his predecessors in title" would make a landlord liable for "improvements" which were not improvements, 438 which might have been carried out without his sanction, and about which he knew nothing. Why should a man who made an improvement after the passing of this Bill be compelled to prove that it was an improvement, whereas a man who made an "improvement" which was not an improvement forty years ago could come down and say, "I or my predecessor in title made this improvement years ago, and, therefore, I am entitled to compensation?" He would point out to the Chief Secretary what might occur in the case of a long leasehold. He instanced a case where ninety-nine years ago a man took a piece of ground at a rental of £5 on the understanding that he should erect a house on it. That house might have been sold several times over, and have come into the hands of the present owner only five years ago. Why should that man get compensation for the improvement when it was part of the original bargain that the ground rent should be low on account of the improvement which the leaseholder was to make on the land? If they did that they were going to alter the whole system on which houses had been built, not only in Ireland, but in England. The system was that the builder got a piece of land at a low rent in consideration of his putting a house upon it, and of the house reverting to the landlord. Though it was a system which had certain drawbacks it had been found to work well. The greater part of the City of London had been constructed on that principle, and he did not think that anyone would get up and say that the City of London had not prospered. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, in his speech on the Second Reading, stated that the City of London was a great sinner in that respect. The tenants in the City of London were men of business and they were perfectly content. If they were satisfied he did not see any necessity for making a change in the law there. This was not the first time that a Bill of this kind had been before the House. In 1886 a Bill of a somewhat similar 439 character was brought forward, and the then Government strongly opposed it. Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, and the present Secretary of State for India, opposed the Bill. What happened after that? The Bill of 1886 was referred to a Select Committee which sat for something like three years, and in their Report that Committee said that they were not prepared, after the best consideration they had been able to give to the evidence, to recommend so great an alteration of the law as to leases and contracts of tenancy as to give to occupiers the right to compensation for the value of the improvements made by them. If this Bill were passed into law, he contended that the result would not only be unjust to owners, but would prevent investment in house property in Ireland. That was shown in a letter written to the right hon. the Chief Secretary by a Mr. Montgomery, who quoted the case of a house let at £12 a year for sixty-one years where the tenant made some small improvements. The low rent which the tenant paid, however, had amply compensated him for any improvements he had made; but under this Bill he would be paid for those improvements twice over. If the clause had been limited to long leases it would have been bad enough, but it was worse when applied to short leases. A man might take a lease of premises for a fortnight and make an alteration and then claim compensation. The owner might have to go before a Court of law and employ eminent counsel to defend his interests, and the result would depend on whether or not the Court decided that the alteration was an improvement. It was very difficult for any Judge to find out whether a supposed improvement was really an improvement. He had much pleasure in moving the omission of the clause.
§ * Viscount CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)seconded the omission of the clause, because he considered it most unreasonable that a landlord should be asked to pay compensation for so-called improvements which had been made in the past and in the making of which he had had no voice whatever. He was not in any way opposed to the principle of the Bill, at 440 least not to the principle involved in the first four sections, but he maintained that from the manner in which it was drafted it was bound to lead to a great deal of litigation. In fact, this prospective increase of litigation was a characteristic of all the Bills of the present Government; and he hoped that they would simplify the first clause in order to prevent litigation. As it stood the clause placed the landlord in a very unfair position. He knew that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway could not conceive of any punishment sufficient for a landlord; but he thought that they ought to realise that a landlord was a human being like themselves, and that he owned his property just as much on the same conditions as hon. Gentlemen below the gangway owned the suit of clothes they wore at the present moment. It was not in accordance with the principles of freedom that the property of any citizen of the Empire should be confiscated by the other citizens; and it was for that reason that he begged to second the Motion for the omission of the first clause.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London might just as well have moved the rejection of the Bill as the omission of Clause 1, because that clause embodied the whole principle of the Bill. Clause 1 set forth the principle that under certain conditions the tenant was to have compensation for certain improvements he had made on his tenancy; and therefore if the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord wanted to have that principle recognised at all they should vote for the clause. The objections taken by the hon. Member for the City of London were objections to different points in the Bill; but he did not think that anybody would agree with the hon. Baronet that there should not be any compensation given at all for improvements made by the tenant. Two other objections were to the Amendments put down by the 441 Attorney-General for Ireland, one an Amendment to Clause 2, and the other an Amendment to Clause 13. He could not at that stage enter into a complete argument as to the manner in which the hon. Member who had made the objections would be met when they came to deal with that part of the Bill, but he was prepared to argue the question at the proper time. The hon. Gentleman who was almost alone in his opposition to the Bill dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors to children, was, he thought, likely to occupy almost the same distinguished position on this occasion. He would not receive much support in resisting a principle on which nearly everybody in Ireland was agreed.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)thought the Chief Secretary had mistaken the temper of the House if he thought there was to be no opposition to this clause or this Bill. He objected to the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the objections to Clause 1 by saying that the House, by passing the Second Heading of the Bill, under circumstances of which they were aware, was estopped from pointing out the glaring wrongs which appeared in Clause 1 as it stood. Before he dealt with the clause in detail he might be allowed to enter his protest against the principle which it contained. It was that when two grown men, who wore capable of taking care of themselves, entered into a contract the Government should interfere between them and say that they knew the business of those men better than the men themselves knew it. The experiment had been tried by Legislatures in various parts of the world, and it had rarely been successful. This Bill went a step further than the Land Tenure Bill. There might be exceptional cases in which it was desirable to depart from the sound rule of allowing people to settle their own contracts, but they did not arise here. He instanced the case of a person who had let a house for three years, with the intention of coming back at the end of that time. Under this Bill, during the owner's absence, without his leave, request, or authority, the tenant might put a conservatory at the back of his drawing room, a thing he objected to, but this Bill said that not only was he not to ask the tenant to remove it, but he was to pay him a 442 ruinous price for it. That he considered most objectionable. Such a doctrine would not be tolerated in England for a moment, and he would remind the House when they were dealing with this question that the landlords of England were not invariably among the richer classes. In Cambridge, with which he was familiar, most of the people of the lower middle class and working people invested their savings in landed property or houses through the medium of building societies or directly. It was bad enough when a man was rich that he should have to give compensation for improvements which he had never authorised or comtemplated, but it was worse when he was poor that he should at the termination of a tenancy be called upon to pay large sums of money. Of course as far as future contracts were concerned the matter would more or less right itself. If a tenant was taking land for the purpose of building and it was understood that at the end of the building lease he was to be paid the value of what he had put upon the land, be would not get the land at such a small rate as he did at the present time, when he might merely have to pay a peppercorn rent. Alterations would be made if this Bill became law, and the peppercorn rent would go and the tenant would have to pay more for the land. Therefore it was with the past rather than the present that he was dealing. In the case of a building contract for the full term of ninty-nine years land was, sometimes given for nothing because the landlord obtained the houses at the end of a certain period. Both the landlord and the tenant entered into this class of contract with their eyes open, and why should a Bill of this kind be brought forward to subsidise the speculative builder? It would not benefit the tenants of the houses, and the Government were going to step in not between landlord and tenant in the ordinary sense, but between the landlord and the speculative builder, and give the latter far more than he ever bargained for. He bad had experience of speculative builders, and he was perfectly certain that as a class they were well able to take care of themselves, and he thought his fellow subjects as a whole were also perfectly capable of looking after their own interests in the case of a bargain. It was for this reason that he objected to 443 a clause which would work injustice in regard to existing contracts. The clause had been drawn not carefully but in an ill-considered way, and in his opinion should be rejected by the House.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Chief Secretary had informed them that they ought all to vote for this clause because it merely contained the principle of compensation for improvements. He disagreed with him entirely. There were two distinct principles in the clause. One was the principle of compensation for improvements contracted for after the passing of this Act, and the other the principle of compensation for improvements which had been made in the past. Those two principles were as different as any two principles could be, and he was looking forward to the time when the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General for Ireland would explain the grounds upon which compensation for improvements made in the past was to be justified. Up to that time they had had no argument put forward in favour of the retrospective action of the Bill, and the House was looking forward with considerable expectation to the argument which would show that a tenant who had made his bargain twenty or thirty years ago, on the basis that he could expect no compensation, after the lapse of thirty years, by the action of this clause, was to be entitled to say, "I made these improvements and I shall be obliged if you will give me the value of them now." Such a proposal was opposed to all sense and reason. It was a reasonable and just thing if a person made an important improvement, which would add to the value of the holding, or the building, which was suitable to it, and from which the landlord or the incoming tenant would get a distinct advantage, that he should receive compensation for that improvement. That was part of this clause, but, unfortunately, the clause also contained the pernicious principle that the tenant should be paid for improvements made years ago when there was no question whatever of compensation. He did not think that either just or fair, and therefore he traversed the statement of the Chief Secretary that if the House approved of compensa- 444 tion in any form they must vote in favour of this clause. The attitude that he had taken up all along was that the Government ought to have introduced such a Bill as that which was introduced last year, and made it apply to improvements made after the passing of the Act. That would have been a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do, but this Bill went far beyond that; this first clause went beyond it, and the four clauses of the Bill went very much further. They were now, however, only dealing with first clause, and it was the duty of all those who held the views which he professed to vote against it.
