HC Deb 22 July 1907 vol 178 cc1230-80

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 3:—

SIR F. BANBURY

moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim to insert-words to secure that before the compulsory acquisition of and for the purpose of the Act, the owner should have been offered the fair market value of his land, and should have refused to sell it to the Estates Commissioners. To him it seemed to be an extremely reasonable Amendment. The very first thing that the Estates Commissioners should do was to offer the fair market value to the owner of the land. He could not see that anyone would. be hurt by such a proceeding, and he could not understand that the land should be taken compulsorily except at its fair market value. He would be glad to hear on what grounds that would be objected to by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, after the word 'purposes, to insert the words' if, after having offered to the owner of such lands the fair market value thereof, he has refused to sell to the Commissioners and the Commissioners shall use such lands.'" (Sir F. Banbury)

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

MR. BIRRELL

said he quite agreed that the price to be offered to the owner of the land was its fair market value, and he was willing on Report stage to introduce words to make that clear. But he did not wish it to be for a moment in doubt that the question as to what was a fair market value was a question to be settled by the Estates Commissioners themselves. He would have no objection to some such words as, "After having offered to the persons appearing to be the owners of the land, such price as appeared to them to represent the fair market value of the land." They knew that many owners of the land had made no reply to offers made to them by the Estates Commissioners. He did not say that the Estates Commissioners were to be arbiters of what was the fair market value of the land, but they should be obliged to put something to the owners of the land as to what they thought was a fair market value.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he would be very glad to accept the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. He might be allowed to call the attention of the hon. Member for Waterford to the fact that an English Member had had to intervene to get an Amendment accepted, which the right hon. Gentleman said was fair and reasonable.

MR. BIRRELL

So fair and reasonable as to be already in the Bill by implication.

Sir E. CARSON (Dublin University)

asked if the proposed Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman to be inserted at the Report stage would also apply to the case of a tenant before he was compulsorily expropriated.

MR. BIRRELL

said that they would come to that later on in the Bill.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty by accepting the Amendment he had on the Paper, because it dealt with the case of both tenanted land and untenanted land.

MR. BIRRELL

promised also to consider between then and the Report stage-whether the tenant who would be expropriated should also come within the scope of the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG ( Antrim, S.)

apologised to the House for being too late-to move his Amendment. Its object was simply to prevent the Estates Com missioners coming to a man and saying over his head, "We want so much of your land and we are going to take it." It only provided that there should be the ordinary time given for making amicable arrangements with the owner of the land in the first instance, and while he did not think the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were of much value,, because under them they were to rely upon the Estates Commissioners to say what was the fair market value of the land, he would withdraw his Amendment, which was designed in order to try and find out whether the right hon. Gentle man did intend at some stage of the Bill to give them an appeal.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was out of order in discussing that question now.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

acquiesced, and repeated that, although he did not think there was very much value in the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, as he wished to offer no unnecessary opposition to the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the next Amendment was a drafting one which the right hon. Gentleman had accepted. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8. to leave out the word 'may * and insert the word' shall.'"—(Air. James Campbell.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. MOORE,) Armagh, Mid.

rose to move a proviso as follows: "Provided always that the total amount of land to be acquired under this Act shall not exceed 80,000 acres, and a separate record of all land so acquired shall be kept by the Commissioners and shall be available for inspection by any person or persons claiming to be aggrieved; (2) no land shall be acquired under this Act unless and until the owners shall have refused to accept a reasonable offer for its purchase by the Estates Commissioners, and the Estates Commissioners shall not beat liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner has not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners." He said that the first part of the Amendment was based upon the Report of the Estates Commissioners, who set out that the amount of land required would be 80,000 acres, and while they on, that side had expressed themselves as willing and as desiring that all deserving and respectable tenants in Ireland should be reinstated, they thought that some limit should be put upon the number of tenants and the amount of land to be taken for that purpose. They pressed that view particularly because of the fact that lion. Members below the gangway some few years ago were of opinion that if about 300 or 400 evicted tenants were reinstated, the whole question would be settled for ever. They found, however, from the Estates Commissioners' Report that 1,000 tenants had been already reinstated and 2,000 more were to be provided for under this Bill. They had also been told that the amount of land to be dealt with was to average forty acres per holding, and they therefore thought that some specific limit should be placed on the amount of land to be taken under this Bill. The second part of the Amendment practically embodied the idea contained in his own first Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the lion. Member had better move the first Amendment only at this stage.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

asked if he would be in order in moving the first part of the Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he, thought it would be better for the hon. Member to move the first Amendment. When they came to the second Amendment lie; would rule upon it.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

moved the first part of the Amendment dealing with the total amount of land and the record.

Amendment proposed:— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words, 'Provided always that the total amount of land to be acquired under this Act shall not exceed 80,000 acres, and a separate record of all land so acquired shall be kept by the Commissioners and shall be available for inspection by any person or persons claiming to be aggrieved.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)

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

MR. BIRRELL

did not think that any useful purpose would be served by accepting the Amendment. They had had careful inquiries made as to the probable amount of land required, and they had the assurance of responsible persons that 80,000 acres was the limit. The Commissioners had worked out that figure on their own responsibility. As to the suggestion that forty acres should be allotted to each tenant, he did not want any hard and fast rule in regard to that to be laid down. Sometimes forty acres might be sufficient but some times more than forty acres would be necessary. The Commissioners must look into the nature of the holding, neighbourhood, and the like. Therefore he did not think it desirable, and the Government could not consent, to insert a statutory limit of this kind. He thought the Committee should consider that 80,000 acres was the outside limit, but the Government were not prepared to insert it in the Bill as a statutory provision. The proposed record was not necessary, as obviously the land required, would be known.

MR. WALTER LONG

was sorry that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to make some suggestion in regard to this Amendment. He could quite understand his unwillingness to accept it, but it only set out tin estimate of the Estates Com missioners themselves. He understood that they said that 80,000 acres would be the outside amount, and for that reason it would be seen that this was not an unreasonable proposal to make. They had been told that the Bill had ore object, the restoration of the evicted tenants. That being so, it was possible to arrive at a perfectly safe estimate which would give the Commissioners ample scope and at the same time make it clear that their power was not to be exercised under pressure that might after wards arise in order to carry the operation further than Parliament intended. There had been a remarkable growth of evicted tenants between the time when the right hon. Member for Dover had to deal with the question and the time when he himself had to deal with it. In the first instance the number was put at some hundreds, and the hon. Member for Ea t Mayo spoke of the number as 800. Now they had 8,000 applications, which had been gradually cut down to 2,000 after the examination of the Estates Commissioners. But anybody who had watched this movement knew that the number was increasing and the passing, of this Bill was much more likely to add to the claims of those who said they were evicted tenants than to decrease them. There was a possibility of the 2,000 being doubled and trebled. He did not think that that was a result which ought to follow from the passing of this Bill. It might be reasonable to put the number of acres at 100,000 or not to define any acreage at all, but to deal with this matter at a subsequent stage of the Bill, and limit the number of evicted tenants to be reinstated. He submitted that some limitation was necessary either in the amount of land to be taken or in the number of tenants to be reinstated. For himself he would rather see a limitation of the number of tenants than a limitation of the acres to be devoted to the purpose, because, as the Chief Secretary had truly said, forty acres might he too little in one case and too much in another. Therefore it might be desirable to keep the number of acres as vague as possible, but he thought they ought to have some statement as to the number of evicted tenants. At all events they ought to have some statement of policy from the Government, because as the Bill now stood it could be used for the reinstatement of any number of people who might come "within the description of evicted tenants. For these reasons he thought they ought to press the Amendment, which did not set up any limitation which the Government had not imposed upon themselves.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

supported the Amendment, and said he felt very strongly that there should be some limitation either in the acreage or in the number of tenants. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to give them some idea as to the holdings which would be allotted to the evicted tenants. He thought it would be found that 80,000 acres of land would be found far more than was required to settle the tenants upon the land.

