EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 23 July 1907 vol 178 cc1375-470

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

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

Clause 1:—

MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

moved an Amendment to provide that the evicted tenants who received the benefits of the Bill should be domiciled in Ireland. It seemed to him, and he trusted it would also be the opinion of the Government, that the advantages of the Bill should be given only to those tenants who had remained in Ireland and not also to those who had emigrated. As the Committee were aware, a great number of the tenants evicted in other days had left the country for nobody's benefit but their own. They had sought their fortunes in Australia, America, and other countries, and should not now have the advantage of this Bill. The British taxpayers had to be considered, and it was not fair that their money should be used to reinstate men who had emigrated and had only returned when they heard the evicted tenants were to be restored to their holdings. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, after the word ' holdings,'' to insert the words ' and who, at the time of application, were domiciled in Ireland.' "—(Mr. Staveley-Hill.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)

said it had not been the intention of the Commissioners that persons who could be shown to be actually domiciled in the United States should be allowed to avail themselves of the benefit of the Bill, but whether it would be a desirable thing to exclude finally and in every case persons whose domicile was not in Ireland was a matter about which there might be considerable difference of opinion. The Amendment as it stood would not be reasonable, because it required a purely Irish domicile. There might be circumstances in which it would be very difficult and expensive to determine where a person was domiciled, and it might be held that persons had for the purposes of this Act an English and not an Irish domicile. If there had been any likelihood that the powers of the Act would be used in favour of persons who had abandoned Ireland, it might have been desirable-to insert words excluding them, but no such question, he thought, arose. The Commissioners had acted on the principle that a person who had abandoned Ireland altogether was not to benefit, but to exclude them in the manner proposed might give rise to legal proceedings which would add to the delay and to the costs which were borne by the Treasury. Therefore, while agreeing with the hon. Member as to the rule to be obeyed, he doubted the wisdom of inserting his Amendment.

MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)

thought the Amendment a very important one as illustrating the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. In spite of all his assurances that many of the Amendments proposed were reasonable and should be considered, he had hitherto declined to accept any suggestion which would alter a line of the Bill. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should get leave from those with whom he had conferred since the introduction of the Bill to make an alteration of this sort. Perhaps the word "domicile" was not fortunately chosen. Could not the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment excluding aliens from the Bill?

MR. BIRRELL

No alien will get the benefit of this measure.

MR. MOORE

asked why, if no alien would get the benefit of the measure, they should not put it in the Bill? The Amendment was another result of the secrecy which the right hon. Gentleman had maintained with regard to the findings of the Estates Commissioners. If the names of the 2,000 persons whom the Estates Commissioners had found eligible for reinstatement were published: the Committee would be in a position to know how many of them were aliens. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give that information, but said that no alien was to get the benefit of the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman carry his sweet reasonableness so far as to insert an Amendment which would prevent the alien from getting the security of British credit? At present, all over the country there were reports of people hastening from America in order to get 40 acres in Ireland. If it were, a question of English or Scottish domicile, he was sure his hon. friend would raise no objection. The real objection was to the return of the Irish-American, and he had no hesitation in saying that for those responsible for the good government and peace of Ireland the returned Irish-American was in nine cases out of ten the most undesirable person they could have. He had left America because he was a failure there, and he came back tempted by the magnificent offer of 40 acres and £200 or £250 to stock his farm. There was no check on the Commissioners, no one knew what they had done in the secrecy of their chamber, and it would be impossible to see that a returned Irish-American had been reinstated until the man was actually on the holding. It would be very unfortunate if a class of persons who had left the United States should come back to Ireland to be endowed with British money. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs, and the Amendment afforded a very good test of how far the right hon. Gentleman would meet them and whether he was prepared to put in his Bill a clause excluding alien;.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said the hon. and learned Member was alarming himself needlessly. The average Irish-American was not likely to leave his employment in America to come back to Ireland for a farm of 40 acres, under the present depressed agricultural conditions. The number of Irish-Americans who would come must be very few, perhaps not more than half a dozen, if as many, and there was no necessity for an Amendment like that proposed. It might very well be that tenants who had been evicted because they were unable to pay the rack-rents charged by the landlords had come to this country or Scotland, where they performed the hardest kind of work in the mines and the factories for very low wages. Why should these men be debarred from being reinstated in their old homes? The Amendment— he had almost raised it as a point of order—would, he submitted, practically repeal Section 2 of the Act of 1903, of which the measure now before the House was complementary, save as regarded powers of compulsion. Section 2 referred to tenants or their representatives, and he believed that the Amendment would repeal that section, and was, therefore, out of order. On the whole matter as it stood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was only putting up a case in order to knock it down again. The word "domicile" could apply to very few persons at the most, while the Amendment would also apply to those who had been driven to seek work in England and Scotland. Nor did he see why the Irish-American should be excluded, for after all the Irish-Americans had done more to uplift Ireland than the landlord class had ever done. They had sent millions of money home with a generosity which had been the subject of remark over and over again by Mr. Bright, Mr. Gladstone, and others, to keep up the old homes and to help to pay rack-rents to the landlords who were represented in that House.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)

said he quite agreed that the word "domicile" might give rise to the legal difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, and he saw no reason why men who happened to be employed in England or Scotland should be excluded. He could understand the light hon. Gentleman's point of view that they might trust the discretion of the Commissioners not to put in an unsuitable person or an Irish-American; at the same time that discretion was not infallible; and he had, therefore, a suggestion to offer the right hon. Gentleman which was contained in an Amendment to Clause 2. to the effect that the particulars taken by the Commissioners should set forth in full the name and present address and occupation of the person or persons whom it was proposed to restore. That would give to the landlord or any other person the fullest opportunity of informing the Estates Commissioners of the absence from Ireland or other objections to the person intended to be reinstated. He thought that would meet the object which his hon. friend had in view.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said he rather hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. friend, either in the form in which it was moved or without the word "domicile," which would get rid of the legal difficulty of which the Chief Secretary had spoken. He thought the Amendment was a test of the true object of the Bill. As he understood, the case presented was this. Here was a class of men who, rightly or wrongly, believed they were suffering from an injustice; they were centres of disturbance in Ireland and made it difficult to restore order and good-will in that country. That case could not apply to anyone who was not resident in Ireland; and it could only apply to people who from that point of view had to be restored to-their holdings, and were feeling this injustice of which so much complaint was made. The Amendment would be a test of whether the Government accepted the view of the hon. Member who had spoken just now, that the Bill was a reward for those who had assisted him and his friends in the campaign against the landlords of Ireland; or whether the object of the Bill was to restore law and order, and peace, and good-will in Ireland, in which case the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

said that from the point of view of the Nationalist Party this was a very extraordinary Amendment. He knew that a man. was coming back from New Zealand at the present moment with a view to obtaining possession of a farm from which he had been evicted. He also knew of a man who was coming back from America to get back to the farm, from which he had been evicted. It would be an outrage to prevent these men from being reinstated in their holdings. These and other men had left their country to seek their living abroad because they were unable to pay the rack-rents demanded by the landlords in. Ireland, and were they, for that reason, to be prevented from coming back to their native land to get possession of the farms from which they had been unjustly evicted? It was an outrage on the Imperial Parliament to put before the Committee such an Amendment, the only effect of which would be unjustly to exclude these poor exiled Irishmen from being reinstated in their former holdings.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

said he was glad they had had an opportunity of listening to the two speeches of hon. Members below the gangway, for they threw a light upon the designs and desires of Nationalist Members in a way which he had thought impossible before the Amendment was moved. The Bill must have been introduced for one of two purposes—either for the purpose of dealing with the evicted tenants who, as was said, had been centres of disturbance, and, as was agreed under the Act of 1903, were to be restored to their holdings; or, as they had learned, it was meant practically to reward every man who for the last twenty-five years, for one reason or another, had lost his farm. If some limitation such as was proposed by the Amendment were not introduced into the Bill there would be endless trouble in connection with aliens from America coming to Ireland to get the benefit of the Act. The Irish-American was very much in evidence in Ireland at the present day. He (Mr. Craig) was in Connemara at Easter, and a local doctor told him that it was a peculiar thing to hear children going about Connemara with a strong American accent. Under the Bill they were likely to have a perfect flood of Irish-Americans. Some of them would probably come over to Ireland, get a 40-acre farm, and sell it again to his neighbour and return to America. From such a possibility they required protection. He was hopeful that the Chief Secretary would accept this or some similar Amendment, because for the first time since the Committee stage commenced the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a considerable amount of reason or justice in the objection raised; and he was quite sure that his hon. and learned friend did not wish that evicted tenants who had emigrated to other parts of the British Islands should be excluded from the Bill. It was not against those persons that the Amendment was directed, but against men from America, who would seize the opportunity to come over to get hold of some of these farms. He hoped the Chief Secretary would either accept this Amendment in an amended form or else introduce some other words upon the Report stage to deal with this very important point.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

said he desired to put a typical case. He knew an instance where, ten years ago, through the harsh treatment of the landlord because he was unable to pay an exorbitant rent a man was evicted. What j was the procedure? The landlord, using his influence through the Local Government Board, followed that evicted tenant into the workhouse and was the means of getting the 3s. or 4s. a week he was receiving as outdoor relief stopped. Under this Amendment that poor man would be excluded from any benefits under the Bill. There was a general understanding when the Act of 1903 was passed that every evicted tenant, no matter what were the conditions under which he was evicted, for a period of twenty-five years previous to the passing of that Act, would be entitled to make an application to the Estates Commissioners. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not consent to make any exception in regard to these unfortunate men who had been driven out of their own country. The Amendment would not ease the situation, and he hoped that every tenant who had been evicted unjustly and had gone abroad would have the same rights as the evicted tenants living in Ireland.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that having regard to the revelations which had just been made in respect to people from the United States and elsewhere returning in view of the present Bill to to take up land under the new provision, some such Amendment as had been proposed seemed to be an absolute necessity. They were informed that two persons were known to be coming from long distances to be reinstated. He had to remind the Chief Secretary that from those benches below the gangway they were last night given. the names and conditions in life of certain evicted tenants. He could hardly believe that these returning wanderers were taking these journeys on the off-chance of the Estates Commissioners giving them holdings. It was now, therefore, perfectly clear that the Estates Commissioners had already expressed an intention to restore these two returning people—one from New Zealand and the other from the United States. Through some channel news of that intention must have reached these people. The suggestion which he had already made would not meet this case, for he understood that the Estates Commissioners would be the last men who would put the law in force for the purpose of benefiting men of that kind. He would remind the Chief Secretary that though his intentions on this subject might be of the very best, he had not expressed them in the Bill, and outside the Bill they would be utterly useless, for the right hon. Gentleman's power over it ceased as soon as it became law. Although the Chief Secretary's view of the suggestion contained in the Amendment was that it was desirable, he would not put it into the Bill. For the life of him he could not comprehend that attitude. He would therefore support the Amendment of his hon. friend providing for the limitation of residence to the United Kingdom.

MR. BIRRELL

said they were discussing a limited clause, affecting only those persons who had been evicted up to a certain date, and who had been required to give proper notice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the Committee believe that the American liners were coming over to Ireland crowded with persons anxious to claim the benefits of the Bill. What was the good of talking at large in that fashion? The Bill was a very limited measure, and he was not dealing with people who might be dissatisfied because they had not been included. The right hon. Member for Dublin University thought the Bill was big enough already, and he did not want to enlarge its boundaries so as to include everybody in America who might hear of it and say, "Hallo I am an evicted tenant; I will go back to Ireland and get a farm and 200 acres, and get restored to the home of my father." That could not be done under the provisions of the Bill. To be entitled to benefit a person must already have made his case good, produced his credentials, and submitted his name and all the circumstances of his case to the Estates Commissioners, who must have inquired into the matter on the spot; but because that person might happen to be in America the right hon. and learned Member contended that he should absolutely and ruthlessly be excluded. They were only discussing about half-a-dozen cases out of 2,000, and it was these half-a-dozen rampant American-Irishmen whom the right hon. Gentleman in his new-born zeal for the purity of the Irish breed was desirous of excluding from the Bill. The matter was really not worth talking about. Those Irishmen who had gone to America were not in the hast likely to comeback to Ireland for the. privilege of getting a 30-acre farm. As a rule, if such men came back to Ireland they were generally in a sufficiently independent position not to require the advantages placed at their disposal by the Bill. It was disheartening to see so much time occupied in discussing a question which had no force or moment in relation to this question. The overwhelming majority—in fact, he might say the whole of them with the exception of about a dozen at the outside—would be resident Irish tenants. He did not wish to do an injustice even in half-a-dozen cases. The discussion was simply a quibble in which he was asked to insert words which might in one or two cases hamper the cause of justice, and he was not disposed to do anything of the kind. They were told that there was an atmosphere of suspicion about these transactions, and that he was engaged in all kinds of underhand dealings, sometimes with hon. Members below the gangway, and sometimes with people in a far-off part of the world. The hon. Member for North Armagh might use such language to him, but he had entered into a solemn obligation with himself that he would not lose his temper even with that hon. Member. He. supposed that the language the hon. Member had employed was his notion of conciliation, but to him it was hard to distinguish it from the language of insult. He knew that people had their own way of conducting their cases—it was a habit of the Court. He was not going to give it greater importance than it deserved. All he could say was that there was nothing of the kind; he had no secrets to keep from anybody; nor had the Estates Commissioners informed anybody, except in some cases the tenants themselves, that their cases had been investigated, and that they had passed the ordeal, and might look forward to being-reinstated under the provisions of the Bill, or upon untenanted land under the general provisions of the Land Acts of Ireland. There was no harm in telling tenants, or in a tenant telling his friends. Of course, some information of this kind naturally got abroad. He was not going any further into the matter. He was unable to accept the Amendment.

MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth)

said that if there were only one or two persons coming from abroad to claim reinstatement on farms from which they or their relatives had been evicted it would not matter, but there might be a large number, and it was on that point that the supporters of the Amendment took their stand. They could not see how the congested districts in Ireland would be relieved if a large number of the descendants of evicted tenants came back to occupy evicted farms. It was a very important question whether the descendants of evicted tenants were to be imported in large numbers from America and the Colonies to dispossess those now in occupation of the farms.

MR. MOORE

said he was sorry the Chief Secretary had run away after making personal charges against him, but he would take that opportunity of saying that he should ignore those personal charges.