§ Sir E. CARSONcongratulated the Government and the House upon the general enthusiasm of English Members in passing this Bill for inflicting what he believed would be a gross injustice upon the Irish landlords of town property. He had not the least doubt that if the Government had made this Bill apply to England as well Ireland, instead of empty benches, they would have seen many anxious faces of people on both sides who owned property in various parts of the country. Knowing the circumstances of both Ireland and England, he stated without fear of contradiction that the town tenants of Ireland were in a far better position than those of England as regard their property. And the House must not pass this clause under the impression that the principle could be confined to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that no Member from Ireland could be found who would oppose the clause. He (Sir E. Carson) might be a very unique individual, but he certainly was opposed to it. To enact this provision as it stood, without having regard to the relationship that had been established between landlord and tenant, either personally or by assignment, was, as he thought he would be able to show, as unjust as anything that could be conceived in relation to property. The right hon. Gentleman was very suave and said that if the House dealt with this clause now they could deal with the other matters by means of the Amendments on the Paper. If the Chief Secretary had told the House what Amendments he proposed to accept his observations could have been understood. They could not let this clause 445 go until they had such a statement. Were the Government going to make the proposal applicable to a case where the landlord had entered into a contract with his tenant that the tenant should not be compensated for improvements? He would like to know also if he read this Bill rightly when he deduced from it that it was to be applied to the case of a tenant for life. Let them take the case of a tenant for life of a property the tenancy of which expired during his tenancy for life. Was he right in supposing that the tenant for life, on his tenant going out, was to pay for improvements which had been made long before he became the tenant for life, and that he was to pay the compensation out of his life interest? Was that to be a charge on the life interest or on the fee? He found nothing in the Bill to enable the tenant for life to pay it out of the fee. He put it to the House, was it a fair obligation to place upon the tenant for life? Was it fair to mulct him in the cost of improvements with which he had nothing to do, in relation to a property in which he only had a limited interest? He might have to pay a fourth of the whole value of the fee, and he would have no remedy. This was not a section which charged the property with the cost of the improvements of the premises. It created a personal liability, and if the interest of the tenant for life, or any other person Who was in the happy or unhappy position of being a landlord, of this town property was less than the amount claimed against him for compensation, he would have to pay that claim out of his own private property merely because he happened to be the owner of the property. Let them take another case, the case of a landlord and a tenant who both came in by way of assignment. The landlord on purchasing fixed his purchase money without any regard to the fact that he would have to pay his tenant compensation for improvements, and the tenant who had purchased his property had fixed his price after having regard to the improvements made by his predecessor. Was that tenant to have compensation for improvements? The proposition was too absurd to be seriously considered. But if that was not the meaning, of the Bill, he would be much obliged if the Atttorney-General would tell him how those cases were taken out of it. The truth of the matter was 446 it would be impossible under this Bill to apply with justice the principle which had been applied to the land of Ireland in giving compensation for improvements, and he failed to see how any plan could be laid down which would avoid the difficulties he had suggested. Let them take the case of several intervening leases each of which was a little longer than another, and suppose one interest fell in. The tenant in that case would claim from the next immediate landlord. He would claim probably the letting value at the time his lease fell in, and he would be paid at the price fixed as the value of the improvements so far as they added to the letting value. But when did the landlord get the value of the improvements which he would have to get from his immediate landlord? He obviously would have to wait until his lease fell in. But in the meantime the value of the property might have fallen, and then he would get less from his landlord than his tenant got. from him, and that would be repeated until they got back to the freeholder. Were the Government going to make the Bill applicable to past contracts so as to enable tenants to break their contracts? He would vote for a clause which, without breaking existing contracts, would, in the absence of agreement, give compensation for improvements limited to the particular tenant entering into the contract or those who by devolution of law succeeded him The clause as it stood threw a gross injustice upon limited owners.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)said it approached a scandal that three such speeches as the House had listened to should be allowed to be made in sequence, without any attempt being made to answer them. If this were a matter of mere abstract principle, he would say it was perfectly reasonable that when two men were interested in a piece of land, and one made an improvement from which both benefited, that both should pay for that improvement in so far as they both enjoyed it. If the clause only went so far, he should not feel bound to vote against it. He was glad to see from the third clause that everything in dispute was to be settled by a Court of law. He was a great believer in Courts of law, and he believed no man would come to any great harm through being compelled to 447 do what a Court of law found reasonable. He doubted very much whether this Bill would have the effect that both its supporters and its opponents anticipated. It would undoubtedly raise rents, and would give a certain benefit to the tenant which he did not now enjoy. It would throw upon the Courts of law a burden the greatness and difficulty of which many Members of this House had no idea of. The particular effect which this clause would have would not greatly benefit the tenant or injure the landlord, but it would provide a great deal of litigation, confer a great deal of well-deserved remuneration on lawyers and expert witness, and involve a great waste of money. The time had now arrived when they were entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill was prepared to indicate in a general way and in any degree what modifications he would reasonably consider if they were not to vote against the clause as a whole. If the clause were not amended injustice was possible. The rent of premises might have been assessed on the basis that the tenant would execute the repairs, and that on quitting the premises he would surrender to the landlord the unexhausted value of any improvements, and so enable the landlord to raise the rent to the next tenant. Under this Bill they were putting on the landlord a burden from which he had been free, and at the same time allowing the tenant to rent the premises at the lower figure. There was no precedent for this. In the Bill brought in last year the promoters were very careful to set out the fact that it was not to be retrospective. He appealed to the right hon. Member responsible for the Bill to indicate whether the Government would undertake to consider favourably the claim which those who opposed the Bill would make that this clause should not be rendered retrospective.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had complained that the Government had not answered previous speakers. If he had done so there would have been no one on the Treasury Bench to answer the brilliant speech just made. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no precedent 448 for making the Bill retrospective. That showed how ignorant English Members could be of Irish law. The Land Act of 1870 was retrospective, and, moreover, contained a clause much stronger than anything in this Bill. The principle of the first clause of this Bill was that compensation for improvements ought to be made to the tenant of a town holding who had made the improvements at his own expense. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University based his objection to this clause upon the ground that it was a breaking of contract, but there was nothing in the clause inconsistent with contract, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the trouble to read subsection (3) of Clause 2 he would have seen that a tenant was not entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in contravention of a contract in writing not to make the improvement, so that the objection of hon. and learned Gentlemen fell to the ground.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid this Bill would entirely alter the English law, because it would make the landlord pay for something he had never contracted to pay for, and which, apart from this Bill, he would not be bound to make.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid certainly he paid for what he got and only for what he got The second point raised was that it was a great hardship upon a person who let a house for a short time and went abroad for a couple of years, and on his return found, for instance, a conservatory erected for which he had to pay. That was met by Clause 8.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsubmitted that the clause had absolutely nothing to do with the lease he suggested.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid the case was of a very exceptional character, besides which the tenant was bound to prove that he added to the letting value of the holding. Impossible and absurd suggestions were made, and the House was asked to reject the whole clause because of possibilities which were really answered by other clauses of the Bill. As regarded the question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for Dublin University in respect of tenants for life, when they 449 reached the clause dealing with the incorporation of the section of the Act of 1870, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might, if he liked, move an Amendment, and he promised the Government would give the matter full consideration. With regard to intervening leases, if a man took over possession of a house with the improvements, so long as he occupied the holding he enjoyed the benefit of the improvements, and so soon as he surrendered to the landlord he got paid. The points that had been raised dealt really not with the clause at all but with the whole principle of compensation for improvements. Everyone agreed, he thought, that the Act of 1870, which gave the agricultural tenant compensation for agricultural improvements, had worked with substantial justice to the tenant and had done no injustice to the landlord, and there was no reason to apprehend that the same would not be the case in regard to town holdings. If hon. Members were in favour of one part of the clause and took objection to the other the logical course was to vote for the entire clause and then move Amendments.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an illustration of the extreme inconvenience of the methods adopted by the Government in taking over the conduct of this Bill at this stage. It had been discussed no doubt in Committee upstairs, though not by the Committee on Law to which they asked the Government to send it, but by the Committee on Trade. Everybody knew, however, the difficulty of getting hard-worked Members to attend in the early hours of the day as well as in the late hours of the day, so that they could never get this House adequately represented on that Committee, and least of all the Government. Without saying anything at all offensive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose abilities they were all ready to admit, he did not think that when they were dealing with so vast an interest as was here involved discussions carried on in Grand Committee and under present conditions were adequate. On the most important clause of the Bill the Attorney-General for Ireland had made a few perfunctory remarks so far as the merits of the clause were concerned, because, said he, the clause was discussed on the Second Reading and was really 450 the Bill, so that he must be excused from further arguments. The late Solicitor-General for England had made a speech, and the Government had to give some sort of answer, and when the Attorney-General for Ireland at last got up he said he had not done so before because he could only speak once. That was also true, but was not the moral to be drawn from it that the House could not discuss the details of those great measures on Report stage? If it were the Committee stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be in the happy position of being able to reply to each new point that was raised. On Report he could only speak once, and the representatives of the Government absolved themselves henceforth from taking any notice of any further argument, however effective. Might he call attention to one amazing statement made by the Attorney-General for Ireland, who actually had the courage to tell the House that this Bill did not interfere with contracts?
§ * MR. CHERRYWhat I said was that the clause we are now dealing with was not inconsistent with contracts.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his view was that they ought not to be inconsistent with or to ignore or interfere with contracts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it very wrong to interfere with contracts.