MR. BARRIE

also expressed regret that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to some limitation in one way or the other. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that this was the outside figure, hon. Members below the gangway had given no assurance that the Government had reached the full limit of their demands. Even if this concession were granted he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have further demands made upon him after the Bill had passed. It was in that spirit this Amendment was moved. He thought it reasonable, and that the Chief Secretary would be well advised to consider now whether some limitation could not be made.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it was on untenanted land alone that anybody in Ireland could draw for extending un economic holdings, which had been recognised as the agricultural curse of that country. Suggestions had reached him that the amount of such land was limited. He believed this draft of 80,000 acres from the untenanted land would leave, he would not say a deficit, but very little margin for the real reform of the agrarian system. If the Chief Secretary had any estimate of the untenanted land available, he thought he ought to lay it before the Committee. Quality was also an important consideration. The amount of land of a kind on which tenants could be planted was the measure of the power of the Government to deal with the root agrarian difficulty in Ireland. If they were going to sacrifice the future of the tenants whose holdings needed enlarging to people who had not for many years been cultivators of the soil, he thought the Bill, instead of doing something substantial to settle the Irish land difficulty, would only increase it. The one thing the Government could not do was to increase the area of Ireland

MR. BIRRELL

recognised the importance of the question which the right hon. Gentleman had raised, and said he had referred to it more than once as one of the reasons why it had been found necessary to take compulsory powers under this Bill. He would endeavour to get the best estimate he could of the number of acres available, but they varied considerably in the various counties. In Roscommon and Gal way there was not much difficulty, but in Mayo there was a, great shortage of land of that description. It was true that they could not increase the size of Ireland, but lie would remind the House that there was a Bill for improving waste land, and it was possible that something might be done with that proposal if money were forthcoming. There was a good deal of waste laud in Ireland that might be reclaimed and made available for sustaining the population. He agreed with the right hon. Member for North Dublin that the important point was the number of tenants, because that was the factor that really determined the acreage required. The Bill did limit the number of persons. It defined evicted tenants as persons mentioned in the Act of 1903 who were evicted from their holdings before the passing of that Act, and who made application to the Estates Commissioners "before the date named. It was not reasonable to assert that such a class was going to be enormously extended. He did not see why it should be extended at all; but he did not wish absolutely to close the door on a reconsideration of some of the cases that had been investigated on the spot by the inspectors and passed under review by the Estates Com missioners. He did not wish absolutely to say what was the number of tenants which constituted the determining factor. The time might come when they would know definitely who those people were, but he would not like to pledge himself at that moment to print a list of the persons who alone certainly and finally were to be treated as evicted tenants within the meaning of this clause. They had got very near to them, and would eventually get them actually; but at present all he could do was to ask the Committee to take 2,000 as the number not likely to be widely departed from. These claims could not be added to by more than a few. He thought the Committee would run no risk in leaving the matter as it stood in the Bill.

SIR E. CARSON

said that in 1903 it was stated by hon. Members below the gangway that the number of evicted tenants was 800.

MR. BIRRELL

Without inquiry.

SIR E. CARSON

said he doubted that very much. He thought the hon. Members below the gangway knew very well that they were talking about. An inquiry was held some years ago by a quasi-judicial tribunal which alto fixed the number at a similar figure. Since 1903 they had increased from 800 to 8,000—a very fair rate of progress considering the population of Ireland. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he only required land for 2,000, he found nothing in the Bill which limited the number. Not only was there no limitation in the Bill as regards the number, but there was none as regards cost. Supposing 2,000 tenants were absorbed, they could not put the amount of public credit to be pledged at less than £2,000,000; if there" were 8,000, it would mean £8,000,000. There was not even a limit as to the amount of land an evicted tenant was to get. Did the Government suppose that a tenant turned out of 200 acres would be satisfied with 40 acres, or was one turned out of 10 acres to get 40? Was the man turned out of say 250 acres to be put on the same footing as the man who had been turned out of 10 acres? Not only was public credit to be pledged to this work, but there was to be no limit to the amount of land to be given to any individual tenant, nor was it shown that the quantity of land to be given was to bear any relation to what the tenant had held in the past. Surely a cruder or a wider measure was never put forward. The Estates Commissioners, who, he had no doubt, were the most admirable men in the world, were to have unlimited power to apply public credit for acquiring land for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. They might have put this Bill into two lines— "The Estates Commissioners shall have power to give as much land as they please at as much cost as they please, which the Treasury are quite willing to bear, to any evicted tenant in Ireland." That was really the whole of the Bill. There ought to be some indication of how the land was to be distributed by the Commissioners in fixing the amount of the land required.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchange

pointed out that in the Act of 1903, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was partly responsible, there was no limit. ["Compulsion."] Yes, "compulsion" was their constant cry in reply to every argument.

SIR E. CARSON

said he would not have interrupted with the word "compulsion" save for the reason that where they had no compulsion they necessarily had no reason for a limit.

MR. CHERRY

said the word "compulsion" came up in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite like King Charles's head; it cropped up in every argument. Compulsion was discussed on Wednesday last ad nauseam:there was then no restriction on anything that was then said, and there was no closure; they had exhausted themselves on the subject, and it was now time that they went to other important matters in the Bill. He had a word to say about the Amendment, but he need only to mention the Act of 1903 and they would immediately cry "Compulsion, compulsion." He admitted at once that there was no compulsion in the Act of 1903, but that measure gave an absolutely unlimited power to the Estates Commissioners to reinstate any evicted tenant in any amount of land at any time. ["No, no. "An Hon. MEMBER:" And at any cost''"] Yes, there was no limit as to cost. He could have under stood the right hon. and learned Gentle man saying," You are allowing these three dreadful men, the Estates Com missioners, to spend £100,000,000 on an infinity of land in order to reinstate an unlimited number of tenants." One hundred millions might have been advanced under that Act; there was no limit; they had the power under the Act to buy and resell land for the re- instatement of the evicted tenants. On the other hand, by this Bill, in the first clause of it, as his right hon. friend had pointed out, the number of people was confined to those who were evicted before a certain date and who had made out a case to the Estates Commissioners. So far as compulsory powers were concerned they were distinctly limited in that way. "In the Act of 1903 there was no such limitation. He believed that there was a great deal more risk under the voluntary arrangement of the Act of 1903 than under a compulsory arrangement, because the former was unlimited, while the latter was under some limitation. Under the voluntary system the landlord and tenant arranged between them, and the Com missioners had no voice in the matter, though they were supposed to be the custodians of the public money. Under this Bill, when they came to the restoration of the evicted tenants they had a body of three gentlemen who were appointed by the Government to discharge official duties, and it was their business to see that they paid a proper and reasonable price for the land, and that they resold it to the evicted tenant at a reasonable and proper price. But what hon. Gentlemen opposite really objected to was the blessed word "compulsion," a principle which the Government thought was necessary for the proper working of the measure.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said he could not accept the description given by the right hon. and learned Member of the Act of 1903. He had described its sections in a way to suggest that the Commissioners could have spent £100,000,000 if they chose on the reinstatement of evicted tenants. That really was a travesty of the provisions of the Act. The evicted tenants were included among other classes, and they were given no priority and no preference, and, besides that, there was the limitation that the cost of any holding was not to exceed the capital value of £1,000. Where greater latitude was given to meet the case of a tenant who had had a larger holding than would be covered by the sum of £1,000, perhaps a farm of several hundreds of acres, it was expressly Provided by the second section— That such larger advance for sanction to any purchaser shall be without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. So there they saw that the evicted tenants were only one class among many classes; they had no priority or preference, and the limit of £1,000 for a holding could not be exceeded save where it could be shown that it would be without damage or injury to persons living in the neighbourhood.

*MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

thought that the Chief Secretary had taken rather a rash view of the amount of untenanted land that would be avail able for the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and also for the purpose of increasing the size of uneconomic holdings in the west of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the debate on 29th October last year he would see that the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Bryce, made the very startling statement that in Ulster, Minister, and even in Connaught there was not more than one-third of the land which could be used for in creasing the size of the uneconomic holdings. If that was the condition of things in Connaught surely it meant that they were going to take away the land which should have gone to increase the size of the uneconomic holdings, and give it to the evicted tenants, thus depriving those in the district of the land which should have gone to increase their holdings to economic size. As regarded the number of acres to be taken under this Bill he agreed that 80,000 acres was rather a small limit to impose. The number of applicants had been 8,400, and 6,100 had been inquired into, leaving 2,300 still to be adjudicated upon. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at page 6 of the Report he would see that the Commissioners had 1,600 cases to be provided for, because they had already been adjudicated upon, and besides that number they had 2,300 cases still to adjudicate upon. Of course he knew that the Report stated that it was thought that not more than 400 of these cases would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, pass the test; still, there might be some 3,500 or 3,600 evicted tenants to be [provided for which would take 150,000 acres. He thought that such an Amendment as that under discussion ought to be included.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the question they were discussing was a very important one if they desired to secure the successful administration of the Bill. The Chief Secretary had asked was it likely that he would ever yield to pressure to include in the category of tenants persons who did not properly come under that category. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Bill became law in its present shape he would be quite helpless in the matter, because that power was being handed over to the Estates Com missioners. It was no answer to say that they should trust to the discretion of the Chief Secretary or his successor in office. The right hon. Gentleman had anticipated somewhat the discussion upon the Amendment standing in his (Mr. Campbell's) name, which dealt with the number of the evicted tenants, and at first he thought he was going to pronounce in favour of the limitation fixed in that Amendment. The Chief Secretary started with that contention, but he pulled himself up and gradually receded from the impression which he at first left upon those sitting in opposition. Surely some limitation was necessary. It had been stated on behalf of the Government that they objected to this Amendment because they did not wish to close the door against some of those tenants whose claims had already been rejected. The moment that statement became known in Ireland every one of those 8,500 evicted tenants would have their hopes revived. The right hon. Gentleman said the Estates Commissioners had informed him that there were some cases in reference to which they were desirous of hearing something more, Apparently there was to be no finality on this matter because, as regarded those 8,500 cases, it was understood that the Commissioners had once and for all ruled them all out except 2,000. Apparently they had been under a delusion in this matter; the door was to be left open.