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

The Chief Secretary has been called away suddenly for important business with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. MOORE

said that if the Chief Secretary repeated those charges he should take no notice of them, and they would not prevent him from doing his duty. The right hon. Gentleman was himself to blame for any atmosphere of suspicion which had been created. Nationalist Members were in possession of information upon certain points on which information was denied to Unionists. He and his friends had again and again: asked for the names of the people who had been selected by the Estates Commissioners, and that information had been denied to them. They had been for the first time told by the Chief Secretary that the fortunate parties had been communicated with. People whose lands were to be taken from them had a right to know who they were, and they could not get that information. If there had been suspicion engendered it was the result of the intimate relations existing between Nationalist Members and the Chief Secretary, and of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to take Unionist Members into his confidence on matters vital to the Bill. He regretted that the Minister responsible for the management of Irish business in that House had treated one-third of the representatives of Ireland in such a manner. It was most regrettable. They had a right to know what was to be clone with regard to the legislation of the country. But that was the one thing the Chief Secretary kept from them, and then complained that they were suspicious. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to impress upon members of the Committee that this was a limited Bill. He thought the Committee were agreed that it ought to be a limited Bill. But the Chief Secretary had consistently and determinedly opposed every effort made by Unionists to limit it. He had refused to accept any limit as to the number of tenants, as to the acreage of land which could be compulsorily taken, and also as to the price that the British taxpayer was to pay. Now that a limitation was proposed as to the quality of the tenant who was to be eligible for the benefits of the Bill, what did the Chief Secretary do? He got up and made speech No. 1, in which he said that it was obviously never intended to give aliens the benefit of the Bill. Then he got up and made speech No. 2, after hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had threatened him as to what would happen if aliens were excluded. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would not make any alteration in the Bill which would lead to injustice, even to five or six persons who. might be coming from abroad. It would be an injustice to British taxpayers that a naturalised American citizen should come over and get the benefit of British credit at the expense of law-abiding tenants who had signed purchase agreements, for which the Chief Secretary had not yet found the money in order that they might be completed. The right hon. Gentleman had treated as a nightmare on the part of the Unionist Members from Ireland the idea that an American might come across the Atlantic and request the Estates Commissioners to give him his due, and then sell the holding. This view had already been taken, because Section 8 of the Bill provided that where a tenant was reinstated in a holding he was not to be allowed to transfer it without the consent of the Land Commission. That would not prevent an American from coming back, getting the holding, and selling it next day. Hon. Members below the gangway said that that was reasonable. That clause was put in to pre vent the transference of a farm when a man came back from America. That man would not only get the farm, but the report of the Estates Commissioners said that he was entitled to an adequate sum of money as well. He would get £250 or £300 in the shape of chattels, stock, cattle and machinery, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him calling an auction and selling out and recrossing the Atlantic. He could get a steerage for £4 or £5, and having got £300 for the stock he would be able to return to America with £296 of the British taxpayers' money. That was not only possible but probable, and it was to prevent an operation of that sort that the right hon. Gentleman said he would put nothing in the Bill which would lead

to injustice. There were plenty of people in this country who had a first claim on public funds.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said the discussion had been useful in one sense, namely, in throwing light on how the vast number of 8,000 had come to be compiled. He hoped that on the Report stage there might be words put in which would cover the Amendment moved by his hon. friend. It was obvious that some sort of limitation was required. At present there was no limitation as to the relationship of the person who might be allowed to obtain a farm. They had heard of aliens on their way to this country to apply for reinstatement, but they had had no opportunity of knowing anything of the other 8,000. He did not see that there was any guarantee that foreigners coming from abroad would not be able to take up farms from which evicted peaceful and law-abiding citizens were to be evicted. He had a certain amount of sympathy with one section of evicted tenants who were to be reinstated at the expense of the British taxpayers. He referred to those who were persuaded by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and their predecessors to break the law and to decline to pay their rents. It was on account of that action that the great bulk of the evicted tenants had been brought into the position in which they were at the present moment. If the words of his hon. friend's Amendment were not accepted, he sincerely hoped that some words would be introduced for the purpose of limiting the Bill to that class of evicted tenants.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 303. (Division List No. 299.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, RtHn.Sir Alex;.F.	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)
Ashley, W. W.	Butcher, Samuel Henry	Collings, Rt.Hn.J. (Birmingh'm
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.Sir H.	Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Baldwin, Alfred	Carlile, E.Hildred	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balfour, RtHn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Castlereagh, Viscount	Courthope, G. Loyd
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cave, George	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Cavendish,Rt, Hon. Victor C.W.	Craik, Sir Henry
Baring, Capt.Hn.G(Winchester	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Cecil, Lord E. (Marylebone, E.)	Faber, George Denison (York)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Wore.	Faber, Capt.W.V.(Hants, W.)
Bridgeman, W. Give	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fell, Arthur
Forster, Henry William	Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Thornton, Percy M.
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)	Valentia, Viscount
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	O'Neill Hon. Robert Torrens	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hervey, F. W.F. (BuryS.Edm'ds	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	Warde, Col. C. E.(Kent, Mid.)
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hunt, Rowland	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon. Col. W.	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kimber, Sir Henry	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Younger, George
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Liddell, Henry	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—MR.Staveley-Hill and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin,S)	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Moore, William	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Crean, Eugene	Harwood, George
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Crombie, John William	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Crosfield, A. H.	Haworth, Arthur A.
Akdins, W. Ryland D.	Crossley, William J.	Hayden, John Patrick
Agnew, George William	Cullinan, J.	Hazleton, Richard
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Curran, Peter Francis	Healy, Timothy Michael
Alden, Percy	Dalziel, James Henry	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe]
Ambrose, Robert	Delany, William	Higham, John Sharp
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Devlin, Joseph	Hobart, Sir Robert
Atherley-Jones, L.	Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)	Hodge, John
Baker. Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N.	Hogan, Michael
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles -	Holland, Sir William Henry
Barker, John	Donelan, Captain A.	Holt, Richard Durning
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Duffy, William J.	Hove, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)
Barnard, E. B.	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness	Horniman, Emslie John
Barnes, (G N.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hudson, Walter
Beauchamp, E.	Dunne. MajorE. Martin(Walsall	Illingworth, Percy H.
Beck, A. Cecil	Elibank, Master of	Jackson, R. S.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Erskine, David C	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd	Essex, R. W.	Jenkins, J.
Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Everett. R. Lacey	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Faber, O. H. (Boston)	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)
Black, Arthur W.	Farrell, James Patrick	Jowett, F. W.
Boland, John	Fenwick, Charles	Joyce, Michael
Bowerman, C. W.	Ferens, T. R.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Field, William	Kekewich. Sir George
Branch, James	Findlay, Alexander	Kelley, George D.
Brigg, John	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Bright, J. A.	Flynn. James Christopher	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Kilbride, Denis
Burke, E. Haviland-	Fuller, John Michael F.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fullerton, Hugh	Laidlaw, Robert
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.	Lambert, George
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lamont, Norman
Byles, William Pollard	Gilhooly, James	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Cameron. Robert	Gill, A.H.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Glendinning. R. G.	Lehmann, R, C.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Glover, Thomas	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Chance, Frederick William	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Levy, Sir Maurice
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gooch, George Peabody	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. David
Clancy, John Joseph	Grant, Corrie	Lough, Thomas
Cleland, J. W.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lyell, Charles Henry
Clough, William	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Lynch, H. B.
Clynes. J. R.	Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cobbold, Felix, Thornley	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Halpin, J.	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Cooper, G. J.	Hammond, John	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mac Veagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hart-Davies, T.	Mac Veagh, Charles(Donegal, E.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Callum, John M.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Pirie, Duncan V.	Steadman, W. C.
M'Killop, W.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Maddison, Frederick	Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Mallet, Charles E.	Priestley, W.E. B.(Bradford.E.)	Stuart. James (Sunderland)
Manfield, Harry (Northants.)	Pullar, Sir Robert	Sutherland, J. E.
Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)	Radford, G. H.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Marnham, F. J.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Massie, J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radchiffe)
Masterman, C. F. G.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Meagher, Michael	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thorne. William
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, William (Clare)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Micklem, Nathaniel	Rees. J. D.	Ure, Alexander
Mond, A.	Kendall, Athelstan	Verney. F. W.
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampton	Walker, H. Dc R. (Leicester)
Montagu, E. S.	Richardson, A.	Walters, John Tudor
Montgomery, H. G.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Mooney, J. J.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Ward. John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Morse, L. L.	Robinson, S.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Murnaghan, George	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wardle. George J.
Murphy, John	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan)
Murray, James	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)
Myer, Horatio	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Watt, Henry A.
Nicholls, George	Rowlands, J.	Weir, James Galloway
Nicholson, Charles. A(Doncast'r	Runciman, Walter	Whitbread. Howard
Nolan.-Joseph	Russell, T. W.	White, George (Norfolk)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Nussey, Thomas Willians	Scarisbrick. T. T. L.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.	Schwann. ('. Duncan (Hyde)	White. Patrick (Meath. North)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sears, J. E.	Whitehead. Rowland
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seaverns. J. H.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Shackleton. David James	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Grady, J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh., N.)
O'Malley, William	Shipman. Dr. John G.	Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wilson. W T. (Westhoughton)
O'Shee, James John	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Winfrey. R.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Young, Samuel
Partington, Oswald	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Yoxall, James Henry
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Snowden, P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Perks, Robert William	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Whiteley and Mr. Herbert
Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke	Soares, Ernest J.	Lewis.
Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke)	Spicer. Sir Albert
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London),

on behalf of the right hon. Member for Dublin University, move dan Amendment, to provide that the Commissioners should hold a public hearing of all parties interested before determining that the evicted tenants to be reinstated were fit and proper persons to be become purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts. It appeared to him to be a reasonable Amendment, and it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do more than give a courtesy reception to it. It was evidently in the true interests of the Bill and of the Commissioners, and was likely to make the proceedings under the Bill more harmonious. How were they to ascertain whether an applicant was a fit and proper person to be reinstated unless they inserted the proposed words and provided for an investigation into the circumstances connected with his claim? There had been recriminations about secrecy, but he was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to perpetuate secrecy, and he was sure that hon. Members below the gangway desired that the proceedings should be conducted in the most open and above-board manner. Every taxpayer had a right to know what was going on. It was the first essential of a Court of Justice that all the parties interested should be heard, and in a case of this sort it was absolutely necessary that all the parties who would should come forward and give their testimony as to whether the claims were good or not, and whether the applicants were fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Act. He did not suppose there would be a Report stage, as no Amendment had been accepted.

MR. CHERRY

said that two Amendments had been accepted, so there would be a Report stage.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he was glad to hear that, but he begged to move the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

raised, as a point of order, the question whether the Amendment would not be more properly dealt with on Subsection (5) of Clause 2, which enacted the machinery of the Bill. The whole of Section 2 seemed to him to deal with the procedure question, while Section 1 dealt with the question of principle.

SIR. BANBURY

thought the Amendment was in its proper place. There were two stages. The first was that an application should be made, and that then the Commissioners should consider whether the applicants were fit and proper persons. Before they considered whether applicants were fit and proper persons they must take into consideration whether the applications had been properly lodged.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

pointed out that the inquiry upon which the Commissioners were to say that the applicants were fit and proper persons preceded that publication of the notice under Section 2, and therefore this was the only place in which the Amendment of his hon. friend could come in. It would no doubt be out of order unless it was intended to portend a second inquiry.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that in reference to the point of order it was sometimes an extremely difficult matter to decide whether an Amendment should be accepted to a first clause of this character, or on the machinery clause, and his decision on this point was that this was a condition precedent which might properly be moved on this clause, and therefore he should allow it to be moved.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, after the word 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'after a public hearing of all parties interested.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)

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

MR. CHERRY

wished, in the first place, most cordially to thank the hon. Baronet for the courteous manner in which he had moved his Amendment. It was quite refreshing to him to hear an Amendment proposed without a single taunt being levelled at the Irish Government, or any charge that they had been guilty of underhand conduct. He did not know whether the rest of the debate would be conducted in this way, but he sincerely hoped it would. As to the Amendment, he was very sorry that the right hon. Member for Dublin University, in whose name it stood, should have given notice of it, especially as he was not present that day, because he did not think he could have realised what its effect would be. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to have a public hearing of all the parties interested, the tenant, the landlord, the mortgagee and others in the locality who had any claims upon the land. Taking the proposal and dealing with it in point of time, hon. Members knew how long these matters took now, and if each of these claims was heard in a public inquiry, with counsel and King's Counsel—they knew what long speeches they could make—he calculated that a reasonable computation would be that half a day would be taken for each case,

Mr. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

Two days.

MR. CHERRY

said he would not take it at two days, but at half a day a case. There were said to be 8,000 cases, and that would mean 4,000 days. Supposing all the Commissioners were to give their whole time to this task he did not think they could expect them to sit more than 300 days in the year.

SIR F. BANBURY

said, as he understood it, the 8,000 were largely composed of applications of a fictitious character, and if there was a public inquiry most of these claims would drop out.

MR. CHERRY

thought that the bogus claims would remain, and it was always the bogus claims that took the most time. There were 4,000 days, and he calculated taking 300 working days a year that it would take thirteen years and four months to investigate them. Putting aside the question of time and taking the question of cost, he would assume that in each of these 8,000 cases £50 would be spent—not a very extravagant sum. If these 8,000 claims were investigated it would cost £400,000. The Government could not, therefore, accept the Amendment, and he did not think that any reasonable Member of the House could expect them to do so.

Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON

said that if there were any bogus claims surely they ought to have an inquiry by a body other than the Estates Commissioners, who were already over-worked; and if they were to have an increased number of claims coming forward from America and elsewhere that was a reason for having an additional body to deal with these claims. If, however, the duty was thrown upon the Estates Commissioners why should they not hold a public inquiry? That body was appointed for one purpose, and the Government were going to ask them to do what they were not appointed to do. There was every ground for a public inquiry.

Mr. CLANCY

said the Attorney-General for Ireland, it seemed to him, had under-estimated the length and cost of these investigations. He had not taken into account the length and power of speech of the right hon. Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stood. Let them imagine the right hon. Gentleman appearing before the Commissioners. He would begin with an indictment of the Commissioners. He had made a calculation as to the length of the right hon. Gentleman's observations before the Land Commissioners, and if made at equal length before this proposed tribunal this investigation would last for forty years. All the parties would be dead before the controversy came to an end; the lawyers would be dead, and the British taxpayers would be dead. His hon. and learned friend the Member for North Armagh or his descendants would have spent the fortune he got out of his estate long before the cases were decided. It was difficult to imagine what would happen. They might have Home Rule, or the Empire might have broken up before then. It really was a pity, though, that the Amendment could not be carried out, because it would benefit lawyers to such a large extent. But he could not dare to look forward to such a state of things; if he could entertain such an idea it would certainly be pleasurable. He could not, understand, however, why, after all. the Amendment could be considered necessary, because if anyone examined Clause 2 he would find the most elaborate precautions taken that these claims should be investigated one way or another. He really did not know, having regard to the prospect held out, how he should vote on the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he did not take quite such a gloomy view as the hon. Member and others of the result of the Amendment. The Estates Commissioners had by a process of weeding-out, been enabled to reduce the number of those claiming to be evicted tenants from 8,000 to 2,000, and it must be clear to the Attorney-General for Ireland and others that if the tests were applied which were set out in the Report there should be no difficulty in having an inquiry into the cases of all these tenants. The Estates Commissioners would have no difficulty in stating from their records that an applicant had voluntarily surrendered his holding or that he or his predecessors had been evicted more than twenty-five, and perhaps forty years ago, or that their eviction was due to the action of creditors or in consequence of family disputes, and so on through the other grounds on which the Commissioners made a distinction. So that instead of having a large number of cases to investigate, which were computed to last from thirteen to forty years, he thought the whole business could be done in a year. The tribunal would have a certain number of reports before them, and they would be able to dispose of the cases in the same way as those of fair rent claimants were disposed of, at the rate of thirty or forty a day. That being so, as the landlords were to be compulsorily dispossessed and the taxpayer was to pay for all these operations, the greatest care should be taken in choosing those people whose claims were bona-fide. Although the. Chief Secretary said that everybody had confidence in the Estates Commissioners, and that they were just as well able to carry out these inquiries as anyone else, they had already told the right hon. Gentleman that a certain number of 'Members on those benches did not share his confidence. He thought it was desirable that they should have some further light as to how these, tenants had been chosen, because it seemed that the Report of the Commissioners had been a perfunctory one. They did not see the tenants, but only had the report of their inspectors, on which they acted. He thought, that was a very unsatisfactory way.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said that in view of the compliment which had been paid to them on that side of the House, he hoped his remarks would not be taken as imputing any underhand or corrupt motives to the Attorney-General for Ireland and his colleagues. It could not be denied, however, that there was a certain amount of secrecy in regard to the Bill, and it would be for the advantage of the Committee if the Chief Secretary could elucidate the matter further. He would ask of what advantage had been this secrecy in the 2,000 cases. It was i thrown in their teeth that these Commissioners had been appointed by the Party to which he belonged, but they were appointed for different duties. For these reasons he hoped the Chief Secretary; would see his way to give that publicity which would be in the interest of the evicted tenant and of the public.