§ * MR. CHERRYI do not say that.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not even think it was wrong to interfere with contracts. At all events the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was somewhat inconsistent. They must be permitted to regard that statement with some astonishment. Surely these rather crude doctrines should be wrapped up with a little more decency and delicacy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not said a word to justify so great a departure from ordinary practice. He quite admitted that it was in absolute conformity with the principles of justice that in future leases this House should lay down the thesis that the tenant was always to get compensation for any improvements. He admitted that there was nothing unjust in that. He was not so certain 451 that there was nothing inexpedient in it. He personally, being a Scotsman, had a prejudice in favour of the system of perpetual leases which were called feus. He preferred that system to the ninety-nine years' leaser, or the eighty years' leases, which were common in the Metropolis and other towns of England. Though He would like to see the English practice largely changed, were they sure they were doing anything for the advancement of the community in saying that no owner of property was really to make a contract with a tenant which would save him from all anxiety at to the value of his property, but that he should be required to take a close personal interest in his property from year to year? There was great advantage in permitting people so to arrange their affairs that one might be content with very low interest, and so avoid trouble, while the higher interest was received and the trouble taken off his shoulders by somebody else. That was of immense advantage to small investors, to widows and orphans who really had not the machinery for looking after their property. It was of enormous advantage to insurance societies, building societies, and other associations of that kind. They were going to make that kind of investment impossible. He was not saying that there was any injustice in this, but were they wise entirely to destroy a certain kind of investment which was now recognised as one of immense convenience to a very large and varied body of investors? He was not by any means sure that it was a wise thing. He was arguing this matter quite deliberately from the British as well as the Irish point of view, because if they passed the Bill it could not be confined to Ireland. Was it right and expedient to make a certain class of investment absolutely impossible? He could not believe that that was in accordance with judicious practice. In his opinion it was unwise to forbid an owner's accepting a low rent from a tenant in consideration of his being relieved from all anxiety and trouble, and to compel the tenant to pay a higher rent and recoup himself by compensation for his improvements, at the end of his lease. He had shown that it was a policy of doubtful expediency to prevent the kind of contract now common between what were called the ground landlords and speculative builders, or between the 452 owners of house property on the one hand and the tenants on the other. He had shown that in regard to future contracts there might be teal and genuine hardship which this Bill created, and did nothing to cure. The Government had offered no defence at all of the proposal to break or interfere with contracts already in existence. That was really nothing in the world but highway robbery. It was quite incapable of justification, and no justification had been attempted. It was quite true that the Government, when pressed on this point, had always quoted the Irish Land Act of 1870. It was not his business to defend the Irish Land Act of 1870, or the Irish Land Act of 1881, or any of the methods by which this House had chosen to deal with Irish agricultural land. At all events, there was this to be said of that whole series of legislative enactments, that undoubtedly Irish agricultural land stood in a totally different position from English, Scottish, French or Italian or any other agricultural land of which he had any knowledge. While not defending what had been done, he was not prepared to say that exceptional legislation was not required for agricultural land in Ireland. But there was nothing characteristically Irish or British about the tenure of town holdings in Ireland or England. It was a common method. It was common in every country that a man should let his town house on what terms he liked. That had been done by English, Scottish, and Irish owners of town property, believing, and rightly believing, that they were dealing with their property in a perfectly lawful manner when they fixed the rent at which they would let the house, on the understanding that they had not to pay for improvements to the houses at the end of the lease. For that reason, and on that ground, the tenant undoubtedly got the house at a lower rent. There could be no pretence that these people were incapable of making their own bargains. Although a tenant had got his house for a low rent on a certain understanding, and although the owner had let the house for a low rent on account of that understanding, the Government proposed to tear up that understanding, and they would not allow the parties to remake the bargain. They kept the owner to the ' pecuniary terms of the contract; 453 they took out the landlord's pocket something which belonged to him, and gave it to the tenant to whom it did not belong. That was what he called highway robbery. How the Government could have such a passion for adopting other people's Bills, for acting in loco parentis to other people's children when those children were so extremely ill-favoured as this one was, passed his comprehension. He should vote against a clause which so lightly broke contracts made between free and responsible citizens of this country.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the attitude adopted by the Chief Secretary had placed many Members of the House in a position of the greatest difficulty. He would like hon. Members representing English constituencies to give their attention while he explained what Clause 1 really meant and did. First of all the clause included "a tenant of a holding to which this Act applies." Hon. Members opposite would be surprised to hear that under this reference was included every person in Ireland occupying any residence under a weekly tenancy. The owners of the property would be at the mercy of these people. The Bill also applied to residences in the country as well as in the towns. The Bill applied not merely to persons with residences in towns, but to every house or shanty on the roadside in any remote part of Ireland, even although the occupier only held on a weekly tenancy. That was the effect of the first clause of this so-called Town Tenants' Bill. Its retrospective operation was unfair. Let him give an illustration of the position in which he would stand under this Bill. He was the fortunate or unfortunate possessor of a house in the City of Dublin, having bought the lease in 1890 for a certain sum of money, equal to a moderate rent, not a rack rent. The lease would expire in 1920. He had calculated whether it was worth his while to spend any money on improving the house, and he came to the conclusion that it would be, and spent about £500 in improvements, knowing perfectly well that in the year 1920 under his contract the house with its improvements would become the property of his landlord. But under this Bill, if he was spared until 1920, he would be entitled to demand from his landlord, as a right, the £500 which he had spent on 454 improvements—not one penny of which he had ever expected to get back, and which he had expended in the full knowledge that as the law then stood the improvements would all go to the landlord. He wanted to know on what principle of fair play as between man and man this Bill could be made applicable to improvements made prior to its passing. He was entirely in favour of the principle that in future contracts, when each party knew what his rights were, the tenant in giving up his holding should be entitled to full compensation for any improvements he had made which added to the letting value of the holding; but it was a different matter when the tenant entered into a contract, and, knowing that he had no right to compensation, deliberately executed improvements to suit himself. Let them take the case of a building lease granted 100 years ago on consideration that the lessee would erect a house on the holding. The house was erected, and the lessee or his representative received a rent of £50 or £60 a year. In 100 years the rent would far more than repay for the expense of the erection of the house, but under this Bill the lessee, or his representative, would be entitled to get from the landlord the full value of the house.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid if the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Notice Paper he would see that he had put down an Amendment dealing with the very point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid it was rather a curious thing that the Government had not thought of this Amendment until the Report stage. Again, the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland had to admit that he had adopted a Bill which had passed through Committee, without there being inserted a single provision which protected the tenant for life, who might have to pay the whole cost of the improvement out of his own pocket. Did anyone suggest that there was anything peculiar in the condition of Ireland that required this injustice to be done there? Would any hon. Gentleman opposite introduce such a Bill applicable to English towns? The right hon. Gentleman had placed him in a position of great embarrassment, because 455 he was in favour of a Town Tenants' Bill drawn on just and equitable lines, but he was not in favour of a Bill drawn on dishonest and confiscatory lines. He could not believe that a Bill of this kind could ever redound to the advantage of the country or the credit of the nation, and he appealed to the Government to have some regard to the objections entertained against the retrospective character of the Bill. He thought that if this objectionable portion of the clause were got rid of a good deal of time would be saved, but so long as the Bill contained in it this proposal to fix by retrospective legislation the value of any man's property so long would he oppose it with all his strength.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said the clause seemed to be another instance of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite to rob Peter in order to get votes from Paul. The real object of the Bill was to get votes from tenants in Ireland, who ought, however, to be made to abide by the bargains they had made. The excuse of the Government was that there was an analogy between this and the compensation given under the Agricultural Holdings Act. There was, however, this important difference between agricultural holdings and town tenants, that the agricultural tenants received compensation for "unexhausted" improvements, and the word "unexhausted" made all the difference. The only question in the case of agricultural tenants was whether the improvement had been in existence sufficiently long to recoup the tenant for his expenditure. In the cases under consideration, however, the tenants had recouped themselves over and over again, and although he might have so recouped himself it was proposed to give a tenant compensation which his landlord would have to pay when his tenancy expired. To give a man who knew what he was doing compensation for an improvement
§ for which he had recouped himself many times was ridiculous. One effect of the retrospective character of the clause must be to drive rents to a high level, and the more the particular holding was sublet the more the rent would be driven up, because each landlord in turn would have to recoup himself for any outlay. It was not as if the landlord was going to be recouped by the increased letting value of the holding, because he would have to pay the capital value of the improvement, and it would be many years before he was recouped. The provisions of the Bill would operate very hardly upon widows and single ladies who had invested their scanty savings in building properties or land. Another serious objection to the Bill was that it would deter any future building operations and prevent town improvements. A man who had land would think seriously before he let his land for building, when at the end of the term for which he had let it he might be called upon to face a very heavy liability. Instead of letting, he would call upon the building speculator to buy his land from him. This would depress the building trade, and stop landlords from doing anything to improve towns on a large scale. The Select Committee of 1889 said it was difficult to see how a statutory right could be given to compensation for alterations which legally the tenant had not the power to make, but the Government, in face of recommendations of that kind, had adopted this Bill. He would not object to compensation if the consent of the landlord had been obtained, but as it was, he should have the greatest pleasure in voting against the proposal.