MR. BIRRELL

What I said was that there were a few cases in regard to which the Estates Commissioners desired the door to be left open, but they were very few indeed.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

asked if the names were going to be scheduled. If not all those rejected tenants would quite properly bring pressure to bear upon the Estates Commissioners in the hope that their case might be reconsidered. This point ought to be clearly stated in the Bill, so that those tenants would know that the time had gone by for any further or fresh agitation. He could not imagine anything more calculated to destroy any approach to finality in this matter than the two statements made by the Chief Secretary: (1) That he and the Estates Commissioners did not want to close the door against the men already rejected,; and (2) That there were a certain number of those rejected men whom the Estates Commissioners had expressed a desire to hear more about. The fact that since 1903 the estimate as to the number of evicted tenants had gone up from 800 to 8,000 had not yet been explained. The Estates Commissioners said they had sifted those 8,500 cases down to 2,000, and the Chief Secretary said the Bill provided homes for2,000 scheduled and named evicted tenants. If that was the case what objection could there be to stating in the Bill that the number of persons to be reinstated should not exceed 2,000? If the Bill was left in its present form the Estates Commissioners could deal with 8,500 tenants. Clause 2 laid it down that the Estates Commissioners might, decide who were fit and proper persons to be recognised as evicted tenants. Consequently they might throw everything to the wind that had been done already and start upon a fresh investigation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that in this respect his criticism was perfectly right and fair. The object of the clause was said to be to limit the discretion of the Commissioners, but it did not do so; it provided that they were to

restore those tenants who, after the Bill became law, they might consider to be fit and proper persons, and they could give the go-by to what they had done already. They all knew the amount of pressure which could be brought to bear upon these matters in Ireland by clergy men, politicians, and local authorities, not merely to increase the number of tenants to be let in but also to put B in the place of A. He did not think the Estates Commissioners would be able to resist that pressure, and they ought to welcome the protection offered by this Amendment in order that they might say to the local authorities: "We are very sorry, but the time has gone by and we cannot do this now." Surely it would be sufficient if the Chief Secretary accepted an Amendment which would give him a little elasticity to cover the few isolated cases he had alluded to. In fairness to the Estates Commissioners and the evicted tenants some limit should be accepted. If a limit was not accepted he could assure the Committee that, as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman had said about his anxiety to keep the door open, and that the Estates Commissioners should consider a certain number of the rejected cases, the gates would be opened to a flood of pressure from every part of Ireland upon the Commissioners. The only way that could be prevented was by putting in a limitation either of age or number. If the right hon. Gentleman thought 2,000 too rigid a number, he would be willing to agree to such a reasonable limit as would enable the Estates Commissioners to provide for the few cases they were anxious to reconsider. Unless a limit was stated there would be a fresh agitation the moment the Bill passed more violent than any that had been brought about by previous measures.

Question put.

Tae Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 265. (Division List No. 297.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F. Bowles, G. Stewart Carlile, E. Hildred
Balcarres, Lord Boyle, Sir Edward Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Brotherton, Edward Allen Castlereagh, Viscount
Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Bull, Sir William James Cave, George
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Butcher, Samuel Henry Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Harris, Frederick Leverton Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Helmsley, Viscount Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hills, J. W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kimber, Sir Henry Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Courthope, G. Loyd King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Turnour, Viscount
Dalrymple, Viscount Lane-Fox, G. R. Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. Lockwood. Rt. Hn. Lt, Col. A. R. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Faber, George Denison (York) Lowe, Sir Francis William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fardell, Sir T. George Magnus, Sir Philip Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fell, Arthur Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Fletcher, J. S. Middlemore, John Throgmorton Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.
Forster, Henry William Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) Charles Craig and Mr.
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Ashley.
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Cullinan, J. Jardine, Sir J.
Acland, Francis Dyke Dalziel, James Henry Jenkins, J.
Agnew, George William Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Alden, Percy Devlin, Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Dobson, Thomas W. Jowett, F. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Donelan, Captain A. Joyce, Michael
Ambrose, Robert Duffy, William J. Kekewich, Sir George
Astbury, John Meir Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Kelley, George D.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Kenned, Vincent Paul
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) Kettle, Thomas Michael
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Eli bank, Master of Kilbride, Denis
Barker, John Essex, R. W. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Eve, Harry Trelawney King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Bell, Richard Everett, R. Lacey Laidlaw, Robert
Bellairs, Carlyon Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) Farrell, James Patrick Lamont, Norman
Berridge, T. H. D. Fenwick, Charles Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) Ferens, T. R. Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon) Findlay, Alexander Lehmann, R. C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Flynn, James Christopher Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Black, Arthur W. Fuller, John Michael F. Levy, Sir Maurice
Boland. John Fullerton, Hugh Lough, Thomas
Bowerman, C. W. Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.) Lundon, W.
Bramsdon, T. A. Gilhooly, James Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Branch, James Glendinning, R. G. Lyell, Charles Henry
Brodie, H. C. Goddard, Daniel Ford Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) Gooch, George Peabody MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bryce, J. Annan Grant, Corrie MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Gurdon. Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal. E.)
Burke, E. Haviland. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius M'Callum, John M.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Halpin, J. M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Byles. William Pollard Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Kean, John
Cameron, Robert Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Hart-Davies, T. M'Killop, W.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Cheetham, John Frederick Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) M'Micking, Major G.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R. Haworth, Arthur A. Maddison, Frederick
Clancy, John Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Mallet, Charles E.
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Hazleton, Richard Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cleland. J. W. Helme, Norval Watson Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Clough, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Markham, Arthur Basil
Clynes. J. R, Henderson. J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Cobbold, Felix, Thornley Henry, Charles S. Marnham, F. J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry;
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Higham, John Sharp Massie, J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hobart, Sir Robert Masterman, C. F. G.
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Hodge, John Meagher, Michaell
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hogan, Michael Meehan, Patrick A.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Holland, Sir William Henry Menzies, Walter
Cox, Harold Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) Micklem, Nathaniel
Crean, Eugene Horniman, Emslie John Molteno, Percy Alport
Crooks, William Hyde. Clarendon Money, L. G. Chiozz.
Crosfield, A. H. Jacoby. Sir James Alfred Montagu, E. S.
Mooney, J. J. Redmond, William (Clare) Summerbell, T.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Rees, J. D. Sutherland, J. E.
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Renton, Major Leslie Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Morse, L. L. Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Rickett, J. Compton Torrance, Sir A. M.
Murnaghan, George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln') Ure, Alexander
Murphy, John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Verney, F, W.
Murray, James Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Vivian, Henry
Myer, Horatio Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Napier, T. B. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Walters, John Tudor
Nicholls, George Roche, Augustine (Cork) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Roche, John (Galway, East) Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)
Nolan, Joseph Rogers, F. E. Newman Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Norton, Capt, Cecil William Rowlands, J. Waterlow, D. S.
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) Runciman, Walter Watt, Henry A.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Russell, T. W. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Scarisbrick, T. T. L. White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Sears, J. E. Whitehead, Rowland
O'Grady, J. Seddon, J. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Seely, Major J. B. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
O'Malley, William Shackleton, David James Wiles, Thomas
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Shee, James John Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Parker, James (Halifax,) Silcock, Thomas Ball Wills, Arthur Walters
Partington, Oswald Simon, John Allsebrook Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wilso, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pollard, Dr. Snowden, P. Winfrey, R.
Power, Patrick Joseph Soares, Ernest J. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Spicer, Sir Albert Young, Samuel
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Yoxall, James Henry
Priestley, W. E. B (Bradford, E.) Steadman, W. C.
Radford, G. H. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Rainy, A. Rolland Strachey, Sir Edward Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Pease.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
MR. CHARLES CRAIG

moved an Amendment to provide that the Estates Commissioners should not be at liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner had not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners. He said the object of the Amendment was to prevent the Estates Commissioners from being able to punish a landlord for not agreeing to sell an untenanted portion of his lands. There was quite enough of compulsion in the Bill already, and he thought the landlord should be safe guarded in the way he proposed.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, at end to insert the words: 'The Estates Commissioners shall not be at liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner has not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)

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

*MR. ASHLEY

supported the Amendment. He said that the Estate Commissioners had treated the owner of an estate whom he knew in such a way that the Amendment of his hon. friend was necessary. This man had made an agreement to sell his land at a certain price. The tenants were satisfied, the owner was satisfied, and everything was arranged. But the owner had a certain detached farm up in the mountains which the Estate Commissioners wished to purchase at a certain price for the purpose of extending uneconomic holdings. They and the land lord could not agree on the price. All that the latter asked for was that he should not be out of pocket in regard to the purchase money when that money was invested in trust securities as provided for in his settlements. The Estates Commissioners refused to give him that sufficient price, and said they would only give the owner one-third of what he had hitherto derived from the land, and that, unless he accepted that price, they would not put their seal to the sale of the remainder of the estate to his tenants.