MR. MOORE

said he knew that it was a high and solemn misdemeanour to suggest that there was anything approaching secrecy in regard to the Bill, but he would take the conse- quences. Powers were given to take £15,000 or £20,000 worth of land, but the owners of the property did not know for what reason it was taken. The evicted tenants were selected without public inquiry, and in regard to the taking of land no appeal was given. He was surprised to hear the Attorney-General for Ireland compiling an amusing calculation, working out that it would take thirteen or fourteen years to dispose of the question if there was an inquiry. He hardly thought he treated the House seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Land Commission Court had heard fair rent appeals for years and had disposed of forty or fifty cases a day. The process was that the rents on one estate were all taken together. The landlord was represented by a firm of solicitors in regard to the whole number of cases, and the applicants, thirty or forty perhaps in number, were also represented by the same firm of solicitors. That Court could on an average certainly deal with thirty cases a day, and he could not understand why it should be assumed that in this instance each case would take half a day to decide. It was a ridiculous compilation to say that thirteen years would be required for the work. As they had no guarantee that it would be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill, or in the course, of the discussion on the measure, he was obliged at the present juncture to vote for the provision embodied in the Amendment that there should be a public inquiry, which he took to be a public inquiry dealing with the whole matter. Although he hardly dared say so, because if he did he would be taunted by the Chief Secretary with harbouring unworthy motives, he wished to express the opinion that an inquiry was a proper course at every stage where property was passing and where there had been in the past an undue amount of secrecy, especially in a case where the result of the proceedings would be that tenants were to receive forty acres of land apiece and £300 to stock it.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

desired to say one word in favour of public inquiry. During the whole of these debates he had been impressed by the indisposition of the Government to give information for which Members of the Opposition had again and again: asked. The English taxpayers were interested in this matter, and they who were called upon to pay were entitled to know what were the conditions under which the money was to be spent. There should be public inquiry stage by stage and step by step. Concealment or anything which tended to throw a veil over the proceedings would be at once mischievous in itself and have the necessary result of creating suspicion, doubt, and uncertainty, while operating prejudicially against the successful working of the Act. He was not quite sure whether the desire for concealment was not one of the many dangers which were threatening them. He had ventured on one or two occasions in the course of the session to warn the House or the Committee against these pending dangers. One of the dangers was the increasing indisposition to make facts public. In concealment was danger; in publicity, safety. He was very glad that his hon. friend had made this proposal, and he should have very much pleasure in voting for it,

Mr. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said he greatly regretted that hon. Gentlemen above the gangway had not proposed that there should be public inquiry into land purchase under the Act of 1903. It had been said that the hon. Member for North Armagh had sold his land at extravagant prices; he was quite sure that was not accurate; but if hon. Gentlemen had recommended the right hon. Member for Dover to put in his Bill a provision for that public-inquiry which they were now advocating ",in respect" of the £100,000,000 and £12,000,000 bonus which had been given to the Irish landlords, he could quite conceive that the most salutary consequences would have resulted. They had been told that the Duke of Leinster got £1,000,000 in precedence of everybody else, and if there had been a public inquiry before he got that immense sum he could quite understand that the public would have come in to listen why he should be given priority. The Duke of Abercorn had got an enormous sum of public money in connection with the various Land Purchase Acts. He believed that Lord Londonderry had sold a considerable portion of his estates in the North of Ireland, but he had never heard the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone suggest that there should be an inquiry into the conditions under which Lord Londonderry sold his estates. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. Why should they have left £112,000,000 to be dealt with without inquiry by the Commissioners in whom they now proclaimed that nobody had the slightest confidence and now demand public inquiry when it was a question of £2,000,000 to reinstate these poor evicted tenants? It seemed to him that hon. Gentlemen above the gangway were making themselves companions with strange bed-follows. They would come into office again, and they would hear of these things. Hansard would be searched in the future; they would read of these adjurations about the corruptness of these Commissioners, and would ask themselves why these men could have been satisfied to ladle out public money without anything in the nature of a public inquiry when it was the case of the landlords and insist on public inquiry when it was the case of the tenants. He would suggest to hon. Members above the gangway that they were raking a dangerous line, not only upon this question, but upon many others, as they would find a little later. The denunciations of principles which they were making to-day when the Liberals were in office would come home to roost very often when they themselves were back in power.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he did not think his hon. friends need be disturbed by the prophecies of the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor in the least alarmed about inquiry into certain land purchase. Lord Londonderry, in fact, sold his land long before the Act of 1903.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Was there a public inquiry?

MR. WALTER LONG

said that in regard to the Duke of Abercorn and the other landlords no priority was given to them other than what was due to the time at which they made the applications. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that the whole of the transactions under the Act of 1903 were on the voluntary principle; and he also knew perfectly well that there was the greatest possible difference between transactions of a voluntary character and those which were compulsory. Where county councils and other public authorities were authorised to take land compulsorily a public inquiry was held at which the authority had to justify the taking of the land. He was inclined to agree with his hon. friend the Member for North Armagh that this stage was the wrong one for inquiry. He was not aware that there had been any allegation made on those benches against the Commissioners of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Member. It was inevitable that there should be statements made about those gentlemen, because owing to the duties they had to perform they were occasionally forced into an attitude which led to their expressing opinions on what the Government policy ought to be. It was not the duty of permanent officials to deal with questions of policy; that was a matter for Ministers of the Crown; but the position of the Commissioners was so peculiar that from time to time they had been called upon, because of the peculiarities and difficulties of the land question, to make suggestions and criticisms of which ho had always regretted the necessity, but in regard to which no one would suggest mala fides on the part of the Estates Commissioners. What they said was that, at some stage, not, he thought, the preliminary stage, but after all preliminary inquiries had been made, and when the number of tenants had dwindled down to the ultimate selection at which these gentlemen had arrived, and when the land was to be compulsorily acquired, there should be some procedure of a public character, so that the facts might be known to all concerned, and especially to those whose land was to be taken. Surely, it was not an unreasonable demand, where everyone was concerned in the successful working of the Act, that there should be some farther declaration of the reasons which had governed the Estates Commissioners in the discharge of their duties, other than those which were available now. In the interests of the Commissioners themselves he thought it was highly desirable that there should be public information available for all. The Commissioners would receive criticism enough, however successful they might be in the discharge of this most difficult task, but the criticism would not be so bitter if there was a publication of the reasons upon which they based their action. He thought it was possible for the Government to devise some method by which the public could be put in possession of the facts of the various cases, and it would be in the interests of all concerned, and, not least, of the Commissioners themselves, that such a method should be devised. It would only be carrying out what the Government had repeatedly said was their object and intention.

MR. BIRRELL

said the Commissioners had two duties to discharge. First, they had to ascertain the class of persons to be benefited by the Bill, and they had to ascertain the Christian names, surnames, and addresses of those whom it was proposed to restore to the land. The other duty they had to discharge was of a wholly different character, and related to the machinery they had to employ for the purpose of getting the land, namely, whether the land was to be acquired voluntarily by agreement or compulsorily. That would be dealt with when they came to consider Clause 2, and there would be full opportunity for discussing that clause. With regard to the simple ascertainment of the individual, he confessed he could not for the life of him understand—probably it arose from ignorance of Irish life and politics—why there was this passionate desire on the part of gentlemen opposite to be supplied with the names of the evicted tenants, whose cases would be investigated by the Estates Commissioners, to see whether they were suitable persons to be supplied with land. He did not know why they wanted the names before the time came to restore those tenants. He quite understood that the landlords wished to know somehow or other who were the persons that were to become purchasers of their land; that was a very natural desire. But at the present moment what object would be gained; what good would be done? Supposing he was able now to read out the names of the 2,000 persons, did they want those names to be handed about and made the subject matter of Questions and Answers in that House? All he could say was that the restoration of this limited number of evicted tenants would be impossible unless the House recognised that it was a bit of business which had got to be done as quickly as it could be done by the tribunal who were to deal with it, he would not say in a rough and ready fashion, but as summarily and as speedily as possible. By passing this Bill the House took upon itself the obligation of providing some machinery whereby as speedily as possible these 2,000 people should be provided with land. They had given that power to the Estates Commissioners. He had been obliged to find some tribunal and the men he had chosen were the nominees of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those men had been engaged in this kind of work for a great number of years, and no Motion had ever been made to remove them. He thought they knew more about the value of land in all the counties of Ireland than anyone else. If they referred it to a Roscommon jury to fix the value of grass land in Roscommon that might be in accordance with the eternal principle of justice, but they were debarred from adopting that plan by the conditions existing in Ireland, and that would not be considered fair treatment. Consequently they selected the men who were already discharging these duties. They did not all look at these things from the same point of view, but to say that they were unfit to fix the value of land in a matter of this sort and provide 2,000 tenants with small holdings without having a public inquiry was absurd.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think we ought to keep to the point raised in the Amendment.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

said he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan that the English taxpayer had a financial as well as a moral interest in this matter. Many of the tenants had been upon their farms for twenty-four years.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Member that this is a question of whether the Commissioners are to inquire into the fitness of the applicants by a public inquiry.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

said his point was the great need for a public inquiry, which was doubly important after what had been said about the men who were coming home from New Zealand and America to make all kinds of vague claims for these farms.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is a point which does not arise. The question is whether they are fit and proper persona to become purchasers under the Act.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the Chief Secretary appeared to be at a loss to understand why the Opposition were so anxious to have a public inquiry, and why they proposed to press the Amendment to a division. The answer was simple. The chief reason was that when the Act of 1903 was being discussed they were led to understand by the best expert Ireland could produce, the Leader of the Irish Party, that there were about 400 or 600 evicted tenants. Now they were told that there were 3,000, 1,000 who had been reinstated and 2,000 waiting to be reinstated. Surely those remarkable figures were sufficient justification for the claim for some sort of an open court in which the applications of these 2,000 persons could be made public. The Chief Secretary had constantly referred to the impartiality of the Estates Commissioners. He had never charged the Commissioners with corruption; but he went the length of saying that they were prejudiced in favour of the evicted tenants, and they had not the confidence of the parties whose land was going to be taken. He had made that statement before, and it had never been contradicted. If it were true the very least the promoters of the Bill could do was to let every step taken under it be as public as possible. It was not a small matter. A transaction by which such a large amount of land as 80,000-acres was to be taken compulsorily at a cost of about £2,000,000 could not be called a small matter. At the origin or this transaction it was understood that it should be carried through on voluntary lines. That understanding had now been wrongly departed from, and, therefore, in order to mitigate the severity with which it would fell upon the owners of land the least the Government could do was to give the. greatest publicity to the steps taken under the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 300.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.Sir AlexF	Craik, Sir Henry	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Aubrey,-Fletcher Rt.Hn.Sir H.	Du Cros, Harvey	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baldwin. Alfred	Duncan. Robert(Lanark, Govan	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Fardell, Sir T. George	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Baring, Capt.HnG(Winchester)	Fell, Arthur	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N	Forster, Henry William	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gretton, John	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hervey, F.W.F(BuryS.Edm'ds	Starkey, John R.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hills, J. W.	Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)
Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Horn by, Sir William Henry	Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Houston. Robert Paterson	Thornton, Percy M.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.	Warde. Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cavendish, Rt.HonVictorC.W.	Liddell, Henry	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset. W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.	Wilson, A.Stanley(York, E.R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long. Col.Charles W(Evesham	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin, S.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Chamberlain. R t Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Younger, George
Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birming'm	Lytteltont Rt. Hon. Alfred
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Meysey-Thompson, E, C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Balcarres.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Moore, William
Courthope, G. Loyd	Morpeth, Viscount
Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Devlin, Joseph
Abraham. William (Rhondda)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras, N.
Agnew, George William	Byles. William Pollard	Donelan. Captain A.
Ainsworth. John Stirling	Cameron, Robert	Duffy, William J.
Alden, Percy	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Causton, Rt.Hn Richard Knight	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Ambrose, Robert	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall
Astbury, John Meir	Chance, Frederick William	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Clancy. John Joseph	Elibank, Master of
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cleland, J. W.	Erskine, David C.
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)	Clough, William	Everett, R. Lacey
Barker, John	Clynes. J. R.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Farrell, James Patriel
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Fenwick, Charles
Beauchamp. E.	Cooper. G. J.	Ferens, T. R.
Beck. A. Cecil	Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E.Grinst'd	Field, William
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Findlay, Alexander
Bertram. Julius	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bethell, Sir J.H(Essex, Romf'rd	Cox. Harold	Flynn, James Christopher
Bethell, T. R. (Essex;, Maldon)	Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Crean, Eugene	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Black, Arthur W.	Crombie, John William	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Boland, John	Crosfield, A. H.	Fuller, John Michael F.
Boulton, A. C. F.	Crossley, William J.	Fullerton, Hugh
Bramsdon, T. A.	Cullinan, J.	Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S
Branch, James	Curran, Peter Francis	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Brigg, John	Daves, Ellis William (Eifion)	Gilhooly. James
Bright, J. A.	Delany, William	Gill, A.H.
Gladstone, Rt, Hn. Herbert John	Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift	Richardson, A.
Glendinning, R. G.	Macpherson, J. T.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;
Glover, Thomas	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Gooch, George Peabody	M'Callum, John M.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough	M'Kean, John	Robinson, S.
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton	M'Killop, W.	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Halpin, J.	M'Micking, Major G.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Hammond, John	Maddison, Frederick	Rowlands, J.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mallet, Charles E.	Runciman, Walter
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Russell, T. W.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford]
Harwood, George	Marnham, F. J.	Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Massie, J.	Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne
Haworth, Arthur A.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Sears, J. E.
Hayden, John Patrick	Meagher, Michael	Seaverns, J. H.
Hazleton, Richard	Meehan, Patrick A.	Seddon, J.
Healy, Timothy Michael	Micklem, Nathaniel	Shackleton, David James
Hedges, A. Paget	Mond, A.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Helme, Norval Watson	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Shaw, Rt.Hon. T. (Hawick B.]
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)	Montgomery, H. G.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Mooney, J. J.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Higham, John Sharp	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Morrell, Philip	Sloan. Thomas Henry
Hodge, John	Morse, L.L.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hogan, Michael	Murnaghan, George	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Murphy, John	Snowden, P.
Holt, Richard Durning	Murray, James	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N	Myer, Horatio	Soares, Ernest J.
Horniman, Emslie John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Hudson, Walter	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nicholls, George	Steadman, W. C.
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jackson, R. S.	Nolan, Joseph	Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Strachey, Sir Edward
Jardine, Sir J.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jenkins, J.	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid	Stuart. James (Sunderland)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sutherland. J. E.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jowett, F. W.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Joyce, Michael	O'Donnell. T. (Kerry, W.)	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Grady, J.	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Kelly, James Roscommon,N	Thorne, William
Kelley, George D.	O'Malley, William	Tomkinson. James
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Kettle, Thomas Michael	O'Shee, James John	Trevelyan. Charles Philips
Kilbride. Denis	Parker, James (Halifax.)	Verney, F. W.
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Partington. Oswald	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Walters, John Tudor
Laidlaw, Robert	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Lambert, George	Perks, Robert William	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lamont, Norman	Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Wardle, George J.
Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Wason. JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E	Pirie, Duncan V.	Waterlow. D. S.
Lehmann, R. C.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.	Weir, James Galloway
Levy, Sir Maurice	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.	Whitbread. Howard
Lewis, John Herbert	Pullar, Sir Robert	White. George (Norfolk)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Radford, G, H.	White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lough, Thomas	Rainv, A. Rolland	White. Luke(York, E.R.)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Raphael, Herbert H.	White. Patrick (Meath, North)
Lynch, H. B.	Rea. Russell (Gloucester)	Whitehead, Rowland
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs	Redmond, William (Clare)	Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rees. J. D.	Wiles, Thomas
Maclean, Donald	Rendall, Athelstan	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richards, T. F(Wolverh'mpt'n

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Wilson, P.W. (St. Pancras, S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr' Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease,
Wills, Arthur Walters	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)	Winfrey, R.
Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)	Young, Samuel
Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)	Yoxall, James Henry

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

moved an Amendment for the purpose of limiting the persons in whose favour the measure was to be administered to those whom the Estates Commissioners "have prior to the date of the passing of this Act, determined to be" fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts. He said that as the clause stood at present the primary determination by the Estates Commissioners as to who should be re-instated was postponed until after the Act passed. In other words it would enable the Estates Commissioners after the Bill became law to settle afresh what they had already investigated. He did not suggest that that was an enterprise upon which they would willingly embark. He wanted it to be put out of the power of anybody to put pressure, direct or indirect, upon the Commissioners to induce them to alter that list they had already arrived at, and which, as the Chief Secretary had said, was by this time practically complete. He could not see why there should be any opposition or objection to the Amendment. All he proposed to do was to confine the persons to be re-instated to persons who at the time of the passing of the Act were on the list made by the Estates Commissioners. He wished to secure that there should be finality about the matter, although he was willing to postpone that finality until the Bill became an Act. That was a reasonable suggestion. The Chief Secretary had said that he could not understand why there was no confidence expressed in the Estates Commissioners by Unionists. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had suggested that there had been charges of corruption brought against the Estates Commissioners. Unionists had never made any suggestion of that kind. He declared, however, that the majority of the Estates Commissioners had not the confidence of the persons whose property would be affected by the Bill. He was not concerned as to whether that was due to the Estates Commissioners or to the unreasonable suspicion of the landowners. It was not the first time when the property of a particular class was being taken that Parliament had been: asked not to hand over the administration of the duties connected with the taking of that property to a class of officials who had not the confidence of the persons whose property was going to be attacked. When the great Land Act of 1881 was passed, hon. Gentlemen below the gangway imputed corruption to the county court judges, and Mr. Gladstone yielded to their request and set up a new tribunal of sub-commissioners for fixing fair rents under that Act. Surely in the present case the only people whose property and interests were concerned we e a particular class; it was not unreasonable, therefore, that landowners should ask that the administration of the Act should not be handed over to a body in which they had, for good or bad reasons, no confidence whatever, and that there should be some period fixed for determining the evicted tenants to be in reinstated, especially as the Committee had been assured by the Chief Secretary that the investigation was practically at an end. He, asked that after the passing of the Act there should be no alteration of the list, but that the list which was then in the hands of the Commissioners should be taken to be final for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words 'consider,' and insert the words have, prior to the date of the passing of this Act, determined.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'consider' stand part of the clause."