§ MR. CHERRYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 289; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 415)
459| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Astbury, John Meir | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Barnard, E. B. |
| Alden, Percy | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Barnes, G. N. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Barry, E. (Cork, S.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Beale, W. P. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Barker, John | Beauchamp, E. |
| Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) | Fullerton, Hugh | M'Hugh, Patrick A. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexh'm) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Kean, John |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Gilhooly, James | M'Killop, W. |
| Bell, Richard | Ginnell, L. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bonn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Glendinning, R. G. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Glover, Thomas | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romfrd) | Gooch, George Peabody | Massie, J. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Billson, Alfred | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Meagher, Michael |
| Boland, John | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Gulland, John W. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Mond, A. |
| Brace, William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mooney, J. J. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Halpin, J. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hammond, John | Morrell, Philip |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Murnaghan, George |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r | Murphy, John |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murray, James |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Haworth, Arthur A. | Myer, Horatio |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hayden, John Patrick | Napier, T. B. |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nolan, Joseph |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Byles, William Pollard | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cairns, Thomas | Henry, Charles S. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipporary Mid) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hogan, Michael | O'Dowd, John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Holden. E. Hopkinson | O'Hare, Patrick |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N) |
| Clough, William | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Malley, William |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Mara, James |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Hudson, Walter | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hyde, Clarendon | O'Shee, James John |
| Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Idris, T. H. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jardine, Sir J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crean, Eugene | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pollard, Dr. |
| Crombie, John William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Crooks, William | Joyce, Michael | Radford, G. H. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Delany, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Dillon, John | Laidlaw, Robert | Rees, J. D. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lambert, George | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lamont, Norman | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.) | Richardson, A. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Elibank, Master of | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Roberts. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Levy, Maurice | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee |
| Essex, R. W. | Lewis, John Herbert | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Lough, Thomas | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lundon, W. | Robinson, S. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lynch, H. B. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Field, William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sears, J. E. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S, | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. | Seddon, J. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | M'Callum. John M. | Shackleton, David James |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Crae, George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Thomasson, Franklin | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Thorne, William | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Snowden, P. | Toulmin, George | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Ure, Alexander | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Verney, F. W. | Williamson, A. |
| Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh) | Vivian, Henry | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Steadman, W. C. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) | Wilson, J. H.(Middlesborough) |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton | Young, Samuel |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wardle, George J. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Sullivan, Donal | Waterlow, D. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease, |
| Summerbell, T. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | |
| Sutherland, J. E. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cross, Alexander | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doughty, Sir George | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Fletcher, J. S. | Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Haddock, George R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Turnour, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Helmsley, Viscount | Walrond, Hon, Lionel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hunt, Rowland | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Younger, George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Liddell, Henry | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
460§ The House divided:—Ayes,289; Noes, 5.(division List No. 416.)
463| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo | Byles, William Pollard |
| Alden, Percy | Bennett, E. N. | Cairns, Thomas |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Billson, Alfred | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Astbury, John Meir | Boland, John | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N.E.) | Churchill, Winston Spencer |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bowerman, C. W. | Clarke, C. Goddard |
| Barker, John | Brace, William | Cleland, J. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Clough, William |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brodie, H. C. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brooke, Stopford | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Beale, W. P. | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd |
| Beauchamp, E. | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Corbett. T. L. (Down, North) |
| Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crean, Eugene |
| Bell, Richard | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cremer, William Randal |
| Crombie, John William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Crooks, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Radford, G. H. |
| Cross, Alexander | Joyce, Michael | Rainy, A. Holland |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Kearley, Hudson E. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Delany, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rees, J. D. |
| Dillon, John | Laidlaw, Robert | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Lambert, George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lamont, Norman | Richardson, A. |
| Duffy, William J. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Levy, Maurice | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Essex, R. W. | Lewis, John Herbert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Lough, Thomas | Robinson, S. |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lundon, W. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lynch, H. B. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Sears, J. E. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Field, William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Seddon, J. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Shackleton, David James |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Callum, John M. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | M'Crae, George | Silcock, Thomas Gall |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Kean, John | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Killop, W. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Gilhooly, James | Maddison, Frederick | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ginnell, L. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Snowden, P. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Massie, J. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Glover, Thomas | Masterman, C. F. G. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Meagher, Michael | Steadman, W. C. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Meehan, Patrick A. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gulland, John W. | Mond, A. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Mooney, J. J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Haldane Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Halpin, J. | Morrell, Philip | Summerbell, T. |
| Hammond, John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hardi, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murnaghan, George | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Murphy, John | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Murray, James | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Myer, Horatio | Thorne, William |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Napier, T. B. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r | Toulmin, George |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nolan, Joseph | Ure, Alexander |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Verney, F. W. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham | Nuttall, Harry | Vivian, Henry |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Henry, Charles S. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | O'Dowd, John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Hare, Patrick | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Malley, William | White, Luke (Kork, E. R.) |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Mara, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Shee, James John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wiles, Thomas |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneston) | Pollard, Dr. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A Pease. |
| Williamson, A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon) | |
| Wills, Arthur Walters | Young, Samuel | |
| Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough) | Yoxall, James Henry | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Arkwright John Stanhope | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Haddock, George R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Turnour, Viscount |
| Bull, Sir William James | Helmsley, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thou. H. A. E. | Liddell, Henry | Younger, George |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Viscount Castlereagh. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| Doughty, Sir George | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rasch, Sir Frederick Came |
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHon a point of order, asked Mr. Speaker's ruling whether, after an hon. Member had passed the clerk and had his name marked off he was entitled to turn back past the turnstile.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not be compelled to vote if he did not choose to do so.
§ SIR F. BANBURYWhat about the hon. Member's name if it has been recorded by the clerk?
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said he thought the hon. Member in question only came so far as the clerk and that his name was not ticked.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that if an hon. Member found that after having had his vote recorded by the clerks he did not want to vote he should ask to have the vote taken off. What counted in this House was the numbers as declared by the tellers.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.) moved to insert in the clause words making the tenant's right to compensation subject "to the terms of his tenancy" as well as to the provisions of the Bill. He said that the Attorney-General for 464 Ireland had explained on the last Amendment that this clause was in no way inconsistent with contract, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman held that view he would be glad to make his meaning clear by accepting some such words as were contained in this Amendment. It was a remarkable thing about the framing of this Bill that apparently in future tenancies the question whether compensation for any improvement would have to be paid or not would entirely depend upon the contracts entered into between landlord and tenant. It would be quite open to the landlord and the tenant to agree as to any future tenancy that no improvement should be paid for by the landlord. That appeared to be the effect of the Bill, whatever the intention might be. It would be quite possible for the landlord and tenant to agree not to make any improvement and that would be inserted in the lease, and it was quite plain that no compensation would then be payable in respect of any improvement because it would be made in contravention of a contract in writing, according to subsection (3) of Section 2. All that had to be done in respect of future contracts was to make the contract in writing in such a way as to preclude the possibility of improvements being made, and then a person would not be subject to the provisions of the Act. In 465 regard to existing contracts, however, for some mysterious reason, a wholly different principle prevailed, and the landlord was to be compelled to pay for an improvement executed by the tenant. This was an entirely novel and indefensible proposal. He could understand its being said that two parties not being on equal terms wore not to evade an Act of Parliament by making any agreement in contravention of its terms. There were cases in English law in which that principle had been recognised. The principle had been extended very widely recently to cases where people were really on equal terms, though Parliament thought otherwise. While he could quite understand Parliament arriving at the decision that in certain special cases it was desirable to say that certain contracts should not be entered into, this was quite a different proposal. It laid down the principle that in spite of any contract which had been already entered into, and irrespective of time, amount, and other circumstances, the landlord was to pay compensation for tenants' improvements. He did not think the Act dealing with agricultural holdings could be regarded as a precedent for this course. No one would pretend that there was anything which would justify existing contracts between a town tenant and his landlord being absolutely disregarded, and that if the tenant or his predecessors fifty or 100 years before had executed any improvement he was to be entitled to compensation on quitting the holding. Another matter to be considered was that it was commonly the case for the town tenant to be better off than his landlord, so that it was conceivable that, in cases where the landlord was poorer than his tenant, he might be ruined by claims for compensation for improvements far in excess of any he contemplated or would be able to pay. The Attorney-General for Ireland was really in error upon this point, because it was a matter of contract now as to who had to pay for any improvements made. This was sometimes expressed, but it was often implied, but under this clause they were going to break up existing contracts. That was a very serious principle for the House to adopt. Very few hon. Members opposite appeared to have read the Bill, and as so few of them were present he did not see how they were going to arrive at a true and statesmanlike decision upon this im- 466 portant question if they did not listen to the argument. It was a very big matter, because in combination with hon. Members below the gangway they were legislating to establish a precedent which it was absurd to say was to be confined to Ireland. Were they going to lay it down that the contracts between landlord and tenant in towns were made under such conditions that they should be treated as being of no value at all? Was the legislature going to make a fresh contract for existing contracts which had been arrived at by men who were able to manage their own affairs, and who, before arriving at their decision, had had ample advice from those who were skilled in such matters? He begged to move his Amendment.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he desired to second the Amendment. In his view it was perfectly just that the landlord should be called upon to pay for all unexhausted improvements which he enjoyed. The Amendment did not challenge that principle, but it proposed that if men had chosen to contract otherwise, their contract should not be affected by this clause. In the event of the Bill's becoming law, it would probably be a common clause in leases that no improvement should be made without the consent of the landlord in writing. The Amendment must be considered in connection with Clause 9, upon which, to a considerable extent, it infringed. If the present Amendment should not be accepted he would propose an Amendment to the later clause to allow the parties to come to an agreement. Under the Bill it would be impossible for two parties who were ready to enter into a contract to obtain the assent of the Court at the outset, because the Court must be asked at the conclusion of the tenancy, in order to ascertain whether there had been any undue pressure exercised. If the Amendment did not meet with the approval of the House he proposed to attempt to arrive at the same result by introducing the Amendment he had suggested to Clause 9.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words "and to the terms of his tenancy."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