MR. CHERRY

said he did not know whether the attention of hon. Members had been drawn to the fact that the Government had already accepted an Amendment which rendered the Amendment now proposed entirely unnecessary. The word "shall" had been inserted instead of the word "may," so that in any case where the Estates Commissioners purchased any given area, that would be regarded as a separate estate, so as to enable the owner to get the bonus. The 10 per cent. bonus was to be paid originally in cases of voluntary sales, but the introduction of the word "shall" provided that in every case the bonus should be paid.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that the object of the Amendment was to meet the case where a landlord had an ordinary estate of 1,000 acres which he wished to sell to the tenants, while desiring to retain in his own hands a certain amount of untenanted land. The Estates Commissioners, however, said that unless he sold the untenanted land they would not declare his property an estate. He knew of a case in the county of Meath. The landlord agreed to sell to the tenants on certain conditions, and the inspector of the Estates Commissioners appeared on the farm, and having inspected it stated to the bailiff and. to the landlord who were present that there was plenty of security for the money to be advanced but that in any case the owner would have to sell to the Estates Commissioners at least 100 acres for evicted tenants. Now, the tenant and his predecessor had been in possession for 100 years, and not a single tenant had ever been evicted on the estate. There they had a case in point. An agreement for the sale of a large farm which both parties were willing to carry out, and the tenants did not even ask for the full rent from the Estates Commissioners. And yet the Estates Commissioners insisted that 100 acres out of an estate of 360 acres should be sold to them for the purpose of providing farms to evicted tenants in other parts of the country. That showed the necessity for some such Amendment, and he hoped that the Attorney-General would have something to say on the point, as the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand why the Amendment was moved.

MR. CHERRY

thought that the Amendment was still more objectionable as explained by the hon. Member, because he was endeavouring to amend the Act of 1903 in an essential particular. That was clearly out of order. The discretion of the Estates Commissioners in the matter as described in that Act could not be amended in this Bill, which dealt only with evicted tenants, and they could not possibly dream of interfering with the discretion of the Com missioners as regarded the sale of land generally throughout Ireland.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said that this Bill would be an independent enactment of general application, and if the Amendment were passed, it would repeal one of the most fundamental provisions of the Act of 1903. He asked the Chairman whether the Amendment could be moved.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

submitted that the Amendment did no more than the Bill itself. The Bill amended the Act of 1903 in almost every clause, so far as it dealt with evicted tenants. It seemed to him a new doctrine that an Amendment to one Bill should be out of order because it amended something in an Act already passed.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that after the explanation of the rig it hon. and learned Member the Attorney-General it was quite, obvious that the Amendment was out of order.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

moved to insert at the end of the first subsection of Clause 1: "Provided that where any part of an estate is acquired compulsorily, it shall be lawful for the owner to require that the whole of the estate shall be so taken." He said that as the Bill now stood it was open to the Estates Commissioners to take a part of any estate on their own terms, and to plant down evicted tenants who were not necessarily connected with that particular estate bit might come from any other part of Ireland, on conditions of purchase which were favourable to them. Under those circumstances, what would the position be? They would have on this particular part of the estate evicted tenants planted down who were paying less in interest on the purchase money than their neighbours would be paying for rent, even when the rents were fixed as fair rents. Again, no provision was made for the labourers on the holdings from which the tenants were removed to find them holdings, or compensation for being disturbed. The claims of these labourers were worthy of some consideration. What position could be more unsatisfactory than the existence of these two bodies of small proprietors and tenants living side by side under conditions so entirely different; what could be more certain to create dissatisfaction and to bring about disorder in the district? That was a strong reason why his Amendment should be considered. The Chief Secretary had said that the existing tenants were to be displaced because they were bad farmers, but surely it was unfair that bad farmers should be planted on another estate. All he proposed was that if they took one portion of a man's estate for the purposes of this Bill they should take the rest of the estate on the landlord's request for the purpose of carrying out the Act of 1903.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that, where part of an estate is to be acquired compulsorily, it shall be lawful for the' owner to require that the whole estate shall be so taken."—(Mr. Janus Mason.)

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

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

desired to support the Amendment, which seemed to him to be eminently reasonable. If the Estates Commissioners came down to a landlord's estate and picked bits off here and there for the purpose of providing for evicted tenants, say to the extent of one-third of the estate, he thought it would be admitted that it was not an unreasonable provision that the landlord should have the right to compel the Estates Commissioners to take the whole of it. The effect of his hon. friend's Amendment might be limited if necessary. He admitted that if in the case of a large estate the Com missioners secured one very small piece or corner, the landlord should not be able to make the Commissioners buy the whole of say 10,000 acres. But the converse case was just as likely to happen. If, on a small estate of 200 acres, the Estates Commissioners required 30, 40, or 50 acres for the purposes of or this Act, surely it was a reasonable thing that a landlord who had lost the best part of his estate and had had outsiders thrust upon him should be able to compel the Commissioners to take the whole of his small estate off his hands.

MR. CHERRY

thought the hon. Member for Windsor did not really understand the effect of his Amendment, which would be objectionable. The primary object of the Bill was to provide land for evicted tenants, and the compulsory powers only applied to the acquisition of untenanted land or land which was in the occupation of new tenants. The Amendment sought to compel the Estates Commissioners to-purchase from an owner who had any untenanted land for sale his tenanted land as well. If it were accepted, it would oblige them to determine the tenancies of the tenanted land and turn out the tenants. The Government had been vigorously attacked for going as far as they had, but this Amendment would compel them to go much further than they had ever contemplated. They could not accept the Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Attorney-General for Ireland had remarked that his hon. friend the Member for Windsor did not know what the meaning of his own Amendment was, but for his own part he did not think the right hon. Gentleman himself had gathered the purpose of it. He thought the language of the Amendment was perhaps un fortunate, especially with regard to the words "so taken" at the end of it, but it was easy to alter phraseology so as to prevent its going further than the promoter of the Amendment intended. His hon. friend's suggestion was that, where the Estates Commissioners descended upon the estate of a landlord who had not evicted his tenants, in order to provide holdings for the evicted tenants from another estate, if the owner desired that his property should be sold as a whole he should have a prior right to the general sale powers of the Act of 1903. He looked at this matter, not from the point of view of the landlord alone or from that of the tenant alone, but also from the point of view of general policy. The object of the Government was to remove possible sources of disturbance. Did they really think that their policy of planting down on an estate, where the majority of tenants would be rent-paying tenants, a new body of men who would be sitting on better terms and more agreeable conditions, would have the pacifying effect they desired it should have? He quite agreed that they could not enforce a right to purchase where thirty or forty acres were taken out of a large estate, and that there ought to be some limitation. But in a great many cases it would not be a small bit of land, and the amount would probably be sufficient to make a mark on the estate itself. Unless some safeguard were inserted, he was convinced fresh difficulties would arise which would either need further legislation or cause delay in giving prompt and practical effect to the Act of 1903. He did not think the Attorney-General for Ireland should dismiss the Amendment and say in effect that it was ultra vires, and un worthy of consideration.

MR. CHERRY

I said it was objectionable.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that no doubt the principle de minimis non curat lex might be applied to the Amendment, or it might be said to be impossible. Those were solid arguments, but where a man had land taken from him in order to deal with difficulties on estates other than his own, he thought he ought to receive more consideration. The arguments he had mentioned did not fall, however, from the right lion. Gentleman, and he regretted that he felt compelled to deal with the matter in such a summary manner. He regretted the absence from the House of the Chief Secretary, though he understood and appreciated the reason for it, for he regarded the question as one of serious importance.

MR. CLANCY

said the Amendment came from the English sympathisers with the Irish landlords, and was about the most amusing illustration that he had seen of the pure humbug that had gone on throughout this Bill. A short time before they were discussing the limitation of the provision in regard to the purchase of 80,000 acres.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member must confine himself in his remarks to the Amendment.

MR. CLANCY

said he only wished to point out the humbug of this Amendment, which would enlarge the scope of the Bill.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

asked if it was in order to describe as humbug an Amendment which the Chairman had allowed to be moved.

MR. CLANCY

said they had listened to a set of arguments destined to show that undue pressure would be put on the executive and unlimited discretion given to the Estates Commissioners, yet here was an Amendment which proposed to extend the powers. As an illustration let them take the estate of the Marquess of Clanricarde, which was 65,000 acres. It was suggested that if ten acres was purchased for the purpose of reinstating an evicted tenant Lord Clanricarde should be able to compel the Estates Commissioners to purchase 64,990 in addition. If that was to be allowed on all the estates in Ireland 2,000,000 acres might have to be bought up. He ventured to say, after hearing all the arguments which had been adduced against such a thing by the Party of which the hon. Member was a member, the present Amendment was humbug and nothing else.