MR. BIRRELL

said the Amendment was one for which a great deal might be said; but the question was one of such a minute character that it really could not be worth consideration. He still pleaded that in the interests of the solution of a difficult question there might be some latitude allowed. As a matter of fact, he had very little doubt that by the end of August or very early in September the Commissioners would have completed their work to their own satisfaction. In one sense they had completed it now, and he did not think that probably there would be much injustice done if the Amendment were inserted, and if their labours were absolutely closed on the passing of the Act, probably next Monday. On the other hand, he was assured that there were a few cases upon which they contemplated they might wish to have some time. They might be cases which would have the effect of reducing the number to be restored, or they might be cases in which they had to inquire as to the capacity and character of the tenant to be restored. The question, therefore, was one of the minutest possible character, just as it was in the case of those who had not come over from America and New Zealand, and he dared say that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would only finally close the door on some half-dozen whose claims had not yet been decided. He did not, however, see why it should be closed upon them. They were told that the Amendment was moved in the interests of the Commissioners, and to save them from the overwhelming pressure of all the people they had rejected, who would claim to have their claims reconsidered. Those people, however, would not get that reconsideration, even if they made the demand. It was simply and solely in the interests of doing justice in delicate matters of administration that he found himself unable to agree with the Amendment, although he quite recognised that, even if it were accepted, it would do harm in no more than a limited number of cases. Those cases, however, might come within the purview of the Bill, and he did not propose to agree to fixing a hard and fast time whereby those who were entitled to receive consideration would be ruled out of court for all time.

MR. MOORE

said he supported the Amendment because he understood that what the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was striving for was that there should be some definite period for dealing with evicted tenants, so that there might be finality in the matter. It was in the interests of the evicted tenants themselves, and in the interests of others concerned, that the number of claimants should be crystallised as from a given date. The Chief Secretary had admitted that the Amendment was a reasonable one, but had refused to accept it because it was too small. If the right hon. Gentleman did accept it, he would probably gain the time which would be occupied in its discussion, and he might also gain a reputation for being reasonable. He should not be so stiff as to refuse to accept an Amendment against which he could say nothing. If Unionist Members were not to be allowed to see the list of evicted tenants which had been given to Nationalist Members, at least the names should be put on record so that they could not be afterwards expanded in number.

MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON

said the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the other day accused him of want of trust in the Estates Commissioners, and he wanted to say that he had no intention whatever of expressing the slightest want of confidence in those gentlemen in so far as they did their work. All he said or intended to say was that he thought an ad hoc body should be created to deal with the cases of the evicted tenants.

*Mr. ASHLEY

said there were two points to be considered. One was the possibility of doing injustice to some half-dozen tenants, and the other was the probability of an agitation being started in Ireland to have put back on the list the whole 5,400 applicants who had been rejected. That was what the case came to. He would be very sorry to see injustice done to anybody, but he thought the danger of an agitation springing up should outweigh the consideration of that possibility.

Sir F. BANBURY

was sorry the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. The Attorney-General had refused the last Amendment on the ground that it was such a large Amendment and would take up thirteen years. This, however, was an extremely simple Amendment, and would not take up any time at all. The Attorney-General's argument therefore did not apply. The Chief Secretary had said that five or six cases of injustice might occur if the proposed limitation was put in, but wherever there was a limitation cases of injustice must arise. It was beyond the wit of man to devise a limitation which would not press severely upon a certain number of people. The right hon. Gentleman had already put in one limitation, because; applications had to be made before May, 1907. There might be some few cases of injustice under that limitation. Why, therefore, should not a further limitation, which according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing would only result in injustice to some six or seven people, be inserted? The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was reasonable. His real reason for refusing to accept it was not because it would result in injustice to a few people, but because it would offend hon. Members below the gangway.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he would like to make a suggestion before they went to a division. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had no objection to the merits of the Amendment, and that he only objected to it because it might possibly exclude some half-dozen cases, which cases he believed would be cleared up early in September. He had laughed at the suggestion that unless they did put some limit in the Bill in all probability a very large number of extra cases would be pressed upon the Commissioners. He (Mr. Long) did not think anybody who had had any practical experience of the question would share the right hon. Gentleman's views as to the prospects before the Bill. Everybody knew that when it had passed if no limit were imposed there would be pressed on the Estates Commissioners a very great number of cases, and not the. half-dozen of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, which ought not to be included. If therefore the right hon. Gentleman did not accept this Amendment he might perhaps put in some date, the 1st of September or 1st of October, so that there might be some date before which these half-dozen cases might be adjudicated upon or revised, but which would impose a limit beyond which no further cases could be considered by the Estates Commissioners.

MR. BIRRELL

said he could assure the right hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners were fully alive to this matter, and it was their fixed intention as speedily as possible to complete the list and exercise their minds in adjudicating these claims. Once having satisfied their consciences in the matter, and settled the matter, they would not re-open any case in any shape or way. Although it might seem reasonable to fix such a limit as was suggested, he thought the Committee should be satisfied with the assurance he had given. The Estates Commissioners had almost completed their labours, but there were still certain cases in which they might have included persons who, on further information, might be found to be improper persons, and in which they had excluded persons who might be found to be proper persons for reinstatement. This was as he had said a somewhat rough-and-ready way of finding out who these people were, and to impose this limit might impose some hardship. The method had, however, to be adopted, otherwise the work would have been interminable. He could not accept the Amendment, which would impose a limitation which he did not think was necessary.

*MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

said it was quite true that the friends of this Bill, at present, seemed to acquiesce in the restricted figure of 2,000 which the Estates Commissioners had arrived at. The Committee had heard but little, though they had heard something of the enlargement of that number. But at present the list of selected applicants remained private. Every one who had applied hoped and believed he was a successful applicant, but the moment the list became public there would be a rush of applicants, and every sort of political and other pressure would be brought to bear to enforce the claim of those persons who had applied and been refused. Everybody knew the rapidity with which these things grew; the 800 had increased to 8,000 in an incredibly short space of time. America, England, Scotland, all had provided their quota. And who could doubt that when once a Department of State was set on foot for the restoration of evicted tenants and Commissioners were invested with compulsory powers, all evicted tenants who were on the original list would again put their demands with increasing insistence? The Estates Commissioners were a semi-judicial body whom it was right to protect against undue political pressure and influence in the exercise of very difficult duties. He should vote in favour of the Amendment.

MR. ASHLEY

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not, as he had admitted that these persons were likely to be hardly hit if this Amendment was not carried, accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Dublin,

and reinstate these men under Section 2 of the Act of 1903.

MR. MOORE

said he regarded this Amendment as one of the first importance. The Committee had been told that the evicted tenants numbered 2,000, and the Chief Secretary had told them that all outside that figure could be settled on the land by voluntary purchase. Those he concluded would include the 4,000 whom the Estates Commissioners decided did not, and were not fit to, come in under this Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think the matter arose on this Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 301.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.)	Clancy. John Joseph	Gilhooly, James
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cleland, J. W.	Gill, A.H.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Clough, William	Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Clynes, J. R.	Glendinning, R. G.
Agnew, George William	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Glover, Thomas
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Alden, Percy	Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E.Grinst'd	Gooch, George Peabody
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)
Ambrose, Robert	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Griffith, Ellis J.
Asquith, Rt.Hon Herbert Henry	Cox, Harold	Gurdon, RtHn.SirW. Brampton
Astbury. John Meir	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Crean, Eugene	Halpin, J.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Crombie, John William	Hammond, John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Crosfield, A. H.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Crossley, William J.	Hardy. George A. (Suffolk)
Barker, John	Cullinan. J.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Curran, Peter Francis	Harwood, George
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Beauchamp, E.	Delany, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Beck, A. Cecil	Devlin, Joseph	Hazleton, Richard
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Healy, Timothy Michael
Bertram, Julius	Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.	Hedges, A. Paget
Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd	Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Helme, Norval Watson
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Donelan, Captain A.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Duffy, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Black, Arthur W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Hobart, Sir Robert
Boland, John	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hobhouse. Charles E. H.
Boulton, A. C. F.	Elibank, Master of	Hodge, John
Bramsdon, T. A.	Essex, R. W.	Hogan, Michael
Branch, James	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Holland, Sir William Henry
Brigg, John	Everett. R. Lacey	Holt, Richard Durning
Bright, J. A.	Faber. G. H. (Boston)	Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N)
Burke, E. Haviland	Farrell, James Patrick	Horniman. Emslie John
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fenwick, Charles	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Ferens, T. R.	Hudson, Walter
Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas	Field, William	Hyde, Clarendon
Byles, William Pollard	Findlay, Alexander	Illingworth, Percy H.
Cameron, Robert	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Flynn, James Christopher	Jackson, R. S.
Causton, Rt.HnRichard Knight	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Chance, Frederick William	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Jardine, Sir J.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Jenkins, J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,	Fuller, John Michael F.	Johnson, John (Gateshead).
Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Fullerton, Hugh	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Shipman, Dr. John G
Jowett, F. W.	Napier, T. B.	Silcock, Thomas Bali
Joyce, Michael	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Sloan. Thomas Henry
Kearley, Hudson E.	Nicholls, George	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Kelley, George D.	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Nolan, Joseph	Snowden, P.
Kettle, Thomas Michael	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Soares, Ernest J.
Kilbride, Denis	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Spicer, Sir Albert
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Steadman, W. C.
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Lambert, George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Stewart-Smith, 1). (Kendal)
Lamont, Norman	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	O'Grady, J.	Sutherland, J. E.
Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.	O'Malley, William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lehmann, R. C.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich)	O'Shee. James John	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Parker, James (Halifax)	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E
Lewis, John Herbert	Partington, Oswald	Thorne, William
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Tillett, Louis John
Lough, Thomas	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Tomkinson, James
Lundon, W.	Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lupton, Arnold	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lynch, H. B.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Ure, Alexander
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Pirie, Duncan V.	Verney, F. W.
Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Power, Patrick Joseph	Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Walsh, Stephen
Maclean, Donald	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford.E.)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Pullar, Sir Robert	Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Radford, G. H.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Macpherson, J. T.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wardle, George J.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.	Rea. Russell (Gloucester)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan
MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E.)	Rea. Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Wason. JohnCathcart (Orkney)
M'Kean, John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Waterlow, D. S.
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Redmond, William (Care)	Watt, Henry A.
M'Killop, W.	Rees, J. D.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn	Weir, James Galloway
M'Micking, Major G.	Richardson, A.	Whitbread, Howard
Maddison, Frederick	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George (Norfolk)
Mallet, Charles E.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Manfield, Harry (Northants	Roberston, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Marnham, F. J.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	White, Patrick (Meath. North)
Massie, J.	Robinson, S..	Whitehead. Rowland
Meagher, Michael	Robson. Sir William Snowdon	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Roche. Augustine (Cork)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Micklem, Nathaniel	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Wiles, Thomas
Mond, A.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wilkie, Alexander
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Rowlands. J.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Montgomery, H. G.	Runciman, Walter	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mooney, J. J.	Russell. T. W.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)	Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh.,N.)
Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morrell, Philip	Sears, J. E.	Young, Samuel
Morse. L. L.	Seaverns, J. H.	Yoxall, James Henry
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Seddon, J.
Murnaghan, George	Shackleton. David James	Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Murphy, John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Murray, James	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Myer, Horatio	Sherwell, Arthur James
NOES
Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.Sir Alex. F	Banner, John S. Harmood-	Bull. Sir William James
Ark wright, John Stanhope	Baring, Capt.Hn. G (Winchester	Burdett-Coutts, W.
Ashley, W. W.	Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)	Butcher, Samuel Henry
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.	Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.
Balcarres, Lord	Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Carlile, E. Hildred
Baldwin, Alfred	Bowles, G. Stewart	Castlereagh, Viscount
Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)	Boyle, Sir Edward	Cave, George
Ban bury. Sir Frederick George	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Keswick, William	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Worc	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Liddell, Henry	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)>
Craik, Sir Henry	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Du Cros, Harvey	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark. Govan	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Thornton, Percy M.
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Fell, Arthur	Magnus, Sir Philip	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Fletcher, J. S.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gretton, John	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Moore, William	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Morpeth, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds)	Muntz, Sir Philip A	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Younger. George
Hills, J. W.	Nield, Herbert
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.
Houston, Robert Paterson	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Hunt, Rowland	Randles, Sir John Scurrah

MR. MOORE

moved to insert, at the end of the clause, the words, "Provided that such persons have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent." His object, he said, was to exclude from the definition of evicted tenant, and, therefore, from the benefits of this Bill, those persons who had been evicted from their farms in consequence of decrees obtained by ordinary creditors or of ejectments in title. Hon. Members were aware that evictions in Ireland took place from different causes and for different reasons. It had always been understood that the evicted tenant problem with which the House had attempted to deal was that of restoring to their holdings those tenants who had been evicted for non payment of rent and for that cause alone. In Ireland if a man was indebted to his butcher or his baker the latter could get judgment against the debtor, and, if he had a farm could, if it was not subject to a mortgage, proceed to sell him up. If there was a mortgage he could have his judgment registered as a mortgage and still sell him up and evict him. Another case which hon. Members had not considered was that of a man who did not come within the Act of 1881, who had a long lease the term of which had expired and he was evicted because the landlord wanted to resume possession. That was called an ejectment on title. There were also other classes of eviction. Therefore he thought it was only right to amend this clause so as to ensure that the only evicted tenants who derived advantage from the Bill should be those who were evicted for the non-payment of rent. It was never intended that evicted tenants of any other kind should come under it.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the clause to add the words 'Provided that such persons have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent.'"—(Mr. Moore.)

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

MR. CHERRY

thought there was some weight in the argument that these men would be technically and literally in the position of being evicted tenants and would be within the words of Clause 2 of the Act of 1903. He did not think they should be included, and the Government had no desire to extend that clause. Landlords, however, frequently took advantage of their position to proceed against tenants as ordinary creditors, and recovering the rent as an ordinary debt, seized the holding. When landlords took those steps there was nothing to distinguish them from the ordinary creditor who had taken similar steps to recover a debt. The hon. and learned Member suggested that all these cases should be excluded, because he would confine the Bill to persons evicted for non-payment of rent.