467MR. BRYCEthought the Amendment would be more appropriate to sub-section (3) of Clause 2 or to Clause 9. He did not quite understand the present Amendment, but if it meant that compensation should be excluded unless there was a contract on the subject, it could not be accepted, because the object of the clause was to declare the right to claim compensation under conditions which safeguarded the landlord's interest where the contract made no stipulation and where, therefore, there was no breaking of contract. The noble Lord really meant by his Amendment that there was to be no such thing as compensation unless it was specially provided for, and they might as well drop the Bill as accept that principle. The Bill was intended to enable tenants to claim compensation where it was not expressly provided for. In the enormous majority of cases no such provision was made in the contracts, because the premises were let from year to year on certain terms as to rent, and nothing was said as to improvements or compensation. They were not proposing to break existing contracts, but they were adding to all tenancies a general legal condition which the Legislature had a right to impose. They were doing this because they thought it was only common justice, and because they thought that if the act of the tenant had given to the landlord something which he would not otherwise have had, and which was not in existence when the tenancy was created, the landlord ought to compensate him for it. The noble Lord had said that some landlords were poor and others were rich, but that had nothing whatever to do with the justice of the case. They had carefully guarded against any abuse of this right, because in Clause 1 it was provided that any benefit the tenant might receive from the landlord expressly or impliedly in regard to improvements made, was to be considered when the claim for compensation was put forward. They had also provided that the improvements must be suitable to the character of the holding, and such as added to the letting value of the holding. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)said he desired to give several reasons why the Amendment of the noble Lord should be rejected. As one 468 who had assisted in the development of estates and had been consulted as to the manner in which they should be laid out, be had often found it necessary to see the terms upon which certain leases had been given, and he had no hesitation in saying that none of the things to which the noble Lord referred existed to-day. The landlord's right to put restrictions in leases would not be interfered with by this Bill. When landlords in England sold land they almost always insisted on an enormous number of restrictive regulations as to the way in which their estates should be laid out, as to the kind of houses that should be built, and even where they sold land outright he had known it more than once to be stipulated that houses not below or above a certain value should be erected. The contracts of sale stated that the plans had to be submitted to the agent of the landlord and inspected, and a surveyor representing the landlord attended at the buildings during their erection to see that everything in the agreement was being carried out by the builder. Under these circumstances they need not anticipate that severer restrictions than those prevailing at the present time would be imposed even when this Bill became law. He would have no fear of the Bill adding to the difficulty of estate development so far as England was concerned if it were to apply to England, and he dared say that the circumstances were very similar in Ireland. There was such a thing as taking a house on a road or street which was not at present well developed, but which later on by virtue of trams, and a hundred and one other things, became much more valuable. If a tenant without any reference whatever to the landlord could proceed to alter the whole structure of the place and then at the end of the tenancy claim for improvements, he thought that possibly that might be stretching the thing beyond the intention of the Bill. But he understood from reading the different clauses of the Bill that the landlord would have to be consulted with regard to the improvements. Therefore, if a tenant converted a dwelling-house into a shop in defiance of the terms of the lease and without the landlord's consent, he would not be able to claim compensation. If, however, he obtained the landlord's consent he should be entitled to a fair proportion of the 469 value of the improvement when the lease expired.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he found it difficult to say how far this Bill affected existing contracts, although he had read the Bill he did not know how often. He really did not know what the view of the Government was as to the way the Bill might affect existing contracts. He was not talking of future contracts at all, because he thought that the parties to future contracts would be very well able to take care of themselves. The landlord would act with his eyes open, and he was not very much concerned as to what the effect of the clause would be on future lettings. The Chief Secretary had stated that they were adding a term to existing contracts. He held that that was not what they were doing. They were taking away a term. At present there was a term implied by the law that the tenant had no claim upon the landlord when the lease was over. Before the passing of this Bill the tenant could not sue the landlord on such a contract, but after it became law he would be able to do so. Did anybody tell him that a section that did this was not interfering with existing contracts? In his opinion it was clear that the clause would break existing contracts, because at the termination of the lease it would give the tenant a right of action against the landlord that he did not now possess. He admitted that aggravating restrictions were sometimes put in leases, but that would not be remedied by this Bill. If a tenant desired to convert a dwelling-house into a shop, the landlord would hesitate to give his consent if he knew that at the expiration of the tenancy he had to pay for it. The shop might be thrown back upon his hands, and the landlord might have to pay for that which was of great advantage to the tenant, but of no advantage to himself. He submitted to the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland that it would be well if he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper which would meet the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen. He proposed to insert at the end of Clause 2 the words, "A tenant shall not be entitled to any 470 compensation in respect of any improvement made whether before or after the passing of this Act in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration." That provided exactly for the case presented by the right hon. Gentleman. The lease in itself was a valuable consideration; a man was bound to keep his holding in the same state of repair as he got it; but if he repaired it in such a way at his own expense as to improve the property then he should get compensation. The Amendment of the noble Lord was. in his opinion entirely unnecessary.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman's view of Irish law was correct, he was not surprised that English Members knew nothing about Ireland. The Irish law in this matter was the same as the English law. If he took a house with a covenant to put it in repair he was bound to put it in repair.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)The law is wrong then.
§ *MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid it was common sense. It amazed him that the Attorney-General for Ireland told him! that under Irish law——
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid he had stated what he believed to be the law. There was a great distinction between a covenant to put in repair, and a covenant to keep in repair. If a man entered into a covenant to put in repair he was bound to do it, but if he undertook to keep in repair he was only bound to keep the holding in the condition in which he got it.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that the express contrary had been decided by the Judges in this country half a century ago.
§ * MR. CHERRYWhat is the case?
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that any law student would know that. The hon. Member for Dublin County, N., would appreciate what he said when he stated that it was not only law but common sense.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said it was neither one nor the other.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was not surprised, after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated as to his idea of the law, to find this Bill in such a hopeless confusion and tangle. The right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Bill or anything connected with it. He had told the House that a lease in itself was a valuable consideration; but surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that every tenant who held a lease would be excluded from making a claim for compensation under the Bill. If he did intend to say so, no more nonsensical statement had been made in the House, and it only shewed that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Bill. He should like to have some explanation of what sub-section (3) of Clause 2 meant. It said that a tenant should not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made either before or after the passing of this Act, in contravention of a contract in writing not to make the improvement. He asked the attention of the House to the fact that the words were "the improvement." It was a very nice and subtle question whether a case in which there was a general clause in a lease, whereby the tenant contracted not to make any improvement would be hit by that at all. He did not believe it would, because that sub-clause was intended to meet the case of where a landlord did not want a particular improvement and got a clause inserted in the lease that the tenant should not make it, and that if he did, he should not claim compensation. Therefore, a general clause in regard to improvements would not come within that subsection. He undertook to say, however, that most hon. Gentlemen reading that clause would think that it did, but he could assure hon. Members that he doubted very much whether that was the true construction or the intended construction. But supposing it was intended, and there was a general clause in a lease that a man should not claim for any improvement, it would be inconsistent with Clause 9 of the Bill, which provided that any contract made by a tenant whether before or after the passing of the Act by virtue of which he would be deprived of his right to 472 obtain compensation under this Act should be null and void. The fact was it was perfectly impossible to understand the Bill, but it would be still more confusing if the Amendment of which the right hon. and learned Member had given notice were accepted. If the new clause of the right hon. Gentleman was carried what would be the effect on Clause 9? Under it it would be provided that a tenant should not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration. Supposing that was carried, how could it be reconciled with Clause 9 which said that any contract by which the tenant agreed not to make a claim under this Act should be null and void? If that were agreed to the Government would insert a clause in direct contravention of their Amendment and in contravention to sub-clauses (2) and (3). The Bill was quite unintelligible as it stood and would be a perfect gold mine to members of his profession. It would keep them working for centuries to come, and it would keep the Courts working. Thousands of pounds would be spent by landlords and tenants in endeavouring to find out what the Government meant by a single line of the Bill. He was afraid he should be removed from the scene by the time this gold mine in the law Courts came to an end—that was if ever the Bill became law. In his judgment, however, the Government were not sincere over the Bill, and it was obvious that they were riding for a fall.
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about many things other than the Amendment. He had a right to reply to the defence set up against this Amendment by the Attorney-General, but he was now speaking about the Bill, which was clearly out of order.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was speaking to the Amendment and the Amendment alone.
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the Bill and the gold mine it would prove to the lawyers.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was referring to the obscurity which the 473 noble Lord sought to prevent, and was referring to the litigation which would result from the passing of this clause as it stood. He was, he submitted, perfectly in order, because the object of the Amendment was as far as possible to give some intelligent meaning to what was to be found in Clause 1. He submitted that the insertion of these words was germane to the whole Bill because they governed the whole Bill, and that was his justification for referring to the whole Bill. If the terms of the Amendment were looked at it would be seen that they were intended to cover the whole Bill, because there they would provide that, notwithstanding anything which might be in the Bill, the existing terms of the contract of tenancy were not to be interfered with. Therefore the very language of the Amendment was germane to the whole Bill, although, of course, he did not intend to deal with it excepting in so far as its provisions were important having reference to the Amendment. Coming back to these particular words, however, he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself would see that this vista of litigation with which they were threatened by the ambiguity of the clause should be obviously met by some such words as those proposed. Many suggestions of his own would be found embodied in the Bill.
§ MR. J. WARDDoes that account for its contradictions?
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLreplied in the negative, and said he had sought to amend the Bill in other directions, but was defeated in regard to several of his Amendments. His contention was that the new Amendment which the Attorney-General for Ireland promised them could not be reconciled with Clause 9.
§ MB. CLANCYinquired if the right hon. Gentleman was now in order.