MR. CHERRY

said the right hon. Member for South Dublin had placed an entirely different interpretation upon the Amendment from that which the language clearly conveyed. It provided that if the Estates Commissioners sought to acquire any land compulsorily the owners of that land should have power to compel them to take the whole of the estate. The right hon. Gentleman had put an entirely different construction upon it. His interpretation was that if the Estates Commissioners compulsorily acquired a portion of an estate they should allow the landlord voluntarily to sell the whole to the tenants. There was nothing to prevent a voluntary sale now, and it was not necessary to put such a proviso in the Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman had said he wanted the owner to get some priority for the sale of the rest of the land if some was taken compulsorily. But he (Mr. Cherry) thought that the hon. Gentleman meant what he said in his Amendment, namely, that if there was to be compulsory sale of one portion of an estate there should be compulsory sale of the whole. The Bill only dealt with provision of land for evicted tenants, and therefore the adoption of the Amendment would be very extraordinary. He appealed to the mover to withdraw it.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. It simply gave to a landlord the power given at present in the case of a rail way company requiring land, namely, where a portion of the land was taken to insist upon their taking the whole, on the ground that what was left was of no value to him. In the case of the Marquess of Clanricarde's estate, there might be a thousand agricultural tenants—rent-paying tenants who had not bought under the Land Purchase Act of 1903. But the Estates Commissioners would no doubt pick out certain portions for evicted tenants, and it was possible there would be ten persons not tenants like the rest of the people, but paying about 4s. an acre, while the rent-paying tenants would be paying 8s. That would convert the estate into a sort of magpie, and probably these 8s. tenants would become centres of disturbance in the district, and Cause discontent among the rest of the tenants. What the Amendment pro posed to do was to say that in such cases as that the landlord should be entitled to say, "If you are going to take a part of my land you must take the whole of it." If those who were responsible for this Bill had any instinct of justice they would at once say that that was a just demand. Why should a landlord be asked to sell his estate in a piecemeal manner; why if one part of the land was taken, should not the landlord be able to say that the remainder was of no use to him and that they must take the whole or none? That was what the Amendment asked, and was it not justice? If the Chief Secretary had been in his place he thought that he would have understood this proposal. He must con fess that from his speech he did not think that the Attorney-General for Ireland did understand the Amendment.

MR. CHERRY

said he was not dealing with the Amendment on the Paper, but with the interpretation which had been given of it by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he thought it was a matter of ordinary good taste and good sense to deal with the Amendment on the Paper in the sense in which it was put forward by its mover.

MR. CHERRY

said it was as a matter of courtesy that he had dealt with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. He might have been out of order in doing so, probably was, but it was only as a matter of courtesy that he had dealt with the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the Amendment.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had exhausted himself in the matter of explanations; he had been given four opportunities of explaining, and he had left the matter exactly where it was. He was glad to see that the Chief Secretary was now in his place, and he trusted that they would have the advantage of his intelligence, which he knew to be very great, on this question. What he was endeavouring to point out was that a landlord might have a rent-paying tenantry, but if for the purposes of this Bill land was acquired on his estate for reinstating evicted tenants, he would have dotted over his estate a number of persons who would necessarily become centres of disaffection and disorder amongst the rent-paying tenants, who might feel that their position was less advantageous than that of the reinstated tenants, and the condition of the property might be made very burden some and very troublesome. What he suggested was that they should apply the remedy that was applied under the Lands Clauses Acts in the case of compulsory purchase for a public purpose: if a portion of a man's property were taken and it interfered with his enjoyment and comfort in the use of the rest of it, then he had a right to serve notice calling upon the promoting company to take the balance of the land. The object of the Amendment before the House was to enable an owner to say to the Estates Commissioners that what they were leaving him was so uncomfortable that he would rather get rid of the whole of it, and, if they were not prepared to take the whole of it, then they would not get any of it. That was, he thought, a reasonable and just proposal, and he hail very great pleasure in supporting it.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said that if ever there was justification of the Motion of the Prime Minister it was to be found in the painful exhibition of the last half-hour. In an irrelevant and incoherent speech the extraordinary doctrine had been laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in support of this absurd Amendment, that if a field were taken for a railway under the Lands Clauses Act, the owner might require that the promoters of the railway or any other under taking should take not merely the field but the whole estate. He had in his mind the case of an estate where a railway ran through fields, and stretching from the side of that railway were about three miles of estate; yet the hon. and learned Gentle man told them that the owner of that estate could have objected, and required the promoters to take the whole of the property. And that was the sort of argument which was addressed to the Committee, supported by wearisome and tedious iteration. The time of the Committee was wasted in this frivolous, vexatious, and paltry manner. Here they had a proposal to take a small quantity of land for a great public purpose, in pursuance of a great compact between the Tory Party and themselves, and ratified by Parliament, and then they had this Amendment which pro posed that if the Commissioners required 100 acres of land for the purpose of re storing evicted tenants the landlord was to have the power to require that the Commissioners should take the whole of his land or none. Yet on the same side of the House, among members near the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they had heard the criticism only a short time before that for the whole of Ireland not more than 80,000 acres were to be taken. And this was called serious debate! It was trifling with the time and patience of the Committee. It was trifling with the intelligence of the country, and its character was reflected in the paltry and dwindling minorities which they saw in the divisions. These hon. Members represented a class who tried to put obstacles in the way of tenants who had done no wrong except to pay them too much rent in the past. He thought that it was time that their proceedings were so regulated as to prevent tedious repetition and continued irrelevance. He repeated that if anything justified the Motion of the Prime Minister it was the painful exhibition which they had just witnessed.

MR. BARRIE

said the hon. Member for North Cork had complained of the want of lucidity in the speech of the Member for the University of Dublin. He thought he might very well pass the same criticism in regard to the speech of the hon. Member. The Amendment before the Committee provided that where part of an estate was to be acquired compulsorily, it should be lawful for the owner to require that the whole estate should be taken. That was not an Amendment which ought to give rise to any want of sincerity. It was hardly less import ant than any other Amendment which had been put down. Let the Committee consider what was likely to happen in a fairly large estate such as were met with in South Tyrone, where tenants paid rents and were delighted to have the opportunity of paying. In South Tyrone, as in North Londonderry, evicted tenants were so very scarce that he was sure they would look with interest upon one when he was unearthed.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,) Tyrone, S.

There are 282 evicted tenants in South Tyrone—more than there were in some of the southern counties.

MR. BARRIE, continuing,

said that out of the 8,500 listed even 282 was not a very large number. But he regretted that even that number should be manufactured.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment, which confines the discussion to very narrow limits.

MR. BARRIE

stated that the number of evicted tenants in his constituency only amounted to twenty-five, and only five of those had been able to impose upon the Estates Commissioners. So far as the proposal in the Bill was concerned the division he had the honour to represent objected to it in to to. He supported the Amendment because he felt that the exercise of such a large and unheard-of discretion as was proposed to be given to the Estates Commissioners to impose a certain small class of evicted tenants upon a large estate where there were peaceful and contented tenants, would not only create discontent among the tenants but depreciate the property of those tenants as well as the property of the landlord. It could not be con tested that what were now termed evicted tenants were from the point of view of agriculturists detrimentals— men who had not succeeded in their business. It was because he represented those who had succeeded and desired to succeed by honest and straightforward means, that he had pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

SIR E. CARSON

pointed out that in the case of placing one tenant on an estate the cost of the investigation of title would be as great for that one holding as for the whole estate. That would be a very great hardship upon the owner or upon the tenant. That was another reason why it should be considered whether the Estates Commissioners should have power to place a few tenants on an estate without buying the whole.

MR. BIRRELL

said he had put an Amendment on the Paper to make the point perfectly clear. He quite agreed that the landlord ought not to be made to bear the cost of compulsory purchase. If they took the man's land compulsorily they ought to bear the costs of inquiring into the title. He held very strong opinions as to the absurd amount of the costs that were involved in the investigations of title, under the whole of the Irish Land Acts, and he hoped means might be found of facilitating and accelerating the process and reducing the enormous mountain of costs which had been incurred without in any way affecting a single question as to the right of the landlord to sell. To acquire a whole estate because 30 acres of land were wanted to reinstate a tenant would increase enormously the amount of land required, and he was unable to accept the Amendment; but as regarded the costs, that question would arise hereafter, and he would himself propose an Amendment to deal with that question.