MR. MOORE

said the words of the Amendment were, "Who have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent."

MR. CHERRY

thought those words would exclude the cases to which he had referred, but the Government would not like to accept the Amendment in the form in which it had been moved, and what they proposed to do was to substitute a form of words on Report.

MR. CLANCY

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman ought to hear arguments against this and similar Amendments before he offered to make any concession.

MR. CHERRY

said he was ready to hear any arguments that might be used, but his feeling was, that this was a Bill for tenants who had been evicted from their holdings by their landlords, and not by their butchers or bakers or others. That was all they proposed to do. The hon. Member should have let him finish his remarks. He seemed to be afraid of his conceding too much.

MR. CLANCY

thought the tendency of the Government was to give way on everything that was proposed.

MR. CHERRY

said the Government tried to do what was just and right in the case. They had not accepted many Amendments proposed by the Opposition. They proposed to bring up on Report a form of words which would confine the Bill to evicted tenants who had been evicted by their landlords, or at the suit of their landlords, where they had been turned out of possession. It would exclude cases where family disputes had led to evictions, and also where the proceedings of ordinary creditors had led to evictions. It was fair and reasonable that that should be inserted.

MR. MOORE

Am I to understand that the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposes is to be restricted to evictions for non-payment of rent? If the landlord ejects the tenant on title the tenant must come in.

MR. CHERRY

The hon. Gentleman must wait until the Amendment is put down. Our object is to exclude the cases mentioned of evictions by butchers and bakers and younger brothers

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said that of all harsh cases connected with eviction ejectment on title was the worst. Mr. Gladstone had refused to include leaseholders in the Act of 1881, and for six years the leaseholders of Ireland in many cases paid rents after their leases had expired. In many cases the enlargement of the Act which came later on never affected them, and it was not till 1896 that a whole shoal of exclusions disappeared, while in the meantime the landlord availed himself of every little flaw in the title to eject these unfortunate men. Mr. Gladstone, in whose character extraordinary Conservatism was sometimes shown, would not even enable a present tenant to be artificially created. The Tory Government, however, accepted an Amendment as a matter of course, and a present tenant could now be created artificially. He instanced the case of joint tenants and tenants in common. They had put an Amendment in the Act of 1896, and immediately the Court of Appeal ran a spear through it. In 1903, again, the Conservative Party amended the law, and these men were now entitled to a fair rent, though in the meantime numbers of them had been ejected. The Front Opposition Bench had a clean record on this business, because nearly every one of the valuable Amendments of the Act of 1881 had been made owing to the clear - sightedness of the Conservative Party. Were they now to turn round and, before their Amendments of the law had had time to take effect, say that the men who had been unjustly evicted were not to get the benefit of the amended law? He really could not fathom the spirit of Gentlemen above the gangway, haggling and niggling in order to exclude one or two unfortunate men. It was not common justice. They were against the campaigners, the "immoral" men who would not pay their rent; but the men they now sought to exclude were men who were sound rent-payers, but who had some flaw in their title which Parliament had subsequently remedied. He advised Members above the gangway to let the House of Lords shape their Amendments for them. Was not every landlord in Ireland a Member of the House of Lords? The promoters of this Amendment were not landlords; they were only lawyers, and they had not even got the landlords as their clients. The great advantage of the House of Lords was that they had a packed jury of landlords, making Amendments to suit themselves—the real Simon Pures who considered their own cases and their own estates. The evicting landlords would all be there. When he saw an Amendment with Lord Clanricarde's name attached to it he knew that it was an authoritative Amendment moved by the landlord Party. Members in the Lower House were mere journeymen who knew nothing of the intricacies of the Irish case, and made mighty poor grand inquisitors. He urged the Government to be chary as to the Amendments they promised. If the rent was not paid, the landlord would evict. If it was paid, perhaps the mealman would go unpaid, and he would come forward and get judgment, and the tenant would be turned out because he had paid the landlord the money he ought to have paid the mealman. It was not so simple a matter as hon. Members considered it to be. The Government had appointed a tribunal which nobody supposed was going to be unfair to the landlords, and this was a matter which might safely be left to its discretion. He thought they would be making a great mistake if they did not at least wait and see what the House of Lords proposed to do.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Government would not, he thought, be shaken in their determination by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had omitted any reference to the Report of the Commissioners on which this Bill was very largely founded. Clause 20, Subsection 4, dealt with creditors other than landlords, and they had, therefore, actually the avowed intention of the Commissioners, on which they had already acted. All the Government had done was to give effect to what the Attorney-General said had been their object and intention, namely, to make the Bill applicable to a particular class of cases; and he thought they were indebted to the Government for having accepted the Amendment of his hon. friend in the spirit, as he understood that the Attorney-General had undertaken to bring up on the Report stage an Amendment to carry out the views, speaking generally, which his hon. friend had just now expressed. He hoped they would not be prevented from carrying out that object by any jocular observations from below the gangway.

MR. BIRRELL

said the Commissioners assured him that not a single person that had been placed upon the list of cases hack been evicted for anything but the non-payment of rent, and the substance of the case was very fairly met by the Amendment as altered by the Attorney-General. In regard to what had been said about another place, a Minister was under an obligation to do his duty by the House of which he happened to be a Member, and could not consent to insert in a Bill what he might think to be incorrect because there was another tribunal animated by a strong bias the other way. and that anything that could be urged in favour of those affected would be given effect to by them. There was not in this matter any real disagreement between the Government and Members below the gangway. It was agreed that at all times what was contemplated was the reinstatement of those who, for political reasons, took part in a war which had remarkable legislative results and who for that reason were turned out of their holdings. Those were the only people who could claim to be reinstated and they were the only class who would be found in the list.

*Mr. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)

said it struck him that unless great care was taken in drafting the Amendment cases which were really evictions for non-payment of rent might appear to be evictions at the suit of ordinary judgment creditors; for example, a landlord might have assigned his rent to his butcher or tailor who might have obtained judgment and evicted the tenant on the judgment, so that he would appear to have been evicted by his tradesman for non-payment of a debt and not for non-payment of rent. So again a judgment creditor of the landlord might obtain a garnishee Order and again appear as an ordinary execution creditor of the tenant when in fact the eviction took place for non-payment of rent. Although no doubt the principle laid down might be a perfectly right one he hoped care would be taken in drafting to see that cases would not be included which were not intended to be included.

MR. MOORE

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Leave being refused, the Amendment was negatived.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

moved the omission of Subsection (b), which includes among those for whom land is to be compulsorily acquired "new tenants to whom this Act applies, that is to say, tenants and persons nominated by the Estates Commissioners as personal representatives of tenants of holdings formerly occupied by evicted tenants to whom this Act applies." He explained that the Amendment dealt with the so-called "planters." He objected to the manner in which the Bill proposed to deal with the tenants who for twenty-five years had been in possession of holdings from which tenants had formerly been evicted for non-payment of rent or other causes. Such tenants were entitled to their commiseration. He would like to place before the Committee some of the hardships which these new tenants had of necessity to undergo. They might have been cultivating their holding for twenty-five years and brought up a family upon it, and yet, under the Bill, they would be dispossessed, and an evicted tenant, who might not have worked his holding in the manner in which it should be worked, might be put in his place. That was an injustice of the highest order. In many cases those tenants had exhibited a courageous character, and had accepted tasks which in many cases involved danger to their lives. To dispossess them would be an act of injustice. The subsection would also place in the hands of the Estates Commissioners a discriminating power which it was never intended they should exercise, because they were originally appointed for a totally different purpose. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 22, to leave out Subsection (b)."—(Viscount. Castlereagh,)

Question proposed, "That the words 'new tenants' stand part of the clause."

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

thought the subsection both unjust and unnecessary. He could not see why two people should be disturbed for the sake of reinstating one. If either of the tenants—the new-tenant or the evicted tenant—had a sentimental attachment to a particular holding it was more likely to be the man who had lived there during the last twenty-four years than the man who was evicted twenty-four years ago and since then had lived somewhere else. If a man had been cultivating his farm satisfactorily nothing could be gained by moving him to another farm. This double movement for the sake of reinstating one man would be tinged with a considerable amount of resentment and bad feeling, and the cost to the taxpayers would be very considerable. He supported the Amendment.

MR. BIRRELL

said it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, and he did not think the hon. Members who had spoken had fully apprehended its effect. It would not only prevent new tenants being required to give up their holding for another holding or for money compensation, but it would prevent part of the land being acquired for those new tenants who had voluntarily agreed to give up their present holdings. Many of the new tenants sat very lightly in their present holdings, and would very willingly go upon the terms of the Bill. They had not acquired the holdings naturally. They were somewhat artificially introduced to them. In many places they were regarded as only caretakers of the land—perpetual evidence of the strife the Government were seeking to put an end to They would jump at the terms of the Bill, and would gladly either take land offered them elsewhere, or, if they were satisfied that agricultural pursuits did not suit them, take the monetary compensation provided under the Bill. Not only was it necessary that they should have the power to acquire parcels of land for actually reinstating the old tenants upon their former holdings and give the new tenants a holding elsewhere, but they required land for tenants who would not be turned out at all. He did not contemplate that there would be many cases in which there would be actual eviction of new tenants. If powers were taken to acquire land for the purpose of providing the new tenants with farms elsewhere he thought the difficulty of the case would be solved. Subsection (b) was of the very essence of the measure, and it was necessary that it should be allowed to remain in order that there should be power to obtain the land required for the carrying through of the purposes of the Bill.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he understood that it was impossible for the Government so agree to the elimination of the subsection, as its omission would strike at the very foundation of the Bill. He was glad the discussion had been raised, for there was no part of the Bill to which he objected more than that which proposed to get rid of the new tenants in order to make room for the evicted tenants. One wondered at the necessity for the Bill at all if these people were so anxious to go, provided there was power to give them the necessary compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman's information was accurate a great many of these people would not be seriously interfered with. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was a much larger number who did not answer the description he had given of the new tenants. A considerable number of these men had carried on their work under circumstances of great difficulty, and they were men for whom the Attorney-General had no sympathy at all. They had become unpopular for doing their duty, and as it was a great trouble to look after them the Attorney-General thought it was better to put in somebody else. Of course that was a very good reason for a Minister who wanted to lessen the difficulties of his situation, but he and his friends did not regard it as a good reason at all for using public money to dispossess men who in many cases had stood up against long odds in doing their best to cultivate their holdings satisfactorily. He agreed with the Chief Secretary that the subsection was necessary, and he was inclined to advise his noble friend not to press the Amendment to a division. It would prevent provision being made in the shape of fresh holdings for any of the new tenants whose removal might be voluntarily arranged. That would be, of course, to do them a considerable injustice. Surely arrangements might be made for dealing with these cases without the excessive powers proposed to be taken.

MR. MOORE

said he wished to make a suggestion with reference to the drafting of the clause. Instead of "tenants of holdings" he suggested that the words "occupiers of land" should be substituted. He understood that on the Clanricarde estate ninety holdings had become forty-five through some holdings being amalgamated. If the clause limited the application of the Bill to holdings which were formerly occupied by evicted tenants, there might be considerable trouble, in view of decisions under the Land Acts, in regard to holdings which had ceased to exist.

MR. CHERRY

said he was much obliged for the suggestion, which would improve the language of the clause. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had seemed to think that he was animated by some bitter animosity towards the new tenants. He had no animosity towards them at all. On the contrary, he had a good deal of sympathy with them. The Government had done everything they possibly could in the Bill to see that these tenants should get perfectly fair play and everything for their advantage. They were mainly men who had been brought from a different part of Ireland; for instance, Ulster men had been brought down to occupy evicted farms in the South of Ireland. They had not been very happy there. He did not say what the cause of it was, but the Government wished to put an end to it. They thought that these men would be more prosperous and happy if they were brought back and placed where they could carry out their work where the country was quieter. They believed that the majority of these men would agree at once to the removal, but there were some men who would not even in their own interest give up the holdings they occupied. It was a common thing for people when they lost their tempers to do things which were bad for themselves. These men had been badly treated and they had lost their tempers, and some of them said, "We will stick here because we are determined to fight to the bitter end." The Government therefore took power in the Bill to remove these men for their own interest against their own will. It was to meet such cases alone that they thought that the compulsory clause should be put in. He had no hostile feeling towards these men. He wanted to see them treated fairly, but be wanted to see peace in the country. He did not want the necessity to continue of having an army of police to surround particular holdings. The Government thought their proposals would be fair to all parties concerned.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said he was glad of the assurance that the new tenants were to be fairly and reasonably treated, but he felt apprehensive that there would be a certain amount of injustice as regarded the apportionment of tenancies. He was aware that there had been a good deal of amicable settlement and he trusted there would be more in future. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'SHEE

moved to include within the scope of the section "new tenant purchasers" as well as "new tenants." He said that the effect of the Bill would be largely nugatory unless this Amendment were adopted. There was no real distinction between the new tenant and the new tenant purchaser. He could illustrate this by stating the circumstances of a case in his own constituency. An estate there was owned by Mrs. Williams, who lived in England. There were in 1890 three tenants on the estate, and in that year two of them were evicted. Mr. Purcell, the agent of the estate, who lived about thirty or forty miles from the place, got possession of the two evicted farms, but his position was that of a mere planter. Under the Act of 1903, Mrs. Williams lodged an application for the sale of her estate, and Mr. Purcell had already been negotiating with the Estates Commissioners as to the price to be paid to him for giving up the two holdings so as to enable the Estates Commissioners to reinstate the evicted tenants. He was informed also that Mr. Purcell had signed an agreement to purchase the two evicted holdings, and, therefore, his vesting order might be made before this Bill came into operation. There had been a difference of opinion between Mr. Purcell, who wanted to get compensation, and the Estates Commissioners, who were anxious not to give him more than his just due. Mr. Purcell had never made any improvements since 1890; he had never lived on his land since that date; and, although his holding had deteriorated, the Estates Commissioners were willing to give him some £200 if he would give up his goodwill. Mr. Purcell wanted more. Notwithstanding this, a vesting order might be made any day. In such a case it would be contrary to all common-sense and to the intentions of the Government that Mr. Purcell should be in a position by reason of his vesting order being made to say to the Estates Commissioners that they would not give him what he wanted, that he thought he ought to have £1,000, and that, although he had never done anything to improve the land, they could not restore the evicted tenants because he was the holder of the land and would not give it up unless they gave him £1,000. What would the Estates Commissioners do? He challenged them to find in the whole county of Waterford 100 acres of untenanted land. There were in that county, according to the Report of the Estates Commissioners, 120 cases suitable for restoration, and there were thirty-eight more cases to be dealt with. There would, therefore, probably be a total of 150 persons for whom holdings would have to be provided either by purchasing the interests of the planters or grabbers who had gone into possession or by obtaining untenanted land. They had only provided for twenty-four tenants up to the present, and there was no more untenanted land to be had. The proportion of holdings throughout the country held by new tenants to those in the possession of the landlords was as seven to two, and from his knowledge of Waterford the proportion there was not likely to be less. Therefore, of the 150 cases to be provided for 120 holdings were in the possession of new tenants and only thirty in the hands of the landlords. How were they to get land for those 120 men? They could not get it in the neighbouring counties. There would be 1,570 of the total number of 2,000 cases where the holdings were in possession of new tenants. By reason of the operation of the Land Act of 1903—£20,000,000 having been paid in advance up to the present time—one-seventh of those 1,570 new tenants, about 230 in number, had already got their vesting orders and had become new tenant purchasers under the Act of 1903. There would also probably be about 100 more who had got their vesting orders under previous Land Purchasing Acts, and there would, therefore, be at least 330 who had become new tenant purchasers and had got their vesting orders. They were men who had been notable as suitable for restoration. There might in parts of the country be no difficulty in dealing with the evicted tenants and in providing untenanted land for them. There might be some untenanted land in the midland counties, but there was none in the south of Ireland. There would therefore be, as the Act of 1903 operated, a greater number day by day of the new tenants becoming tenant purchasers, and, if they excluded them from the operations of the Bill, they could not possibly provide in Minister and in the south of Leinster for the evicted tenants whose farms had been acquired by new tenants purchasing them under the Land Act. This was a very large question, and, in his opinion, the Bill would be largely nugatory unless they dealt with the question by carrying out the intentions of the Government. His Amendment was really only a verbal one, because there was no distinction between the new tenant and the new tenant purchaser. Under the Bill as it stood they would be unable to prevent Lord Clanricarde, for instance, from defeating the Bill if he chose. He had no doubt that Lord Clanricarde had lost money by letting his land to these new tenants, and he could make them judicial tenants if he chose if he had not already done so. If he-entered into an agreement with them after three months they became judicial tenants, and after that process had been gone through, Lord Clanricarde could easily convert them into second term tenants and make them buy at twenty-seven, thirty, or forty years purchase whatever the figure might be. He could put the maximum limit of value on the land, and at all events make them purchase at twenty-seven years purchase. Unless this Amendment was accepted at least 1,200 people would be disqualified from receiving the benefits of the Act because no distinction was made between the new tenants and the new tenant purchasers. The impression that he and his colleagues derived from the speeches made before this Bill was presented was that these new tenants, whether they were nominally tenant purchasers or only came within the description of new tenants, were, if they were willing to give up possession, included within the scope of the Bill. The general impression was that these men were to be compulsorily got rid of and moved elsewhere or to be given money in compensation if they did not take a farm of equal value elsewhere. That was the impression in Ireland, and that was the impression under which Nationalist Members voted for the Bill. From 1,200 to 1,570 of the 2.000 tenants who had been found suitable for reinstatement by the Estates Commissioners would be found to be unsuitable unless this Amendment were accepted. They denied the right of these new tenant purchasers to be in these farms. They were brought there by artificial means and in order to enable the landlords to extort higher prices from the existing tenants, and the Nationalist Party would always do all they could to secure the return of the tenants who had been evicted from their holdings. During the land war in Ireland there were no doubt "blacklegs," and he objected to these new tenants being converted into "new tenant purchasers."