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be dealing with these matters at considerable length, but he was in order in alluding to the defence which was set up with regard to this particular Amendment. He thought, however, the right hon. Gentleman had replied at 474 considerable length, and that what he was saying now was to a considerable extent a repetition of what he had said before.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid there wore some people who thought that one could not say a good thing too often, but he was not one of those, and would conclude by saying that if they took the Amendment and put it side by side with Sub-clauses (2) and (3), and then put it side by side with Section 9, it was impossible to reconcile the provisions of the Bill. It was for that reason that he put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be right and fair to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in order to make the matter clear.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham), replying to the hon. Member for Stoke, said it was important that the landlords should have power to impose some restriction. The hon. Member had objected that the landlords insisted upon a certain breadth of road as regarded building societies, but it seemed to him important that they should do so, otherwise the road might be very narrow. He thought all hon. Members would agree with him when he said that this session there had been too many points left to be settled in the future. If the Government had settled the Amendments to the Plural Voting Bill as they were moved, the House would not have been told afterwards that that Bill could not be brought up for Report, because the Government had not had time to put the necessary Amendments on the Paper. He thought the Government should deal with this Amendment, and not leave it to a later sitting. The Bill was difficult to understand now, and it would not be made easier to deal with by postponing the consideration of these matters to a later stage. He appealed to the Government to allow the Amendment to be debated now, and not to postpone it and place themselves in the same difficulty as that in which they found themselves with regard to the Plural Voting Bill.
§ MR. CRAIGsaid it was impossible to understand what was meant by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of this Bill and the Amendment before the House. He appealed to the hon. Member for St. 475 Patrick's Division, whose speeches were always as picturesque as his appearance, and the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin, who had introduced this Bill, to give some explanation of its provisions. A great deal of time had been wasted in speeches on one side and the other which might have been saved if the only hon. Gentlemen who were able to do so had explained the Bill to the House. He was utterly unable to reconcile the various clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. CRAIGsaid the clauses were quite irreconcilable, and he appealed to the hon. Gentlemen to let in a little light on the subject.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)said,, as one in hearty sympathy with the Bill, and as one who had voted with the Government in the last division against his own Party, he would like to know what the effect of the Amendment would be. He joined in all sincerity in the appeal made by his hon. friend to those who were responsible for the Bill. He desired to know what the effect of the Amendment would be in dealing with the retrospective aspect of the Bill. He also appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney-General to make clear what the effect of these words would be.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes,. 272. (Division List No. 417.)
479| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Doughty, Sir George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Du Cros, Harvey | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fell, Arthur | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Fletcher, J. S. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Forster, Henry William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Haddock, George R. | Turnour, Viscount |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Houston, Robert Paterson | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Younger, George |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Keswick, William | |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Kimber, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Salter and Mr. Rawlinson. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Liddell, Henry | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Beale, W. P. | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beauchamp, E. | Brooke, Stanford |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Beck, A. Cecil | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bell, Richard | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Bennett, E. X. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Burke, E. Haviland- |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romfrd | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Billson, Alfred | Byles, William Pollard |
| Barker, John | Boland, John | Cairns, Thomas |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Cameron, Robert |
| Barnard, E. B. | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Bowerman, C. W. | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S. | Brace, William | Cleland, J. W. |
| Clough, William | Hudson, Walter | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hyde, Clarendon | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Idris, T. H. W. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jardine, Sir J. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex E. Grints'd | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Radford, G. H. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Cox, Harold | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Crean, Eugene | Kearley, Hudson E. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Kekewich, Sir George | Rees, J. D. |
| Crooks, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cross, Alexander | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Laidlaw, Robert | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn |
| Delany, William | Lambert, George | Richardson, A. |
| Dillon, John | Lamont, Norman | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lehmann, R. C | Robertson. Rt. Hn. R. (Dundee) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Robinson, S. |
| Elibank, Master of | Levy, Maurice | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lewis, John Herbert | Rose, Charles Day |
| Essex, R. W. | Lough, Thomas | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Lundon, W. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lynch, H. B. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Maclean, Donald | Seavorns, J. H |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Seddon, J. |
| Ferens, T. R. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shackleton, David James |
| Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Field, William | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Callum, John M. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Crae, George | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Snowden, P. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Kean, John | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Killop, W. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Micking, Major G. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Gilhooly, James | Maddison, Frederick | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock |
| Ginnell, L. | Massie, J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Meagher, Michael | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Glover, Thomas | Meehan, Patrick A. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Micklem, Nathaniel | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Molteno, Percy Alport | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Mond, A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Mooney, J. J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Gulland, John W. | Morse, L. L. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Murnaghan, George | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Halpin, J. | Murphy, John | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Hammond, John | Murray, James | Thorne, William |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Myer, Horatio | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Napier, T. B. | Toulmin, George |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Nolan, Joseph | Ure, Alexander |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Verney, F. W. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nuttall, Harry | Vivian, Henry |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Wallace, Robert |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Henry, Charles S. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Dowd, John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Hare, Patrick | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Malley, William | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N | O'Mara, James | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Shee, James John | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn) |
| Williamson, A. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Wills, Arthur Walters | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | |
| Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough) | Young, Samuel | |
| Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
§ *MR. JAMES CAMPBELL moved to insert after "applies" the words, "And Held under a contract of tenancy made after the date of the passing of this Act." The Amendment raised in a very concise form the question at issue with regard to this first clause, namely, its retrospective effect, because the Amendment would exclude from the operation of the Bill all contracts of tenancy made prior to the date of the passing of the Act. The Bill was retrospective in two ways, applying not only to existing tenancies, but to improvements made before the passing of the Act. His Amendment would restrict the operation of the Bill to tenancies created after the date of passing. If he got any sort of assurance from the Government that they would restrict the operations of the Bill to improvements made under such tenancies after the date of the passing of the Act he would not press his Amendment. If he received an assurance that the next Amendment standing in his name would be favourably received he would be content, because the effect of that Amendment would be that existing contracts would come within the Bill, but only improvements made after the passing of the Act would be the subject of compensation. That was reasonable, fair, and in every sense just. As the Bill stood the claim for compensation might arise in respect to improvements made one hundred years before, but in regard to future improvements the tenant was required to give notice and the landlord had the right to make them himself, or he might dispute that the improvement was required and bring the tenant to court to have the question ascertained. Even then the court had no authority to allow the improvement to be made unless they considered it would add to the letting value of the holding, and otherwise was a desirable improvement. All that was given the go-bye were past improvements, because in those cases the landlord had no chance of having the question settled whether they were suitable to the holding or whether he would do them himself. Surely if the Government recognised this principle in the one case, in justice they should allow its application 480 to past improvements of which the landlord had no notice. If the House thought his Amendment too drastic, and that it would meet the demands of justice to limit the operations of the Bill to-improvements made after the passing of the Act, he would be prepared to fall in with that view, but unless he received some assurance that his suggestion was likely to receive favourable consideration he would press the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 7, after the word 'applies,' to insert the words 'and held under a contract of tenancy made after the date of the passing of this Act'"—(Mr. Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)hoped the House would get some reply from the Government on this subject. It was extraordinary that the Government should take no notice of the speech just made. It seemed to be assumed by the majority of Members that the landlord was necessarily a great magnate, whereas very often he was a small builder. In many cases the funds of building societies had been vested in dwelling houses in towns both in England and Ireland. He was informed also that funds of trade unions were to a considerable extent invested in house property, and he would like hon. Gentlemen to reflect as to the class of person with whom they wore dealing before making a clause of this kind retrospective. The Bill would not be confined by any means to the class of landlord whom some hon. Members so much disliked. He was aware of the provision in the Bill that only those improvements should give rise to compensation which had increased the letting value of a building, but an improvement might very likely increase the letting value and yet very seriously decrease the letting probability of a building. From what he knew of Irishmen he considered them to be as competent to look after their own interests in entering into contracts or agreements for tenancies as 481 people in other parts of the kingdom, and he thought that these contracts or agreements which they had entered into with their eyes open should be excluded from a Bill of this kind. Personally he would not complain at all of these provisions as to compensation for improvements in the future, but it was most unjust to make the compensation retrospective, and would be a great hardship upon many individuals who were totally unable to bear the expense of compensation.