MR. J. F. MASON

agreed that it would be unreasonable if a small portion of land were required, that his Amendment should operate in an absurd manner. He thought, however, that there would be no difficulty in amending it in such a way as to provide that if more than a. certain proportion of the estate was taken the landlord should have power to require that the whole estate should be bought. It would be generally acknowledged that to go into a tailor's shop and buy compulsorily a pair of trousers and a coat and leave the waistcoat would be unjust. He thought some provision was necessary to meet this point.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

appealed to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who used to be a great advocate of compulsory purchase, and who had denounced the evicted tenants in round terms, to state whether he was prepared to allow the principle of compulsion to be generally applied and thus permit honest men to come by their own as well as the evicted tenants on behalf of whom alone the Government now proposed to act.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that as he understood the Amendment it proposed that if part of an estate were taken against the wishes of the owner he should be in a position to insist that the whole of the estate should be taken. He admitted that if only 30 acres were required on an estate containing 10,000 acres it would be awkward for the Estates Commissioners to have to take over the whole. At the same time one had to look at the fairness of the Bill to the landlord. Let them consider what the effect would be if three holdings amounting to about 90 acres were taken from an estate of 10,000 acres. In that case three tenants might be reinstated. These tenants would be undeserving people. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, that was his opinion. They had either not paid their rents, in which case they were not fit people to be put into farms, or they were able to pay and did not choose to do it. What would be the effect oil the other tenants on an estate of the reinstatement of an evicted tenant? They would probably refuse to pay their rents in the hope that they would be put in a nice farm somewhere else with the help of money provided by the State. One must not forget that human nature being what it was, if they said to people: "If you repudiate your lawful obligations, or if you are unfortunate enough not to be able to carry them out, the State will find the money to put you in another farm," there would be a great temptation to a number of people to follow that advice. That was why the Commissioners ought to take over the whole estate and become responsible for all the tenants. If the Amendment were carried, there would, no doubt, be considerable trouble to the Estates Commissioners, but it was trouble which they ought to take upon their own shoulders. He denied that it was for the public advantage that the evicted tenants should be reinstated. It was for the advantage of a particular class.

MR. BIRRELL

said the hon. Baronet opposed the Act of 1903, and therefore was more entitled than some hon. Members to argue as he had. It was perfectly well understood that under that Act the evicted tenants should be restored.

SIR F. BANBURY

said it did not restore them by compulsion. He opposed that Act because, having studied the Irish question for a considerable number of years in the. House, he had come to the conclusion that the more they gave to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and to the Irish tenants, the more they wanted. He was not so green, to use a colloquial expression, as many hon. Members, and he agreed with the late Lord Salisbury that all they could do was to administer the law in a resolute manner.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the difficulty in this matter arose in two ways. He would take the case of a landlord who evicted a tenant, say fifteen years ago, and was himself in possession of the land. There were 600 such cases in Ireland. At the Land Conference the land lords said with a certain degree of fairness—he admitted that the argument was not all on one side—that they declined to take back the evicted tenants, because they wore on bad terms with them, and because these men had given a lot of trouble. Very well, it was proposed to put them back, not as tenants, but as purchasers. That was a wholly different thing. That broke the relationship between the landlord and the evicted tenant. If the landlord took up the ground—and it was a possible ground to take—that these men who were re stored to their holdings would demoralise the whole estate, then the remedy for that was perfectly clear. The landlord could still the estate under the Act of 1903. That answered the question of title.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

For what price would he sell it?

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew the answer. It was simply this—if the landlord thought it a breach of the compact to take these men back because they would demoralise his estate, he could sell the whole estate under the Act of 1903.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

indicated dissent

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head, but he knew as well as any living man that one of his colleagues cleared out of his estate in County Antrim with thirty years purchase. The second point was that because the Estates Commissioners desired a certain amount of un-tenanted land, they would have power to take it compulsorily for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants. That was the power which this Bill would give. The mover of the Amendment had contended that if the Estates Commissioners took compulsorily 100 acres of a 5,000-acre estate, they should be forced to take the whole estate compulsorily, although they did not want it. That proposal could be left to the judgment of the Committee. It was one which even the most deter mined opponents of the Bill could not stand to, and the Government could not accept it. The purchase of land compulsorily, for which the Commissioners had no use, was advocated by hon. Members who earlier in the debate had declaimed against compulsion altogether. Every honest land reformer went as far without compulsion as sensible men were pre pared to go with reason, and that was the length to which he himself went. The difference between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that he promised to vote for compulsion, and did it while they promised to vote for it, and voted against it.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the hon. Member for South Tyrone ought not to have made the statement that his hon. friend the Member for North Armagh got thirty years purchase for his land.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I qualify the statement by saying that the Report of the Estates Commissioners shows that he received twenty-seven years purchase and three years bonus.

MR CHARLES CRAIG

said his hon. friend gave to his tenants over and above very considerable rights of turbary.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I know that bog

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that if the Estates Commissioners compulsorily took possession of the best parts of an estate for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants the landlord would have the balance thrown on his hands. The hon. Member for South Tyrone knew perfectly well that the Act of 1903 provided for the Estates Commissioners purchasing the whole of an estate from a landlord for the purpose of re-selling to the tenants. That being so, where was the hardship in this case if the landlord asked that they should purchase the whole of an estate when they proposed to purchase a portion of it? It was reasonable that a landlord should be able to say to the Estates Com missioners that they should take the whole of an estate off his hands.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, had laid be fore the House the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard. The hon. Member kept his eye fixed on only one side of the proposition and argued that little or no hardship would be inflicted on the owner of a property by its compulsory evisceration for the purposes of this Bill. He contended that there would be such hardship. The hon. Member did not enter into the feelings of owners of property, but he would be a much fairer-minded legislator and a much better law-giver if he would occasionally try to understand the feelings of those on whom he constantly wished to trample. If he could understand the feeling of ownership of property, the deep regard the owners had for the discharge of their duty, and the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, the owners would have more chance of fair play being meted out to them. To say that the owner was not injured was an absurdity.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)

Who injured Home?

*THE CHAIRMAN

I really must protest against that old story being resuscitated.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

I assure you, Mr. Emmott, that, although you protest against it, I do not, and if the hon. Member goes down to the country where I am known, and asks that question, I only hope I shall be at hand to protect him from the horse-trough. And I can assure the hon. Member there is no one whom I would rescue with greater pleasure. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman said that it must surely be admitted that by the compulsory division of an estate, the capital or selling value of the property was considerably lowered. He appealed to the Chief Secretary, who was getting so bored with his own Bill to try the experiment of acquiring a nice property in Ireland, and having a bit of it completely taken away compulsorily. He thought the result would be that the right hon. Gentleman would very soon sever his connection with Ireland, and that he would not get the same price for his property as he gave for it. The capital value of the property must be decreased. It was a great mistake of hon. Gentlemen opposite to assume that the selling value of an estate was based solely and absolutely on the rental value. It was based also on the amenity which surrounded the estate, on the satisfaction it gave to the owner, on all the links and associations which went to make up what in this country was called the homeland—he did not know what it was called in Ireland—by the ties of long connection, and long descent. When they came compulsorily to extract from the estate 100 acres here and another 100 acres there, they could not but make the owner of the rest of the property dissatisfied. Those who said that that would not lower the value of the land differed from every auctioneer or land agent engaged in letting land in the country. If by their action they inflicted a loss upon an innocent man, they themselves ought to stand the loss, and should not play the double game of first carrying out, a political move, and then casting the loss they inflicted upon somebody else's shoulders. If a transaction

of that sort were brought before some of the Judges, epithets might be applied to it which would be decidedly unpleasant. He could not see why landed property should be dealt with in a manner which broke all the canons of fair play. He believed that the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone had entirely broken down. If it were said that the Government wanted to carry this measure to a successful issue, that was the common purpose of all the House. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes,. they all recognised that the reinstatement of the evicted tenants would make for the contentment of the people of Ireland as a whole. He never recognised the full force of the grievance of the evicted tenant. To him the evicted tenant was a man who was evicted for dishonesty. He did not represent martyrdom or anything which justified exceptional treatment; but while not pressing his opinion on this point, he begged those on both sides of the House who wanted to make this measure efficacious, and who did not desire to heal one wound by creating another, to endeavour to be fair to the other interests involved, and not to make a contented tenantry by making a discontented ownership.

Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 76: Noes, 284. (Division List No. 298.)

AYES.
Ashley, W. W. Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Courthope, G. Loyd Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Banner, John S. Harmood Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lowe, Sir Francis William
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Magnus, Sir Philip
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fardell, Sir T. George Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bowles, G. Stewart Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount
Boyle, Sir Edward Fletcher, J. S. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Forster, Henry William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gretten, John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bull, Sir William James Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Harris, Frederick Leverton Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hay, Hon. Claude George Ronaldshag, Earl of
Castlereagh, Viscount Helmsley, Viscount Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cave, George Hervey, F. W.F. (Bury S. Ed'm'ds) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hills, J. W. Starkey, John R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Keswick. William Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Thornton, Percy M. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Turnour, Viscount Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm Alexander Acland-hood and
Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Lord Balcarres.
Warde, Col. C. E. [(Kent, Mid.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Donelan, Captain A. Kettle, Thomas Michael
Acland, Francis Dyke Duffy, William J. Kilbride, Denis
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Agnew, George William Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Alden, Percy Elibank, Master of Lambert, George
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lamont, Norman
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Erskine, David C. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Ambrose, Robert Essex, R. W. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Astbury, John Meir Eve, Harry Trelawney Layland-Barratt, Francis
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Everett, R. Lacey Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Farrell, James Patrick Lehmann, R. C.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Fenwick, Charles Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Barker, John Ferens, T. R. Levy, Sir Maurice
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Findlay, Alexander Lough, Thomas
Beauchamp, E. Flynn, James Christopher Lundon, W.
Bell, Richard Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bellairs, Carlyon Fuller, John Michael F. Lyell, Charles Henry
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) Fullerton, Hugh Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Berridge, T. H. D. Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.) Maclean, Donald
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) Gibb, James (Harrow) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon Gilhooly, James MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Glendinning, R. G. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Black, Arthur W. Goddard, Daniel Ford MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Boland, John Gooch, George Peabody M'Callum, John M.
Bowerman, C. W. Grant, Corrie M'Kean, John
Bramsdon, T. A. Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Branch, James Gwynn, Stephen Lucius M'Killop, W.
Brigg, John Halpin, J. M'Micking, Major G.
Bright, J. A. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Maddison, Frederick
Brodie, H. C. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mallet, Charles E.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) Hart-Davies, T. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bryce, J. Annan Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Harwood, George Markham, Arthur Basil
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marnham, F. J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Haworth, Arthur A. Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry)
Byles, William Pollard Hayden, John Patrick Massie, J.
Cameron, Robert Hazleton, Richard Meagher, Michael
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Helme, Norval Watson Meehan, Patrick A.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hemmerde, Edward George Menzies, Walter
Cheetham, John Frederick Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Micklem, Nathaniel
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Molteno, Percy Alport
Clancy, John Joseph Henry, Charles S. Montagu, E. S.
Cleland, J. W. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Mooney, J. J.
Clough, William Higham, John Sharp Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Clynes, J. R. Hobart, Sir Robert Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hodge, John Morse, L. L.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hogan, Michael Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W) Holland, Sir William Henry Murnaghan, (George)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Holt, Richard Durning Murphy, John
Cooper, G. J. Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) Murray, James
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd) Horniman, Emslie John Myer, Hortaio
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hyde, Clarendon Napier, T. B.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Illingworth, Percy H. Nicholls, George
Cox, Harold Jackson, R. S. Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Nolan, Joseph
Crean, Eugene Jardine, Sir J. Norman, Sir Henry
Crooks, William Jenkins, J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Crosfield, A. H. Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Cullinan, J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Joyce, Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davis, Timothy (Fulham) Kearley, Hudson E. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kekewich, Sir George O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Devlin, Joseph Kelley, George D. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Dobson, Thomas W. Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Grady, J.
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.) Rogers, F. E. Newman Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Malley, Milliam Rowlands, J. Ure, Alexander
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Runciman, Walter Verney, F. W.
O'Shee, James John Russell, T. W. Vivian, Henry
Partington, Oswald Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Walters, John Tudor
Paulton, James Mellor Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Seaverns, J. H. Waterlow, D. S.
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Seddon, J. Watt, Henry A.
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton) Seely, Major J. B. White, George (Norfolk)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shackleton, David James White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pollard, Dr. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Power, Patrick Joseph Sherwell Arthur James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Price, C. E. (Edmb'gh, Central) Silcock, Thomas Ball Whitehead, Rowland
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Radford, G. H. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rainy, A. Rolland Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim S.) Wiles, Thomas
Raphael, Herbert H. Snowden, P. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Soares, Ernest J. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spicer, Sir Albert Wills, Arthur Walters
Redmond, William (Clare) Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rees, J. D. Steadman, W. C. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Renton, Major Leslie Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n) Strachey, Sir Edward Winfrey, R.
Rickett, J. Compton Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Young Samuel
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Summerbell, T. Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside) Sutherland. J. E.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Taylor, John W. (Durham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Roche, Augustine (Cork) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Roche, John (Galway, East) Tomkinson, James Pease.
MR. CLANCY

moved to amend sub section (a) by omitting the words limiting the compulsory acquisition of parcels of land for those evicted tenants, "who, or whoso predecessors, were evicted from their holdings before the passing of the Act of 1903." He explained that the Act of 1903 enabled tenants evicted since the year 1878 to be restored to holdings provided for them by the Commissioners, and inasmuch as there had been no change in the law, a man who was evicted since the Act of 1903 was enabled to be restored, because he had been evicted since 1878. He believed it was actually the fact that among the 2,000, roughly speaking, whom the Estates Commissioners thought were proper per sons to be restored, were included a certain number of the tenants evicted since the Act of 1903. This Amendment simply sought to extend the provision of the compulsory acquisition of land to those cases. He did not think the Government should make a distinction between the two classes of tenants. There must be many deserving cases among those who were evicted since 1903, and as a matter of fact there was not an Irish representative in the House who did not know of one such case, and he did not think that if the whole were included, it would not add more than 200 to the 2,000.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 14, to leave out from '1903' to the word 'who,' in line 16."—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out down to the word 'before' in line 16, stand part of the clause."

MR. BIRRELL

said that, although he was prepared to agree with the hon. Member that the number of evicted tenants would not be materially increased, he found it to be impossible to accept the Amendment, having regard to the answers he had already given to Amendments moved from the benches opposite. The Government must confine themselves in this matter as far as they could to what he had called the Parliamentary bargain, and when they were taking for the first time compulsory powers to reinstate the evicted tenants they must confine the power to those tenants who were evicted before the Act of 1903. By confining the Bill in this way they were in a position to hold out to the House, the country, and the Treasury, the necessary and final limitations as to the number of persons in whose aid the Exchequer was being invoked. The Government had therefore inserted this limitation in the subsection, and he thought they must adhere to it.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not feel able to make this small concession. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any answer to the point made by his hon. friend. He pointed out that amongst those 2,000 cases, to which the right hon. Gentleman had so often alluded, and which had been investigated by the Estates Commissioners and decided as fit and proper cases for reinstatement, there were a certain number in which eviction, took place after 1903, and if that were so, he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying to the Commissioners that these few cases should be excluded. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly consistent in accepting the Amendment. If he found that among those 2,000 there were a certain number evicted since 1903 he would be perfectly justified in extending compulsory powers to them. It would be very hard if they were excluded from this Bill. They all knew of some of these cases that had arisen since 1903, and they knew that they had arisen because of the action of the landlords in refusing to sell and refusing to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1903. There had been a few hard cases. They were included in the 2,000, and he really could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman struck at this small matter now. He earnestly asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. To refuse tin Amendment would be deliberately to leave outside the Bill some of the very hardest cases that had occurred for years past.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said the right hon. Gentleman had refused other Amendments to limit the Act, and lie thought his attitude was consistent with regard to this one. The Chief Secretary rested his position on what he was pleased to call the bargain of 1903. He ventured to suggest that when he took a foundation for his case the right hon. Gentleman should see that it was on rock rather than on sand. As had been more than once pointed out the Chief Secretary's interpretation of the Parliamentary bargain was not that of the Opposition, nor was it that of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. And they now knew what was to be the pressure to be brought to bear. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that this was a very small matter and meant a very small addition to the number to be included. It only showed the dangerous ground they were treading when they departed from what the Chief Secretary called a bargain, though, from the interpretation which the Chief Secretary and others had given to it, it had almost ceased to be a bargain. They did not know the number of tenants, nor the class of tenants to be admitted. If the Chief Secretary had given them the information they had asked for on that side of the House, and told them the number who were to be turned out, they would then have been on level terms with hon. Members below the gangway, and have known what was exactly the position with regard to this Amendment. They were told that there were certain cases which were included in the 2,000. Could not they have information which would be available to both sides of the House, telling them exactly what the facts were in regard to the cases before the Commissioners. It was quite clear from the two speeches which they had heard that these extra, cases would be pressed, and that everyone would say that his own case was a particularly hard one and ought to be added to those already included by the Commissioners. He did not regret the decision at which the Chief Secretary had arrived; on the contrary, he thought that he was bound in the general interests of the community to keep within certain limits. He regretted the foundation, however, on which the right hon. Gentleman based his position, because in the first place it was not the Parliamentary bargain, and, in the second place, it was now found out that the limitations which he had imposed were limitations which would never be maintained.

Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

said the bargain made in 1903 was that the taxpayers of Great Britain should pay £100,000,000 to settle the land purchase question under the Act of that year, so that the tenants might become the owners of the farms, and at the same time it was agreed by all parties that the evicted tenants, who at that time were estimated by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to be about 600 in number, were to be reinstated or provided with new farms. The persons who were to be allowed to avail themselves of this principle were those who had been evicted from their farms practically up to the date of the passing of the Act of 1903. They all firmly believed that that was to be a settlement of the whole question. The first breach of that pledge was made by the Chief Secretary in introducing this Bill, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin County was a still more glaring breach of that pledge. Now it was proposed that persons claiming to be evicted tenants should bring pressure to boar on the Chief Secretary to be included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman by refusing to alter the list of 2,000 tenants who had been accepted by the Commissioners practically admitted that great pressure would be put upon them, and the Amendment was the first evidence of the pressure that undoubtedly would be brought to bear in order to have a larger class included than the 2,000. Of course, they knew that the Chief Secretary had said, though reluctantly, that he was against the Amendment. Why on earth should they go on for ever reinstating tenants who, apart from politics altogether, required to be sent back to their forms? If the right hon. Gentleman knew more about Ireland than he did he would know that he could not set a worse precedent than to hold out to improvident farmers, men who had neglected their holdings, who were behind in the battle of life because of their own shortcomings, that they would be restored to their holdings; and, to judge from the reluctance with which he had given up this Amendment, they had only to bring sufficient pressure to bear, they had only to cry out loudly enough, to be introduced to all the advantages of the Bill. If they had known that the evicted tenants clause was going to be used in the way it was being used many of them certainly would have considered the matter very differently. He was sorry that they had not realised at the time that they were going to reinstate not only evicted tenants for political reasons, but also the very much larger and as he thought very much less deserving, class of persons who lost their farms from a hundred causes that had nothing to do with politics, and which held out very few reasons for indulgence in that respect. He was glad, however, that the Chief Secretary had resisted this Amendment, and he only intervened in order to show what was going to happen. He ventured to prophesy that hon. Members, when they had been a few more years in the House, and especially if a Radical Government was in power, would see another batch of more or less undeserving tenants seeking to come under this Bill after it had become an Act.

Mr. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

said he regretted the decision at which the Chief Secretary had arrived. He knew that there were persons recommended by the Commissioners, but it must be remembered that there had been evictions since 1903. Why should not the Commissioners have a discretion in these cases? All oppression and harshness on the part of certain landlords did not cease after the passing of the Act of 1903; on the contrary some landlords had become more oppressive and harsh than before. He instanced the case where the tenants had been given a reduction upon their first term rent. If the land lord of an adjoining estate refused to sell the object of Parliament would be defeated, because that particular land lord refused to accept the same terms as his neighbours. Consequently that landlord's tenants, being unable to get the reduction which adjoining tenants had got under the Act of 1903, would suffer, and some of them would be unable to meet their obligations and would be evicted. Was it not very unfair to say that because a landlord was stubborn and would not sell at the average price such tenants should not be entitled to restoration in case the land had been sold? The right hon. Gentleman was now interfering with the carrying out of the report upon which the Bill was based. If some of the 2,000 tenants were excluded the Treasury would be the gainers, and he could not see that there would be any grievance from a financial point of view if the Amendment were accepted. With regard to the sanctity of the bargain of 1903, it was violated by the landlords of Ireland almost the day after it came into operation, because they refused in the majority of cases even to allow the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners to go on to the evicted tenants' land. The Amendment referred to only a few cases, but there was a question of principle involved, and he did not think that tenants ought to be left out in the cold because landlords had been unreasonable.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the debate on the Amendment had been interesting in that it had disclosed the fact that hon. Members below the gang way had information as to the names of those 2,000 lucky persons who had received the sanction of the Estates Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin and the hon. Member who had just sat down had both said that they knew of cases where tenants had been evicted since the Act of 1903. Evidently hon. Members below the gangway had information which was not available to the rest of the House and which had been consistently refused.

Mr. O'SHEE

said that he knew one case, because he had seen a letter from one of the inspectors to an evicted tenant.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that the hon. Member for North Dublin had also spoken of facts within his own know ledge.

Mr. CLANCY

said that what he meant to say was that among the 2,000 tenants he understood that there were several of the persons to whom he had referred.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that even that amount of information had been denied to the House, and he had no means of obtaining it.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

We are in touch with the evicted tenants.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that the imagined the information came from sources much nearer at hand. The Chief Secretary must see the necessity of giving the information to the House. He was not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had ever been in direct touch with the evicted tenants.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

said he was sorry to say that he had been present at hundreds of evictions.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that unless the right hon. Gentleman limited in some way the application of this process he would be creating considerable trouble in the future for himself and his successors. It had been said that this was a small matter because the application of the clause would be limited. That was exactly what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said in 1903. He said then it concerned only about 800 tenants. They now knew that the number had gone up to 8,000. The hon. and learned Member said that if the Amendment were accepted it would apply to only 100 cases. If the 100 multiplied in the same manner as the 800 in 1903, the proposal now made would involve 1,000 cases. He hoped he Chief Secretary would adhere to the rather faint-hearted decision which he seemed to have arrived at in refusing to accept the Amendment.

Question put.

THE CHAIRMAN

The "Noes" have it.

MR, LONSDALE

rose to move the Amendment next on the Paper, but

THE CHAIRMAN, intervening,

said he had made a mistake, and must put the Question again.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

As a matter of fact our Amendment has been carried. I submit that as the Amendment has been declared carried there is no power in the Chairman to go back on the decision of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN

I gave the decision quite by mistake. I will put the Question again.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

On the point of Order. I respectfully say that there is no precedent for such procedure. You put the Question perfectly distinctly and we understood how the Question was put. I presume that every other body under stood it. It is not our fault if a few hon. Members did not understand it. The matter has really been decided by the voices of the House. We called "No" when the Question was put; there was no cry of "Aye"; and you, according to the voices, declared that the "Noes" had it. Surely that decision must stand?

Mr. BIRRELL

I certainly intended to adhere most firmly to the decision which F had arrived at, and I can only say that that will be the decision of the Government. That question will here after arise. Therefore, it should not for a moment be supposed that the Government waive their opposition to the Amendment. I had intended to say a word in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I did not, perhaps foolishly. I can assure the Committee that it is the fixed intention of the Government to reject the Amendment, and if it were now allowed to stand the mistake would be corrected at a sub sequent stage.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

Of course the Government may take any action they like on the Report stage: but I submit that the decision of the Chairman must stand until the Report stage.

*THE CHAIRMAN

On reconsideration I find that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is quite right; I only heard the "Noes," and I have given the decision for the "Noes." That must stand until the Report stage. Members voting to the contrary should make their voices heard.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

The Amendment was so unexpectedly carried, that I am not quite sure whether there are words consequential on the Amendment which should be omitted. It would be a great convenience to the Committee if you will tell us how we stand.

*The CHAIRMAN

The position is that the words referred to in the Amendment are taken out. The other question I have to put is that the remaining words "before the passing of the said Act, and," should also go.

Mr. WALTER LONG

I submit that if the first part of the Amendment is declared carried, then the remaining words cannot be put.

*The CHAIRMAN

Yes, I was wrong in my first impression. The omission of these words carried as a consequence the omission of the other words.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

I am reluctant to rise on this point of order, but it is essential that we should get a clearer understanding. The Question you put was that the words down to "before," stand part of the clause. The remaining words have not been dealt with.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I have explained that the remaining words go consequentially.

Lord R. CECIL

said that that had not been decided by the House. He contended that the remaining words must be put and dealt with.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he had decided that the Amendment carried the omission of the remaining words.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he quite understood that if certain words were omitted they might carry with them other words as a matter of grammatical construction; but he suggested that it was not the duty of the Chairman to excise words from the Bill without putting the Question to the Committee.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct. The position had been rightly stated by the right hon. Member for South Dublin. The words were left out on account of the previous decision of the Committee.

Mr. CONDON (Tipperary, E.)

moved to leave out the words ''May, nineteen hundred and seven," and to insert the words ''January, nineteen hundred and eight." He believed that this alteration would have no ulterior effect on the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words 'May, nineteen hundred and sevan,' and to insert the words 'January, nineteen hundred and eight.'"—(Mr. Condon.)

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

Mr. BIRRELL

said he could not accept the Amendment practically for the same reason which he had already given; and he hoped his hon. friends would make their voices heard in his support on this occasion, and adhere to the conditions laid down in the Bill.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he sympathised with him, and that the Opposition would do their best to help him. The right hon. Gentleman had been so long accustomed to inarticulate support in the House from his supporters in order that they might give more effective support to him in the Lobby.

Mr. BIRRELL

said the right hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. WALTER LONG

said they were landed constantly in a different position from that in which they now found them selves. If all the right hon. Gentleman wanted was articulate support the Opposition would give it to him.

Mr. O'SHEE

said that he believed that the landlords on many estates from which the tenants had been evicted had not been disposed to sell their estates, on the assumption that under the Act of 1903 the evicted tenants could not be restored unless the landlord agreed. The tenants had given up hope that the landlords would agree, and that was the reason why in many cases the tenants did not send in their applications at all, or not in time.

Amendment negatived.

And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.