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'tenants,' to insert the words 'and new tenant purchasers.' "—(Mr. O'Skee.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought the Attorney-General for Ireland would do well to consider some of the observations which had been made by his hon. friend. He would not say that this Amendment affected a large number of cases, but he thought that it hit a blot in the Bill which was well deserving of the consideration of the Government. It was one which would inflict no hardship on landlords. Certainly some Amendment of this kind was necessary and he could not see how anybody connected with the landlord class could object to it. His only fear, however, was that the terms of the Amendment were not sufficiently wide, but if the Government were satisfied that a blot had been hit by his hon. friend he hoped the Attorney-General for Ireland would see his way, if he could not accept the Amendment as it now stood, to bring up a new clause to enable something of the kind to be done. He was sure that his hon. friend was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject before its attention.

*MR. BUTCHER

said the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was an illuminating one, because it showed what false hopes had been raised in Ireland and the difficulties and the bitter disappointments which were likely to arise from this extremely ill-considered measure. The hon. Member for West Waterford had said that there was no real distinction between a new tenant and a tenant purchaser. The grounds that the hon. Member offered for that extraordinary statement were two. First, he gave instances in which persons who were never intended to get the benefit of the Purchase Act, such as agents and others, had purchased their holdings. He did not intend to dispute those instances, but anyhow there they were in legal possession. Next he urged that the tenant purchaser might have been in possession of his holding only for a year. But the hon. Gentleman did not tell them of cases in which the person he described as a "new tenant purchaser" might have been in possession of the holding for ten, fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years. Let them take the ease of a man who had bought his holding ten or twenty years ago and had since been paying instalments to the State. Could his position be said to be merely that of a new tenant? First of all, he had acquired by this time a valuable property; he had paid a large sum of money in the form of terminable annuities, and at the end of a definite period he would hold the fee simple of the land without any further payment at all. He had already advanced so far along the road to complete ownership that if he were to put his holding up for sale he would realise a substantial price. The price so given would itself be conclusive proof that his interest as tenant purchaser was of a very different kind from that of a new tenant. His land was much more valuable, owing to the number of years during which he had paid the annuity. Besides, the holding had in many cases doubled in value, owing to the labour he had put into it and the improvements he had made. Yet they were told that these purchasers were in the position of ordinary tenants, and could fairly be put out of their holdings, and be forced to begin elsewhere ab initio.

MR. O'SHEE

said that Subsection 5 of Clause 6 provided that the condition attaching to their present holdings should attach that to other holdings.

*Mr. BUTCHER

very much doubted whether that clause covered these cases. But, whether it did or not, he still maintained that the man who had paid his annuity to the State and had become an owner was in a totally different position from an ordinary tenant. The Bill had already one great blot which alone would prevent him from voting for it in its. present shape—it gave power for the compulsory dispossession of new tenants. It was now proposed to do another and even greater injustice, to turn out owners who had acquired their land by an advance of public money. He trusted the Government would not lend themselves to such a wrong.

MR. POWER (Waterford, W.)

said that to his mind there was some ambiguity in the clause as it stood, and it was necessary to have words inserted to prevent misunderstanding. He presumed that the Estates Commissioners would naturally endeavour to procure farms for the people of a county in that county. That was the only way in which the difficulty could be met. He ventured to say that unless some such words as his hon. friend had suggested were inserted they would have people exempted from the operation of the Act who should naturally come under it.

MR. CHERRY

said that an interesting discussion had taken place and several points well worth considering had been raised. This was however not the first time the Government had considered the matter. There was an immense amount of difficulty in dealing with the question raised by the hon. Member for West Waterford. The hon. Member had used the phrase "new tenant purchasers." As he understood the hon. Member, there were two classes of tenants, those who had purchased their land and those who had merely signed agreements with their landlords to purchase but who by virtue of those agreements were considered owners. With regard to those who had purchased and were owners of the fee simple, their land was not tenanted land. It was technically untenanted land and therefore land which could be acquired compulsorily under the Bill. But there were two things which would prevent its being so acquired. First, Clause 6 distinctly stated that land in the immediate vicinity of the owner's dwelling should not be taken, and secondly— and this was a much more serious difficulty—that, if land was liable for an annuity, so long as it remained liable it could not be resold. So that before the Commissioners could take that land they must redeem the annuity, which would be a matter of enormous expense. He saw no way of dealing with cases of that kind at all. The hon. Member for North Louth had drawn attention to some cases where no doubt great hardships existed, but the Government would consider all cases of hardships brought to light and do all they could without violating the principle of the Bill to mitigate the hardship. The mover of the Amendment dealt with an entirely different class of tenant. A tenant was a tenant until the vesting order was granted, and then he became a purchaser, and it was exceedingly doubtful whether the land in that case could be taken from the tenant. But here a new difficulty arose as to whether a new tenant who entered into an agreement with his landlord to purchase did not pass out of the scope of the Bill altogether. He had however considered that matter, and had put down an Amendment to the effect that "a person shall be deemed to be a new tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, provided that the holding has not been vested in him as a tenant purchaser." That would not give rise to the difficulty in regard to a man in occupation of land of which he had redeemed the greater portion. In the case of the other tenant whose term had not yet begun to run, he thought that tenant came within the definition of "owner" if not in the letter at least in the spirit of the Act.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would like to put to the hon. Member for Cambridge University and to the Government what he thought was the complete answer to the case of the tenant purchaser. No doubt, to the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who had shown such conspicuous fairness on this question, it did seem at the start a strong thing to say that a man who had bought the land, though he was a grabber or planter, should be disturbed in his possession as though he was an ordinary tenant of the landlord. But, if they considered the case, it was not so. It was a hardship to interfere between landlord and tenant, because there they interfered between the contractor and the contractee—they interfered with private rights. But if the State handsomely came forward, as it had done, and took upon itself the burdensomeness and onerousness of being the landlord, and was willing to make an advance, surely the State had acquired, in regard to a man in that position, a right which it would not have in regard to a man in the position of a free contractor. To interfere with the tenant purchasers, to whom the State had made a handsome advance, and who had got the right by reason of the money and machinery of the State, aye, and the work of Members below the gangway who for the last twenty-five years had been fighting their battle for them to get them into that position, was much more reasonable than to interfere with men who had remained outside the State limits or State control. The man who had purchased a farm with the aid of State money was not possessed of the fee simple; he became a child or protégéof the State, which asserted rights over him which it would be most unfair to assert over the ordinary tenant from year to year; he had acquired land not by the expenditure of his own money, but through the sacrifice of his fellow-countrymen and the bounty and generosity of the State. The legal difficulty which the Attorney-General had pointed out with reference to the annuity could be very easily got rid of. The question was whether it was right and reasonable to remove it. It was greatly to their credit that a number of landlords who had evicted tenants in the past had shown to the Estates Commissioners that they were willing to let bygones be bygones and to facilitate the re-introduction of these men to their holdings, and he believed it would facilitate the working of this measure if that spirit were properly recognised. They had Lord Lansdowne and Lord Massereene and landlords of that type who desired to let bygones be bygones; and surely they were not to speak in the same breath of a man like Lord Lansdowne and a man like Lord Clanricarde. One was anxious to let bygones be bygones; the other was still waving the black flag. Of the whole string of landlords, sixteen out of eighteen, or fourteen out of sixteen—he did not know the exact number—were desirous of having peace, and only one or two of the ragged edge were willing to continue contention. He knew that the spirit of the Government was reasonable, and he fully recognised that the Attorney-General had distinguished himself by the acuteness as well as the sympathy he had shown in the course of the debate. This case ought not to be dealt with on the ground of a technical objection, and the Government should consider it as a whole. He thoroughly believed that these new tenants, if they got a decent offer, if the way were made easy for them, would willingly give up their holdings, and for his part he would not haggle with them about terms. Let them have peace. That was what they wanted, and surely if peace were the real consideration with both parties, it should not be difficult to frame some Amendment to get over what he admitted, as the law now stood, was the unanswerable argument of the learned Attorney-General.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that no one who had followed the discussion could be in the least surprised at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he had no doubt that they would be told afterwards that the Government had climbed down altogether. Speaking some few days ago in another place a member of the Government said that he, for one, would be no party, nor would His Majesty's Government, to the removal by compulsion of any new tenant who was a bona fide farmer. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his Second Reading speech, as the hon. Member for West Waterford had said, had declared that all the "planters," whether bona fide farmers or not, were to get the order to go; and the hon. Member had said that of course it would be a disappointment if it was now found that there was to be a distinction as regarded any of these new tenants. Although that was undoubtedly the impression left on the House, and the impression that was created throughout Ireland by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, he had altered the tone of his remarks since the statement by Lord Crewe in another place; because, speaking from his place in that House, the other evening, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he entirely agreed with that statement and that he also, for one, would be no party, nor would His Majesty's Government, to the compulsory removal of any of these new tenants who had shown a bona fide desire and intention to work their holdings as farms. This Amendment afforded an excellent opportunity for bringing to a test the reality and sincerity of that profession, because it was now proposed to apply compulsion not merely to the new tenant but to the man who, having been a new tenant, had given the very best indication of his desire to keep his place as a farmer by becoming the purchasing owner of the land under the Act of 1903, or some antecedent measure of the same kind. He could not conceive any better proof a new tenant could give than by becoming the purchasing owner, and thus turning himself from the occupier, who could go out on six months notice, into that of occupying owner who was to remain until he could sell the whole thing to some new owner. Therefore, if there was any truth or reality in what the Chief Secretary had said, in regard to the views expressed in another place by Lord Crewe, that he and his Government would be no party to the removal against their will of new tenants who were bona fide farmers anxious to retain their farms, then all he could say was that the right hon. Gentleman could be no party in any shape or form to this Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford, who had shown a very keen appreciation of the difficulty of this measure, and a very apt knowledge of the situation in Ireland as regarded the landlords and evicted tenants. The hon. Member had said truly that these tenants had been in possession since long before 1901.

MR. O'SHEE

Some of them.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

saw that that was the hon. Gentleman's statement, however he might wish to modify it, and he could only deal with what the hon. Gentleman had said, namely, that these tenant purchasers who were now to be summarily removed were, to his own knowledge, in possession long before 1901. What better proof could there be of the desire of these men to retain their holdings as farms than the fact that they had used them so many years as farms, and had remained so many years in possession, having changed their position from that of a yearly tenant to that of purchasing j owner subject to the purchaser's small annuity? If this Amendment was ac- cepted, it would be a deliberate and direct violation of the pledge so honourably given in the other House by Lord Crewe, supported as it was by the plain, straightforward, and deliberate language of the Chief Secretary. He should have thought that would have been a sufficient answer; but the Attorney-General had not touched upon that point, his only reply being that there were legal difficulties in the way. There were other difficulties which to him had a much more important bearing, and they were difficulties of honour and solemn undertakings and pledges given as deliberate expressions of the intentions of the Government in that House and elsewhere. The hon. Member for West Waterford sought to include within the definition of new tenants, tenants who had changed their position into that of purchasing owners. That, he submitted would be a distinct violation of the pledges given by Lord Crewe in the House of Lords. It was said that agents should not become purchasing owners: why not? Under the Acts of 1881 and 1870 agents who held farms were allowed to be treated as persons entitled to compensation when they were disturbed. Until that day he had never heard any complaint made against a man simply because in addition to being a farmer he happened to collect the rents for his principal.

MR. T. M. HEALY

No such complaint has been made.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said there appeared to be a difference of opinion upon that point even amongst the Nationalist Party.

MR. T. M. HEALY

There is no difference of opinion amongst us.

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the matter under discussion was one of the most important, short of leading principles, that had come up for consideration. The Attorney-General had explained that the object of this proposal was to bring under the definition of ordinary new tenants

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has already stated what the Attorney-General said, and we cannot now have the whole matter repeated because the Chief Secretary has come in.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that all he desired to say was that to include in the definition of new tenants those tenants who had become purchasers, and had changed their position to that of purchasing owners, would be a direct and distinct violation of the pledge given by Lord Crewe and the right hon. Gentle man opposite, that in the case of a really bona fide farmer there was no intention to remove him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were legal difficulties in the way and that he would be quite prepared to consider with favour some Amendment that would enable those tenants who had signed agreements

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We cannot have the Attorney-General's speech delivered over again for the benefit of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said there must be some mistake, because he was not repeating this for the benefit of the Chief Secretary.

THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the arguments of the Attorney-General some time ago.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

Not on this particular point.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

You have answered him already on the very points you are dealing with now.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the Deputy-Chairman was under a complete misapprehension, because he had not yet approached the second branch of this question, which had been dealt with by the right hon. Member, namely, the case of those tenants who had not yet become purchasing owners, but had signed agreements. He had said that they were in a different position, and that he would be quite prepared to accept some Amendment which would place them as new tenants within the ambit of the Act. He admitted that there was something to be said in favour of in- cluding within this section tenants who had signed agreements to purchase since the introduction of this Bill. But it would be a breach of an undertaking which had been given in that House to apply these compulsory powers to tenants who had signed agreements to purchase some years ago, and had not yet become owners owing to delay in the Estates Commissioners' office and to want of funds.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

objected strongly to the Amendment on the ground of the pledges given by the Nationalist Party in 1903. It was a monstrous proposal, and he asked the Committee to reject it. They had been told that only in a few cases would these compulsory powers be used for the purpose of expropriating new tenants, but this Amendment did not confirm that view. Having regard to the Act of 1903, and the pledges which were given before the passing of that measure, it would be a gross breach of the bargain then made. They knew that the Attorney-General was unable to accept any Amendment with regard to those who had actually completed their purchases, and were in possession of their farms. If these so-called new tenants who had signed agreements to purchase in good faith, before there was any question of this Bill, were made subject to the provisions of this section, there would be an end to all bargains and pledges in that House. He had frequently stated and had never been contradicted, that when the Act of 1903 was passed there was no intention on the part of the Nationalist Members to ask for the expropriation of the new tenants. They said they would be perfectly content if powers were given to the Land Court to reinstate those unfortunate people who had been evicted, and especially those who had been evicted during the land war. Practically 95 per cent. had been reinstated, and yet hon. Members below the gangway asked that the men in possession should be asked to go out in favour of persons who had been evictee¹, perhaps, twenty-five years ago. Those evicted tenants had lost all connection with the districts in which they once lived, and probably they did not care whether they were reinstated there or somewhere else. It was a monstrous proposal, and he hoped the Committee would reject it.