MR. BRYCEsaid the reason he did not rise before to answer the mover of the Amendment was that he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to rely on the arguments that had been previously advanced, and the Government had equal reason to rely on their arguments advanced earlier in the evening. It was not a new departure to allow Bills of this character to be retrospective. There were several precedents. The first was the Act of 1870. Then there was the Act of 1881, and, although much had been said against it, everyone would admit that it had been a great blessing to Ireland. In 1887 a Tory Government actually broke leases which Mr. Gladstone had refused to do a few years earlier. In 1891 a Conservative Government broke down perpetual leases. There was a strong weight of precedent in favour of giving this Bill a retrospective character. There was a great similarity between the hardship suffered previously by the agricultural tenant and that suffered by the town tenant. There were many cases of hardship in Ireland to-day where tenants were being turned out and getting no compensation for their improvements. It was in respect of those cases that the Bill ought to be retrospective. Although he did not deny that retrospective legislation was generally undesirable, yet in this case it was the juster course. The Government had guarded this very carefully by providing that nothing should be computed except what added to the letting value of the holding, and by other safeguards in the Bill. That being so, and the matter being in the hands of County Court Judges, who were not likely to give extravagant compensation, he thought the House might safely trust the Act to work with justice and fairness 482 to the tenant and with no hardship to the landlord.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was immensely surprised at the action of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he did not reply to the remarks of his right hon. and learned friend, because he had already made his speech on the subject. He ventured to say however, that not a word of the important declaration of policy which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered had been addressed by him to the House earlier in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that His Majesty's Government were prepared to make this measure retrospective and that they based their justification for their action upon the precedents to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He submitted that no precedent could be established for legislation in connection with what the Government called town tenants—though there was no definition of town tenants in the Bill—on the basis of legislation dealing with agricultural holdings. There was the fundamental difference that agricultural tenancies were held at rack-rent, whereas town tenancies were conveyed to the tenant at a certain rent on the understanding that anything he did to the holding must be at his own expense, and at the termination of the tenancy the landlord would reap the benefit. The right hon. Gentleman had made the most interesting and most important contribution that had yet been made to the debate. There had been no statement from the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General for Ireland on the Second Beading or in Committee upstairs which in any way conformed to the statement just made that this legislation was to be made retrospective, and that the moment the Bill became operative a quitting tenant was to get a present from his landlord of the value of the improvements. That was a remarkable change in the policy of the Government. This was not a Government Bill at all; it was a Bill that had been taken up by the Government and the House had only discovered their policy with regard to it as Amendment after Amendment was moved. There was nothing in Grand Committee to give the smallest indication that they regarded this Bill with so much favour that when it came down 483 they would adopt it as their own. The declaration which had been made by the Government was one of vital importance. He believed there was room for amendment in regard to the law connected with tenancies other than agricultural. The question had assumed different proportions in Ireland from those which it had assumed in England. The House could not, however, alter the law in Ireland in regard to matters of principle without being committed to alter the law in England. He submitted that every word which the right hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his speech applied to England. There were cases in which a man added to the value of his house or premises, and at the time of giving up the tenancy he got nothing for it. He fancied that many Members of this House had occupied houses where they had added to the value and where they had got nothing at all on leaving. It was natural that a man in that position should be very glad if somebody came and said "I will give you what you have spent," but an honest man who had entered into a bargain with open eyes would say that whatever changes might be made in the law for the future he was bound for the present by his contract with his landlord. Of course if Parliament considered that the tenant in this condition was unfairly treated and ought to be recouped by the country, that was another matter, but the Government were recouping these tenants at the expense of the landlords. At the last moment the Government had announced that they proposed to make this Bill retrospective. They must take the full responsibility for what they were doing, and could not shelter themselves behind the proceeding of a Government whose action in no way justified the action they were taking, and which could not justly 484 or honestly be taken as a parallel for the decision at which the Government had arrived.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Chief Secretary had informed them that in making the Bill retrospective the Government were following the precedent of the Land Acts of 1870, 1881, 1887, and 1891. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman knew that that legislation dealt entirely with agricultural land, the tenure of which was different in every possible respect from that in connection with town property. The chief point about the Acts of 1870 and 1881 was that they confirmed by statute what was already the custom in a large part of the country. They had in Ireland an evil system of dual ownership which had existed long prior to 1870. After the Act of 1870 was passed the others logically followed. The right hon. Gentleman had made a point of the fact that the 1887 Act actually broke leases. That was inevitable in view of the legislation which had been passed before. The Act of 1903 put an end to that absurd system of land tenure. There was no parallel whatever between that system of agricultural land tenure and the tenure of town tenants. He was informed that it was often advanced against the early Land Acts that the effect would be that at some future time the same treatment would be applied to town tenancies, and it was invariably replied that that was not so because the two systems were so absolutely different that what was applicable to the one was in no way applicable to the other. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the system of town tenure in Ireland was different from that in England. He controverted that statement. The system was exactly the same 485 as in England. There wore a considerable number of towns in Ireland where the tenants had suffered under very considerable grievances. But was that confined altogether to Ireland? The conditions were exactly the same in England where they had poor or selfish landlords. Some landlords kept up their property in a greater state of efficiency than others, but tenants in large as well as small towns were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The strongest argument that could be adduced against the retrospective action of the measure was that tenants who intended to make improvements on their holdings would not pay as much rent as they otherwise would. He admitted that there were cases of hardship, but in large towns where there was freedom of contract and more shops and warehouses than tenants for them, the tenants could hardly be treated badly by the landlords. He maintained that this section was contrary to the dictates of common sense and common justice, and he hoped that when the Attorney-General for Ireland came to reply to the speeches which came from that side of the House, he would hold out some hope of a possibility of an arrangement being come to and Amendments being accepted. Owners of property on the opposite Benches must know that if this Bill passed for Ireland it was inevitable that a similar Bill would be passed for England. Why should they in Ireland be made the subjects for experimental legislation of this kind? It seemed to him that such revolutionary legislation as was proposed by this Bill should be applied first to England and then to Ireland.
§ * MR. FIELDsaid he had no intention of playing the game of their opponents by taking up the time of the House for 486 the purpose of preventing the Bill from passing. The system of terminable leaseholds as it obtained in this country enabled the ground holders to confiscate the property which was created by the tenant. It would not be tolerated by any civilised common sense community. As a matter of fact, it was not tolerated in any other country. It was unknown in either Turkey or Russia or in any of the Continental countries. It had boon tolerated in this country so long because the majority of this House had been ground holders, otherwise miscalled land-lords. Regarding what the hon. Member for South Antrim had said, his reply was that Irishmen always were in favour of progressive legislation and what Ireland did to-day England had to do to-morrow. The hon. Member had said that the circumstances were alike in England and Ireland, but they were entirely different. In England they had no Lord Clanricarde who depopulated a district and who boasted about returning his grey mare for a constituency. But what had occurred since then? [Laughter.] It was not a matter for laughter, because if a Government had any function, the primary duty of the Government was the safety of people, and if the people disappeared they did not want any Government. The old Romans said salus populi lex suprema—the safety of the people was the supreme law, but apparently right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Tory Bench regarded the disappearance of the people of Ireland as the supreme law in this House. What happened at Loughrea, where the number of tenants formerly was 8,000, whereas now they only numbered 2,000, and whole streets were derelict? How did that come about? Because the town tenants had no legal rights in their holdings. It appeared to him that right 487 hon. and learned Members delighted to make in that House speeches which they would not make before their constituents. His right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin, when this matter was being discussed in Kingstown, admitted that the town tenants had a grievance. [Mr. LONG: "Hear hear."] Then why did not his right hon. friend support them that evening? He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to meet him upon a platform in Ireland and discuss the matter.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he had stated in the House that night exactly what he said at Kingstown. As to the invitation of the hon. Member perhaps he would allow him to consider it.
§ * MR. FIELDwas afraid that his right hon. friend was adopting a very red-tape form of Answer in asking for time for consideration. They knew what that meant. He was not going to play the game of obstruction which was being played by their opponents to prevent the Bill passing. He hoped other hon. Members would discuss the Bill briefly, and allow them to get it through, and if determined obstruction was carried on by any section of the House, he suggested the closure would be moved. He also trusted that a large majority of the House would vote against this particular Amendment, and so enable them to get the Bill through with fair and honest discussions.
§ SIR E. CARSON(who was received with cries of "Divide") hoped hon. Members opposite would show a little patience, particularly as they on that side were well aware that they knew nothing whatever about this question. It was always a convenient thing for people who wanted a Bill to pass to say "Why 488 argue about it, when we have a majority of three to one? Why waste the time in argument?" That was no doubt a convenient course, but unfortunately no Opposition took the same view in reference to legislating in this country. What was the Bill which they were now arguing? A Bill to smash contracts. That was a nice kind of Bill to suggest that there should be no argument upon, and it came especially well after the obstructive speech of the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin to which they had just listened. The hon. Member had told them that the system of house tenancies in towns in England was worse than the system which prevailed in Turkey. If that was so, why did not the Government make this Bill apply to England? The further they proceeded with the Bill, the more they asked themselves why should the Government single out Ireland for this experiment. Why did they try it upon the vile body of his fellow-countrymen? The truth was that it was the only sop of the session to hon. Members below the gangway. He should like to ask the Attorney-General, who would, he supposed, speak in the course of the debate, what justification there was for treating people who had made their contracts, without knowing such a predatory House of Commons would come into existence, in the same minner as those who entered into contracts after the passing of the Act? The Government had given protection to those who entered into contracts after the passing of the Bill, and indeed their proposals as to them had such a semblance of fairness that he was almost surprised that the Government should support them. But if it was necessary to protect those who entered into future contracts, surely it 489 was still more necessary to protect those who had already entered into contracts without reason to suppose that the House of Commons would pass such a Bill as this. He submitted that this legislation was most foolish. The whole protection ought to be given to the man who entered into a contract without any knowledge of what was to happen in the future, and not so much to the man who entered into a contract with a knowledge of the existing law. The Government, however, took the opposite view, and said they would disregard contracts made in the past, although they had the greatest respect for contracts made in the future. He thought that their attitude showed the greatest unfairness. The tenant on the other hand had bought the tenant's interest and had given less money because the tenant had not hitherto been entitled to claim for improvements. What was going to be done in that case? Was the man who paid more to be fined because he had had the improvements, and was that fine to be paid to the man who paid less because he had become entitled to compensation for improvements?