MR. KILBRIDE ( Kildare, S.)

said he understood the Attorney-General to say that his objection to the Amendment was that the Government, if it were accepted, would have to deal with the cases of planters who had purchased under any of the Land Purchase Acts, and that that would involve such a large financial transaction that the Treasury would never consent to it. He knew of cases himself where tenants had got back into farms from which they were evicted and where a difficulty existed in making them tenant purchasers, because the person who purchased previously had not repaid the full purchase money to the Treasury. He could not understand why that difficulty should come in. If the original price of a holding was £1,000, and £250 had already been repaid to the Treasury in respect of the sinking fund portion of the annuity, leaving £750 still outstanding, where did the difficulty come in of the Treasury giving to the Estates Commissioners the £750 for the purpose of buying out the existing planter-purchaser, when the next day the Treasury would be getting back the same amount of money from the evicted tenant whom the Estates Commissioners proposed to reinstate in the holding? He really thought it was trifling with the House of Commons and the tenants of Ireland for the Attorney-General to put forward such an argument. The objection of Unionist Members was that it would be a monstrous thing to remove a farmer who had purchased. A stranger listening to their speeches would suppose that the planters were bona fide farmers. As a matter of fact, some of the planters who were put in at the time of the Plan of Campaign were shoemakers. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted more information as to cobblers and others who had been put into farms when the landlords could not get bona fide tenants, he should ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was one of those who started the Irish Land Trust Company to finance them. The funds were collected mainly from English landlords who wanted to stave off the land legislation with which they were now face to face. The hon. Member for North Armagh had said that these planters were bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. He should have thought that the hon. Member would have had more respect for himself than to be anxious to make the House of Commons understand that he claimed kinship with these men. The hon. Member knew that most of these men were advertised for, and that they were got in the slums of the Ulster towns. [Cries of "Oh."] The hon. Member for South Tyrone would acknowledge that, and he knew more about it than the hon. Member for North Armagh. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had done more for Irish landlords and landlordism than the hon. Member for North Armagh would be able to do if he lived to the age of Methuselah. [An Hon. Member: He is making up for it now.] Yes, he was making up for it now. The hon. Member for North Armagh had sold his estate, and had put into his pocket, through the action of the wounded soldiers of the land war, more than thirty-three years purchase of the net income.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment. It must be remembered that if we go into all these details we will never make progress.

MR. KILBRIDE

said that, if the Chief Secretary thought that the Bill as it stood, and without the acceptance of the Amendment or some modification of it, would settle for ever the evicted tenants question, he would find himself mistaken. The Chief Secretary knew the extreme landlords sufficiently well to know that if any loopholes were left, they would avail themselves of them for the purpose of defeating his object. He hoped, therefore, the Government would consider the Amendment, either in its present or some other form.

MR. BIRRELL

said that he and his right hon. and learned friend were in accord as to the line to be taken on this subject, and he was prepared to repeat what he understood the Attorney-General had already said. They were not prepared to throw open again the estates of these planters, who might have become purchasers under the Act of 1903. He dared say that a good deal might be said on both sides, but on the whole they were of the opinion that, after the great sacrifice made and the agreements arrived at, it would be undesirable to take away the land from those who had become possessors under the Act of 1903. He certainly thought when their cases came to be reviewed under the terms of the Bill, the Estate Commissioners would not feel themselves justified in seeking to evict those planters who had become purchasers of their holdings. He had always felt that there were two classes of planters, those who were bona fide farmers and had shown their interest in the soil and their desire to remain on it, and to become purchasers under the Act, and those with whom his hon. friend beside him (the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland) had at some period of his life, a closer connection than now, and who came and took possession, not so, much because they wanted to do so as because other people wanted them there in order to carry on a contest which they hoped was now coming to a conclusion. He was disposed to think that in those cases and where the planters had shown their bona fides, their good faith and their desire to remain on the land for the purpose of making it a marketable commodity, even if they had not become purchasers under the Act, the Estate Commissioners would exercise their discretion, and would not interfere with them. He was not, therefore, disposed to interfere with the decision which the Attorney-General had arrived at in the matter. His right hon. friend had, he believed, indicated a willingness to consider the cases of the planters who had only signed agreements and had not obtained their vesting orders. The question was obviously one as to what date should be inserted in the clause, and the matter would receive the attention of his right hon. friend the Attorney-General and himself. They were not prepared, however, to accept the Amendment in the form presented.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that he gathered that the Attorney-General did not go quite so far as the Chief Secretary had suggested. He understood that the Attorney-General had promised that he would consider an Amendment in regard to the cases in which vesting orders had not been made. He would appeal to the Chief Secretary. What argument was there that applied to the case of those who had obtained their vesting orders which did not equally apply to those who had not obtained them merely because the State had been unable to find the necessary money? It was not due to any want of willingness on their part or on the part of the landlord that the vesting orders had not been made; it was due solely to the fact that the State had not been able to find the money necessary to complete the purchase. The Chief Secretary had said that he rejected the Amendment in its main part because the tenants, by entering into purchasing arrangements, had given the strongest proof of their bona fide desire to be connected with the land and to remain on their holdings. There was no difference whatever between the proof given by the man whose vesting had taken place and the man whose vesting order had not been issued. The latter was not a bit less willing, nor had he shown any less desire than the former. If the right hon. Gentleman based his opposition to the Amendment on the ground that the purchasing tenants had given the strongest proof of their desire to be permanently connected with the land of which they were the occupiers and cultivators, he could not justify his refusal to consider the oases of men who had equally done everything they could to show the same desire and expose them to the possibility of displacement when the State had been the only stay in the operations. They were not fighting a Party question in any sense, and the history of the agrarian question as written in this House alone must tell the most casual student that, when they were dealing with it, they were on very different ground, and that it was almost impossible for anyone to tell what would follow from the best conceived and best worked out legislation. They believed that the Government were opening up difficulties, not for themselves—that was a matter it was not for them to look after; it was no business of theirs if the Government got into difficulty; on the contrary, it was their business to see they did get into difficulties—but they were opening up difficulties in regard to the general situation of the agrarian question in Ireland, and the step they were taking would bring in its train the gravest difficulties to the people in Ireland interested in the settlement of the land question. There was no distinction whatever between the position of the Irish tenant who had had the vesting order which made him the actual owner of his farm and the position of the tenant who had come to an agreement with his landlord, who had done everything he could to become the purchaser of his farm, who was sitting under conditions which led him to believe ho was to be the purchaser, and yet who had not received his vesting order. There had been £50,000,000 of sales in Ireland, of which only £20,000,000 odd had been paid for, and it was in respect of all these cases in which vesting orders had not been issued that it was proposed to expose the new tenants to expulsion. Whilst they refused to interfere with the man who had had his vesting order, they were going to disturb the man who had given the same proof of his desire to be permanently connected with the land he occupied, but who had not been able to acquire possession because the money had not been forthcoming to enable the order to issue. He said without hesitation that whilst the decision of the Government in regard to the major part of the Amendment was sound and one which the whole House ought to support in the interests of peace, their promise to re-open the cases where vesting orders had not been issued would create difficulties for the Government and their supporters and for those who would have to pay for the blunder of the Government. It must be remembered that those who lived in Ireland had to pay the price of the blunders of the Government.

MR. MOORE

wished to associate himself with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who had spoken before said that he had spent the greater part of his life in preventing "planters," or "grabbers" from getting possession of the land. In saying that the hon. Member was going against the leaders of his own Party, who said in that 1903 they would not consent to any measure or step which would expropriate these men.

Mr. O'SHEE

said that what he had done was done after the landlords had broken their part of the compact.

MR. MOORE

said he understood that the hon. Member had been engaged in a lifelong exploit in this regard, but now the hon. Gentleman seemed to be going quite contrary to the declarations of his leaders. [A Nationalist Member: Who is your leader, Moore?] He took it rather as a compliment that he was never able to address the House without interruption. The hon. Member seemed to think that this was a trivial Amendment, but there was no such person known to the law as a "new tenant purchaser." The moment a man became a purchaser he ceased to be a tenant, and the phrase "a new tenant purchaser" was something which the hon. Gentleman had adopted from the Freeman's Journal. A man could not be at the same time the tenant and the purchaser of a holding. He objected to the nomenclature which the hon. Member used in regard to this class of tenant, because if a man had purchased his land, or even if he had only signed a contract for the purchase of his land, he was in equity the owner of that land, although perhaps the contract had not been completed. There were only two cases before the House, namely, those of men who had purchased their land and those who were tenants, and the attempt of the hon. Member for West Waterford to create a third class must fail. It would be an intolerable thing if a man had within the last three years become a party to an agreement and paid money upon it that he should be made the subject of a statutory and compulsory eviction. Therefore the Attorney-General for Ireland was only doing what was honest and honourable when he said that new tenant purchasers in the sense in which those words were used by the hon. Member for Waterford were. not to be expropriated from their holdings. There was, he repeated, no such term as "new tenant purchaser," but he hoped that the Chief Secretary would put an Amendment in the Bill to the effect, that when they were dealing with untenanted land which was subject to an annuity to the Land Commissioners it should not be interfered with. That, however, was a subject for the Report stage. For all he knew, the action of the Estates Commissioners, or rather the action of the majority of the Estates Commissioners, might have been caused by the pressure which the hon. Member for Waterford boasted he had exercised during his lifetime. [Mr. BIRRELL dissented.] The Chief Secretary deprecated that statement, and he dared say that without consulting his experts he would continue to deprecate it; but they on that side were in a position in which they were free to criticise; and when an hon. Member said that for a quarter of a century he had been engaged in exercising pressure to bring this state of things about they did not know what the pressure to which he alluded might be. He protested against the idea, however, that when a man was not a tenant, and in equity was the possessor of the property and in equity was the purchaser of it, the Government of the day, in order to suit the Party exigencies of hon. Members below the gangway, were going to shoot him out altogether. What was he if he was neither a purchaser nor a tenant? And yet it was said that a man in this position who had been in possession for three or four years was to be shot out. The Government to be logical should treat him as a purchaser if an agreement was signed. He had had the pleasure of listening to the speech of an hon. Gentleman who said he was an evicted tenant. He did not complain of the references of the hon. Member to himself, or of the comparisons he made between the political records of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and himself. He had sat for thirteen years behind the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was now in a position in the present Government, and then the hon. Member protested not against the class of "planter" who had been described by the Chief Secretary as being dispossessed, but against the people who had risked their lives and their fortunes and who had come down to take possession of an evicted farm being dealt with.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

called attention to the fact that in the year 1894 he moved the clause which was supported by the hon. Member's leader to reinstate these evicted tenants.

MR. MOORE

did not know what that statement had to do with the matter. They did not object to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, but to the displacement of "planters," as they were affectionately called by hon. Members below the gangway. The hon. Member got up in those days and protested against any steps being taken against those new tenants. He said it would be an injustice, and if it was an injustice in 1894, what was it now when these "planters" had had children who had grown up, and who had been given in marriage, and who had been selling and purchasing land and borrowing money on their farms? The only difference was that in those days the hon. Member was elected by a Nationalist majority, instead of as now being elected by a Unionist majority. He would not have introduced this topic, but for the hon. Member's contrast of their political records. He had introduced a personal comparison between himself and the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it was unfortunate that these personal matters should be introduced. This topic, however, was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's ally the hon. Member for Kildare.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not quite see the relevance of these remarks upon this sub-section, which merely dealt with the question of finding land for new-tenants.

MR. MOORE

said he might be wrong, but he thought they were discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford which introduced the words "new tenant purchasers" upon which the Government had made a very important declaration. He would not, however, say anything more on the personal matter; he was led into his references by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had previously spoken. Speaking generally, however, he thought it was an unfortunate thing that the position of Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture, which the hon. Member for South Tyrone now occupied, should cease to be a non-political appointment, and that the occupant of the office should have a seat in that House. While he congratulated the Government on the unusual talent they had shown in coming half way towards what was right and fair, he still said it was an unfortunate thing that they should have gone so far in the concessions which they had made to hon. Members below the gangway.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he did not intend to enter into the general arguments of this Amendment. He had been listening to speeches from the hon. and learned Member now for some time with reference to this Bill, and he had not heard one speech from him in which he did not make very grave insinuations and accusations against the Estates Commissioners and against hon. Members for Ireland sitting below the gangway. His accusations had amounted to this, that they had been bringing improper pressure of one sort or another to bear upon the Estates Commissioners, and the insinuations had been to the effect that the Estates Commissioners had been, or were likely to be, moved by this improper pressure. The House knew that two of the Estates Commissioners held their office by tenure of an insecure character, and that they could be removed from office at the pleasure of the executive of the Government of the day. He had risen for the purpose of denying that they had ever directly or indirectly sought to bring any pressure whatever to bear upon any of the Estates Commissioners, and he was quite convinced, although it was not his habit to defend officials of the British Government in Ireland, that those gentlemen were not susceptible to pressure of this kind. But he had to say that the hon. Member himself had attempted to bring most improper pressure to bear upon one of these Commissioners. He had to say that the hon. and learned Member himself had addressed a letter to one of these Commissioners containing threats of what would happen to him if he pursued his present course of action when a change of Government took place. The writing of that letter was a most improper proceeding.

MR. MOORE,

rising to a point of order, said he had written a letter to one of the Commissioners in reference to a letter marked "private." Would the whole correspondence be read?

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the letter to which he was alluding was not marked private, and if he was not mistaken it contained the phrase that the gentleman to whom it was written might show it to anyone he liked. That letter, written to a man whose tenure of office was insecure, who held his office at the pleasure of the Government of the day, threatened this official that if he pursued his present course, in accordance with what he held to be his duty, he would be visited with pains and penalties when next the Tory Government came into office. Now, what about improper pressure brought upon these gentlemen? He had not got the letter, but it was in the possession of a Member of the House, and if his statement was challenged he called upon that Gentleman to read it.

MR. MOORE

said that, as he was the Member attacked he should say—as far as he remembered at any rate—he received a letter from one of the Estates Commissioners, and that was marked "private." He could not state the contents of it now unless he was authorised to do so, and he would not do so. Let any hon. Member authorise him to state what he received from him. He then wrote a letter in which he expressed his opinion and stated that he could show it to whom he liked. It was in marked contradistinction of the document marked "private." He received another letter—he did not think it was marked "private"—and he said he had written in consequence of the contents of the first letter. He had no objection to it being published, but he would not discuss it piecemeal. As to saying that he threatened this gentleman, he said that there should be an inquiry, and as far as he and his friends were concerned —he had no right to speak for a Tory Government—they would be delighted to have an inquiry as soon as they had the power.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said this was a purely personal matter which appeared, hardly relevant to this discussion.

MR. JOHN REDMOND,

with great respect, although not intending to contest the point with the Chair, expressed the view that it was not a purely personal question. An accusation had been made against him and his friends of bringing improper pressure to bear upon the Commissioners, and there had been an inneundo that these Commissioners had been influenced by that improper pressure. He answered that by denying the accusation against him and his hon. friends and by making a specific allegation that threats of this character were held out in a letter; and he now called for that letter to be read He had not the letter, but it was in the hands of an hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and he called on the hon. Gentleman to read it.

*THE CHAIRMAN

My point is that, I doubt if this is an occasion on which this matter is relevant.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I most respectfully say that this is a question as to whether the Estates Commissioners are to be trusted with the discretion of applying compulsion in certain cases to the planters of Ireland. The whole question turns on whether they are deserving of this discretion; and it is strictly relevant to that to consider whether they have yielded to improper pressure from these Benches, and it; is strictly relevant upon that question whether improper threats have been held out from other quarters. Again I call for the production of that letter.

MR. MOORE rose simultaneously with MR. RUSSELL.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for North Armagh rise to a point of order?

MR. MOORE

Yes, Sir. I am perfectly willing to have the letter read if that of Commissioner Bailey is also read.

*THE CHAIRMAN

This appears to have arisen out of some charges made when I was not here, and perhaps it would be better, if the hon. Member for Waterford wishes that the letter should be read, to have it read.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

It is well known that I am a very old friend of the Commissioner assailed in this correspondence; and before I left Ireland on Sunday MR. Bailey placed in my hands this letter, leaving it entirely to my discretion to use it or hot. I have been challenged to read it, and I think I ought to reply to that challenge. [Cries of "Read the whole correspondence."]

MR. WALTER LONG

I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is within the competence of an hon. Member to read a portion of correspondence the whole of which he has not got with him, and of which he only proposes to read one letter.

*THE CHAIRMAN

A particular letter has been asked for, and it may be read; but it is not in my power to compel the production of the whole correspondence.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL, proceeding,

said that in March, 1907, the hon. Member for East Down put a question to the Chief Secretary. [Cries of "That is not the letter."] It was a statement preparatory to the reading of the letter.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether, after the consent of the Chairman has been given for a certain letter to be read, it is competent for the hon. Member who has offered to read it to make a speech?

*THE CHAIRMAN

There is no such intention I think.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The hon. Member for East Down put a question in the House of Commons to the Chief Secretary in March, as to the delay in making land purchase advances. After the answer was given, the hon. Member for North Armagh put as a supplementary question, "Is the continual absence of Mr. Commissioner Bailey a cause of the delay?" The Speaker ruled the question out of order. Mr. Bailey's attention was called to the matter, and he wrote to the Chief Secretary on the subject, and also to the hon. Member for North Armagh. He pointed out that during the preceding twelve months he had not taken more than half the vacation to which he was entitled. [Cries of "Read the letter."] Mr. Bailey received the following letter from the Member for North Armagh:—

"Belfast,

19th March, 1907.

"Dear Bailey—

["We want Bailey's letter."] I have received the Chairman's permission to read this letter.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must appeal to hon. Members to keep order. I have given permission for this letter to be read.

SIR F. BANBURY

On a point of order, am I not right in thinking that the letter which the Member for Waterford called for was the letter written by Mr. Bailey. [Cries of "No."]

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is going to read the letter asked for and which I said could be read. ["Which letter?"] Order, order! I must appeal to Members of the Committee not to keep interrupting.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

On a point of order. You, Sir, having called on the hon. Member to address the Committee, is he not entitled to say anything or read anything he pleases, provided he is within the rules of order?

*THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly, he is entitled to do anything within the rules of order.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

then continued reading the letter as follows:— You were appointed by a Unionist Government to see fair play between Wrench and Finucane, and you have sold the pass on every occasion. The first thing my colleagues and I will do when we come back, which will not be far off, will be to press for an inquiry into the working of your department. You can destroy your evidence now, and show this to whom you please." [Interruption.]

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must appeal to hon. Members to keep quiet.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

Who is intimidating now?

MR. WALTER LONG

said he regretted that a letter which formed a portion, of a correspondence should have been read without the production of the other letters, and upon an occasion when, under the Order made by the Government, the Opposition were precluded from taking the only course that in the circumstances would have been possible—namely, moving the adjournment of the debate. A member of the Government had been able with marvellous celerity to produce the complement to the speech of the Member for Waterford, and he had done so without venturing to produce the correspondence of which it formed part, and under the protection of the Order to which he had already referred. But for this Order the Opposition would certainly have moved the adjournment of the debate to mark what they considered as, not only irregular, but as the most remarkable course ever taken by a member of a Government. ["Oh, oh."]

MR. MOORE

said he hoped the Committee would not deny him the right of making a personal explanation. Now that MR. Bailey had accommodated his friend the Member for South Tyrone with a sample of his own letter, he was released from the obligation of the word "private" put upon it. Mr. Bailey's letter was unsolicited and uncalled for. It contained a complaint that he had asked about Mr. Bailey's apparent neglect of his duties. He had asked why he was always to be seen at Westminster in company with hon. Members below the gangway, considering the judicial position he had in Ireland. Mr. Bailey's letter contained a statement which he regarded as an attack on Mr. Wrench. Mr. Bailey did not mention Mr. Wrench's name, but he said he had been in closer and longer attendance than his own colleagues, by whom he understood Mr. Wrench to be meant. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh."] Who else was there? He thought it was a most disloyal and unfair attack of one colleague in a Government office on another colleague, and he wrote to Mr. Bailey that he resented his marking his letter "private," and took the opportunity of saying that his own letter was not private. It might have been an imprudent letter, but he was not ashamed of it, and he would do it again if he thought a friend of his was unfairly attacked. In an acknowledgment which he wrote he said he should never have written the letter to him had he not unfairly attacked his own colleague, Mr. Wrench. That letter also was probably in the possession of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, so let him read that letter as well.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I need hardly say that I am not going to add anything to the controversy which has arisen. Unfortunately I was not here in the earlier stages, but I understand from my right hon. friend near me that the hon. Gentleman opposite has read a letter to a member of the Estates Commission. I am not going to express an opinion until I have fuller information as to whether that letter should have been read or not, but of this I am quite clear, that the letter should not be read alone. It is a perfectly well understood and universally accepted rule of the House that if a Minister of the Crown reads a letter the whole correspondence should be laid on the Table. That is not only, so far as I am aware, the settled practice of the House, but it is

obviously fair in the present situation. It may be—for I know nothing of the controversy—that when those letters are laid on the Table my hon. and learned friend behind me may have reason to regret that I asked for it. I do not know but at all events let us have the whole thing before us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Government will agree that the whole correspondence should be printed and laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he was afraid that the preface he gave to the letter was imperfectly heard on account of so much interruption. He agreed with what the Leader of the Opposition had said. He would communicate with MR. Bailey, and if he had the original letter it would be produced.

AN HON. MEMBER

Moore has it.

Mr. MOORE

I will produce it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 298. (Division List No. 302.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Hudson, Walter	Parker, James (Halifax)
Ambrose, Robert	Jowett, F. W.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Baring, Capt.Hn.G(Winchester)	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Barnes, G. N.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Redmond, William. (Clare)
Boland, John	Kilbride, Denis	Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampton
Bowerman, C. W.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	Richardson, A.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Clancy, John Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Clynes, J. R.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lundon. W.	Seddon, J.
Crean, Eugene	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Shackleton, David James
Cullinan, J.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Curran, Peter Francis	Macpherson. J. T.	Steadman, W. C.
Devlin, Joseph	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Thorne, William
Duffy, William J.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	M'Kean, John	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Farrell, James Patrick	M'Killop, W.	Walsh, Stephen
Field, William	Meagher, Michael	Ward. John (Stoke upon Trent
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meehan, Patrick A.	Wardle, George J.
Flynn, James Christopher	Mooney, J. J.	White, Patrick (Meath, North;
Gilhooly, James	Murnaghan, George	Wilkie, Alexander
Gill, A.' H.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Williams, Col. R, (Dorset, W.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nolan, Joseph	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Halpin, J.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,M.)	Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Hammond, John	O'Connor, John (Kildare.N.)	Young, Samuel
Harwood, George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry,W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hazleton, Richard	O'Grady, J.	Captain Donelan and Mr.
Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Malley, William	Patrick O'Brien.
Hodge, John	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Hogan, Michael	O'Shee, James John
NOES
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Delany, William	Lamont, Norman
Agnew, George William	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)	Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras, N	Lehmann, R. C.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Dobson, Thomas W.	Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Ashley, W. W.	Doughty, Sir George	Levy, Sir Maurice
Astbury, John Meir	Duckworth, James	Lewis, John Herbert
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Liddell, Henry
Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.	Elibank, Master of	Lough, Thomas
Balfour, RtHn A. J.(CityLond.)	Erskine, David C.	Lupton, Arnold
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Essex, R. W.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lynch, H. B.
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)	Everett. R. Lacey	Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs
Barker, John	Fell, Arthur	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fenwick, Charles	Maclean, Donald
Barnard, E. B.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	M'Callum, John M.
Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry,N.)	Findlay, Alexander	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Fletcher, J. S.	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Beauchamp, E.	Forster, Henry William	M'Micking, Major G.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Maddison, Frederick
Beck, A. Cecil	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Magnus, Sir Philip
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Fuller, John Michael F.	Mallet, Charles E.
Bell, Richard	Fullerton, Hugh	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford, S.	Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)
Benn, SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Marnham, F. J.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gibb, James (Harro W.)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Bertram, Julius	Glendinning, R. G.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bethell, SirJH (Essex, Romf'rd)	Glover, Thomas	Massie, J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Menzies, Walter
Black, Arthur W.	Gooch, George Peabody	Micklem, Nathaniel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Boyle, Sir Edward	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Bramsdon, T. A.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mond, A.
Branch, James	Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Bridgeman, W. Olive	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Montagu, E. S.
Brigg, John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Moore, William
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Morrell, Philip
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hart-Davies. T.	Morse, L. L.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cameron, Robert	Haworth, Arthur A.	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hedges, A. Paget	Murphy, John
Castlereagh, Viscount	Helme, Norval Watson	Murray, James
Causton, Rt.Hn. RichardKnight	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Napier, T. B.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Hervey, F.W.F(BuryS.Edmd's	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholls, George
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hills, J. W.	Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r
Chance, Frederick William	Hobart, Sir Robert	Norman, Sir Henry
Cheetham, John Frederick	Holland, Sir William Henry	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.	Holt, Richard Durning	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cleland, J. W.	Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon.N
Clough, William	Horniman, Emslie John	Partington. Oswald
Cobbold, Felix, Thornley	Houston, Robert Paterson	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hyde, Clarendon	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Collins, SirWm.J(S.Pancras,W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Pearson, Sir W. I). (Colchester)
Cooper, G. J.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Jackson, R. S.	Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jardine, Sir J.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Jenkins, J.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Cowan, W. H.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)
Craik, Sir Henry	Kearley, Hudson E.	Radford, G. H.
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Kekewich, Sir George	Rainy, A. Rolland
Crooks, William	Kelley, George D.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Crossley. William J.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Raphael, Herbert H.
Dalmeny, Lord	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel
Dalrymple, Viscount	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dalziel, James Henry	Laidlaw, Robert.	Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lambert, George	Rees, J. D.

Rendall, Athelstan	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Waterlow, D. S.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Snowden, P.	Watt, Henry A.
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Soares, Ernest J.	Whitbread, Howard
Robinson, S.	Spicer, Sir Albert	White, George (Norfolk)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Stanley, Hn.A.Lvulph(Chesh.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitehead, Rowland
Ronaldshay, Earl of	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Rose, Charles Day	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rowlands, J.	Sutherland, J. E.	Wiles, Thomas
Runciman, Walter	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Russell, T. W.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williamson, A.
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Thompson, J.W. H. (Somerset, E	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Thomson, W Mitchell.(Lanark)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Scott, A. H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Sears, J. E.	Toulmin, George	Winfrey, R.
Seaverns, J. H.	Trevelyan. Charles Philips	Wodehouse, Lord
Seely, Major J. B.	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Ure, Alexander	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Sherwell, Arthur James	Walton. Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—MR.
Shipman, Dr. John (J.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, RtHnE(Clackmannan	Pease.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the Home of 22nd July, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 341; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)	Branch, James	Crosfield, A. H.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Brigg, John	Crossley, William J.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cullinan, J.
Agnew, George William	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Curran, Peter Francis
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dalmeny, Lord
Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dalziel, James Henry
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Byles, William Pollard	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Ambrose, Robert	Cameron, Robert	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Armitage, R.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Delany, William
Astbury, John Meir	Causton, Rt HnRichardKnight	Devlin, Joseph
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Chance, Frederick William	Dickinson, W.H.(S. Pancras.N
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)	Cheetham, John Frederick	Dobson, Thomas W.
Barker, John	Cherey, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Donelan, Captain A.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Clancy, John Joseph	Duckworth, James
Barnard, E. B.	Cleland, J. W.	Duffy, William J.
Barnes, G. N.	Clough, William	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness
Beauchamp, E.	dynes, J. R.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Elibank, Master of
Beck, A. Cecil	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Erskine, David C.
Bell, Richard	Collins, SirWm.J.(S.P'ncr's,W	Essex, R. W.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Eve, Harry Trelawney
Benn, SirJ Williams(Dev'np'rt)	Cooper, G. J. Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Everett, R. Lacey
Berridge, T. H. D.		Farrell, James Patrick
Bertram, Julius	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Fenwick, Charles
Bethell, SirJH(Essex, R'mf'rd)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cowan, W. H.	Field, William
Black, Arthur W.	Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	Findlay, Alexander
Boland, John	Crean, Eugene	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bowerman, C. W.	Cremer, Sir William Randal	Flynn, James Christopher Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bramsdon, T. A.	Crooks, William
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lynch, H. B.	Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald.J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs	Rees, J. D.
Gardner, Col Alan Hereford,S.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Kendall, Athelstan
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Maclean, Donald	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Gilhooly, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Richardson, A
Gill, A. H.	Macpherson, J. T.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Glover, Thomas	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.	Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'd
Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Gooch, George Peabody	M'Kean, John	Robinson, S.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robson. Sir William Snowdon
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Killop, W.	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Maddison, Frederick	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Halpin, J.	Mallet, Charles E.	Rose, Charles Day
Hammond, John	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rowlands, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln	Runciman, Walter
Hart-Davies, T.	Marnham, F. J.	Russell, T. W.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Harwood, George	Massie, J.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Meagher, Michael	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hayden, John Patrick	Meehan, Patrick A.	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Hazleton, Richard	Menzies, Walter	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Healy, Timothy Michael	Micklem, Nathaniel	Scott, A. H. (Asht'n-und'r-Lyne
Hedges, A. Paget	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sears, J. E.
Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.	Seaverns, J. H.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Seddon, J.
Higham, John Sharp	Montagu, E. S.	Seely, Major J. B.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Mooney, J. J.	Shackleton, David James
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hodge, John	Morrell. Philip	Shaw, Rt.Hon.T. (Hawick B.)
Hogan, Michael	Morse, L. L.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Holland, Sir William Henry	Morton, Alphens Cleophas	Slier well, Arthur James
Holt, Richard Durning	Murnaghan, George	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset.N	Murphy, John	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Horniman, Emslie John	Murray, James	Simon, John Allsebrook
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hudson, Walter	Napier, T. B.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hyde, Clarendon	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Snowden, P.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nicholls, George	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nicholson, Charles N (D'ncast'r	Soares, Ernest J.
Jackson, R. S.	Nolan, Joseph	Spicer, Sir Albert
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Norman, Sir Henry	Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)
Jardine, Sir J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Steadman, W. C.
Jenkins, J.	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Md	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jones, William (Carnavonsh.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Stuart, James. (Sunderland)
Jowett, F. W.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Sutherland, J. E.
Joyce, Michael	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Grady, J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Kelley, George D.	O'Malley, William	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Thompson, JWH(Somerset, E.
Kilbride, Denis	O'Shee, James John	Thorne, William
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Parker, James (Halifax)	Tomkinson, James
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Partington, Oswald	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Laidlaw, Robert	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Toulmin, George
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lambert, George	Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)	Ure, Alexander
Lamont, Norman	Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye	Verney, F. W.
Lardner, James Carriage Rushe	Philipps, Col.Ivor.(S'thampton	Vivian, Henry
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (StPancras.E)	Pirie, Duncan V.	Walsh, Stephen
Lehmann, R. C.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S
Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich	Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)	Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent