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid said in replying he would be very brief, for the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had only repeated five or six times over arguments that had been used in the debate again and again. The junior Member for the University of Dublin had in his own speech repeated his argument six or seven times. The hon. Member who succeeded him repeated the same arguments, and those arguments had again been repeated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken. He would now for positively the last time answer those arguments once more. The right hon. and 490 learned Gentleman had spoken of the enormity of breaking contracts. This clause did not break any contracts. The claim for compensation for improvements which was awarded under this clause was quite apart from any contract. If there was a term in a contract to the effect that the tenant was not to have compensation, or was not to make improvements, that was dealt with in the second clause of the Bill. The allegation as to the Bill breaking contracts came very badly from Members of the Party which passed the Land Acts of 1887 and 1891, both of which did distinctly break contracts. The simple answer to the other point with regard to the position of a landlord who had purchased the interest of another person on whose property improvements had been made was that the law had been in force for thirty years. Such a person took over all the obligations of the previous holder, and if he were a prudent man he would, when purchasing the property, employ a solicitor to see what obligations he was taking over. Under those circumstances he would take over the business with all the existing assets and liabilities, and a prudent man would inquire what they were before he purchased. That was a short and simple answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that he would not be called upon to repeat it.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said the idea that this was a Bill only affecting Ireland was a delusion underlying the imposture of the Government. It was a Bill to alter the view which had long been held in this country in respect to the sanctity of contract. It was a Bill which, if passed for Ireland to-day could be applied to England to-morrow, and any hon. Member 491 whether he was an English or an Irish Member, who voted for the Bill or who abstained or failed to apprise himself of the real purport of the measure, would not be justified in complaining if in February next a similar Bill was brought in for England. Now was the time to make it clear that the Bill involved a, radical change in the whole system of contracts, and more particularly in view of the fact that it applied to town holdings. All those who attended the debates on the Land Tenure Bill knew that even in England there were great differences of principle which distinguished an agricultural holding from a town holding. The distinction between agricultural holdings and town holdings was more marked in Ireland, and every proposal of the kind embodied in the first clause of this Bill made in respect of Irish agricultural holdings had been defended explicitly upon the ground that Irish agriculture was to be no guide and no precedent for legislation in respect of other contracts. And yet the Attorney-General thought it quite sufficient to get up and say that he had answered all the arguments which had been adduced. He seemed to think that this was simply a dispute between Irish lawyers and Irish Members, but it was nothing of the kind. This was a pioneer measure to break up the fundamental principle of contracts which had obtained for a great number of years. The Attorney-General had said that this would not break contracts, but what did he know about the contracts which governed the letting of town property in England? Was he aware of the fact that a landlord in some cases could not let a town holding unless he spent a certain amount of money upon it, and in other cases a tenant could not hire a town holding 492 unless he spent a certain sum of money upon it, and both landlord and tenant were well apprised beforehand of their own interest in the particular bargain they concluded? Clause 1 said the landlord was to pay compensation for improvements to the tenant, no matter what the particular conditions of the contract might be. Did the Attorney General not know that the ordinary lease imposed certain duties upon the tenant in regard to repairs? Would those be regarded as improvements? Supposing the last tenant had been careless, and had not done to the premises what he ought to have done to keep them in a proper state, and the landlord did not think it was worth while taking legal proceedings? He would then let his premises to another tenant at a lower rent in consequence of the state they had been left in rather than go to the trouble of suing the last tenant. The new tenant would have to do that which the last tenant should have done, and what he wanted to know was whether under those circumstances he could claim compensation from his landlord? This clause would introduce confusion into all agreements between landlords and tenants. The Bill would bring infinite litigation in its train. The Attorney-General had made that clear. Those who believed the landlord was a passing factor in civilisation and that the municipality or the State should take his place might, indeed, pass a Bill of this kind with a glad heart. Such a Bill rendered all our civilisation as we understood it absurd. He could understand those who believed in the idea of Socialism supporting the Bill, because if it were passed ordinary good faith and good will between man and man would be destroyed. The lawyers alone would profit, and we should arrive at a situation so ludicrous and onerous that the ordinary 493 man would accept Communism in its most extreme form by preference. The Bill would alter the fundamental views of the sanctity of contract hitherto held in this country. It would carry over all that had been conceded to agricultural property in Ireland to town property in Ireland, and then to property in England. Out of 670 Members of this House at least 500 thought this principle ought not to be adopted, but they had not taken the trouble to road this Bill.
§ Next year when this Bill was applied to English towns—
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 418.)
495| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm (Cork, N.E.) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cogan, Denis J. | Gulland, John W. |
| Ainsworth. John Stirling | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Alden, Percy | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Allan, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Ambrose, Hubert | Cotton, Sir H.J. S. | Halpin, J. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cox, Harold | Hammond, John |
| Astbury, John Meir | Groan, Eugene | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cremer, William Randal | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Crooks, William | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harwood, George |
| Barker, John | Delany, William | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dillon, John | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Donelan, Captain A. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Beale, W. P. | Duffy, William J. | Hommerde, Edward George |
| Beauchump, E. | Dunne, A. Edward (Camborne) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) | Dunne, Major E. Martni (Walsall) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm) | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bennett, E. N. | Elibank, Master, of | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Erskine, David C. | Hogan, Michael |
| Billson, Alfred | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Boland, John | Essex, R. W. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E | Evans, Samuel T. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Everett, R. Lacey | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Brace, William | Farrell, James Patrick | Howard, Hon. Goeffrey |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Ferens, T. R. | Hudson, Walter |
| Brodie, H. C. | Ffrench, Peter | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Brunner, J. F. L.(Lances, Leigh) | Field, William | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Flynn, James Christopher | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Fuller, John Michael F. | Joyce, Michael |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Fullerton, Hugh | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Blyes, William Pollard | Gilhooly, James | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Cairns, Thomas | Gill, A. H. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Cameron, Robert | Ginnell, L. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lambert, George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Glendinning, R. G. | Lamont, Norman |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Glover, Thomas | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Gooch, George Peabody | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Clough, William | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich) |
| Levy, Maurice | O'Dowd, John | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Hare, Patrick | Steadman, W. C. |
| Lough, Thomas | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kondal) |
| Lundon, W. | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon. N | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lupton, Arnold | O'Malley, William | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | O'Mara, James | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'gbs) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Maclean, Donald | O'Shee, James John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Summerbell, T. |
| MacNeill John Gordon Swift | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Thomasson, Franklin |
| M'Callum, John M. | Pollard, Dr. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| M'Crae, George | Power, Patrick Joseph | Thorne, William |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| M'Kean, John | Radford, G. H. | Toulmin, George |
| M'Killop, W. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Trevelayn, Charles Philips |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Raphael, Horbert H. | Ure, Alexander |
| Maddison, Frederick | Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Verney, F. W. |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Redmond, William (Clare) | Vivian, Henry |
| Massie, J. | Rees, J. D. | Wallace, Robert |
| Meagher, Michael | Renton, Major Leslie | Walters John Tudor |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverb'mpt'n | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Richardson, A. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rickett, J. Compton | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Mond, A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Mooney, J. J. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Morrell, Philip | Robinson, S. | White. George (Norfolk) |
| Morse, L. L. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Luke (York, E. R) |
| Murnaghan, George | Rose, Charles Day | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Murphy, John | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Murray, James | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Napier, T. B. | Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Newnos, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Seavorns, J. H. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn |
| Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r | Soddon, J. | Williamson, A. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Shackleton, David James | Wills, Arthtur Walters |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Young, Samuel |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Stanger, H. Y. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cross, Alexander | Mason, James P. (Windsor) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doughty, Sir George | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark (Govan | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fetherstonhaugh, God frey | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Fletcher, J, | Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hick | Forster, Henry William | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Talbot Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Haddock, George R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hamilton, Marquess of | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Butcher, Jamuel Henry | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edmd's | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury | Younger, George |
| Cave, George | Houston, Robert Paterson | |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hunt, Rowland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Coates, E. Feetham,(Lewisham | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Keswick, William | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Liddell, Henry | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
498§ The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 286. (Division List No. 419.)
499| AYES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) | Pease, Herbort Pike (Darlington |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, F. E. (Liverhool, Walton) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cave, George | Houston, Robert Paterson | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cecil, Lore. R. (Marylebone, E. | Hunt, Rowland | Younger, George |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Keswick, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S. | Liddell, Henry | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. | |
| Doughty, Sir George | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Essex, R. W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Byles, William Pollard | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Alden, Percy | Cairns, Thomas | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cameron, Robert | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Ambrose, Robert | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Ffrench, Peter |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Cheetham, John Frederick | Field, William |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Clancy, John Joseph | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Clough, William | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cobbald, Felix Thornley | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Barker, John | Cogan, Denis J. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gilhooly, James |
| Barnard, E. B. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd) | Gill, A. H. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Ginnell, L. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Beale, W. P. | Cox, Harold | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crean, Eugene | Glover, Thomas |
| Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) | Cremer, William Randal | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm) | Crooks, William | Gooch, George Pea body |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cross, Alexander | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Greenwood, Hamar (York) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Billson, Alfred | Delany, William | Gulland, John W. |
| Boland, John | Dillon, John | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Donelan, Captain A. | Halpin, J. |
| Brace, William | Duffy, William J. | Hammond, John |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Elibank, Master of | Harwood, George |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Erskine, David C. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Micklem, Nathaniel | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Seddon, J |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Mond, A. | Shackleton, David James |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Mooney, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Henry, Chrales S. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morrell, Philip | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morse, L. L. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hogan, Michael | Murnaghan, George | Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Murphy, John | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Hooper, A. G. | Murray, James | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Nolan, Joseph | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hudson, Walter | Nuttall, Harry | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Stuart. James (Sunderland) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Dowd, John | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Hare, Patrick | Thorne, William |
| Kekewich, Sir George | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) | Toulmin, George |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | O'Malley, William | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Laidlaw, Robert | O'Mara, James | Ure, Alexander |
| Lambert, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Lamont, Norman | O'Shee, James John | Vivian, Henry |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wallace, Robert |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds. S.) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Walton, Jospeh (Barnsley) |
| Lover, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich | Pollard, Dr. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Levy, Maurice | Power, Patrick Joseph | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. | Wardle, George J. |
| Lough, Thomas | Radford, G. H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lundon, W. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Lupton, Arnold | Raphael, Herbert H. | White, George (Norfolk,) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Redmond, William (Clare) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Maclean, Donald | Rees, J. D. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Renton, Major Leslie | Whitehead, Rowland |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton | Whitley. J. H. (Halifax) |
| McaVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Richardson, A. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Rickett, J. Compton | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Williamson, A. |
| M'Crae, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| M'Hugh, Patrick- A. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| M'Kean, John | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| M'Killop, W. | Robinson, S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon. | Young, Samuel |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rogers, F. E. Newman | |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Rose, Chares Day | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Massie, J. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | |
| Meagher, Michael | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
§ And, it being after Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
500§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
§ Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.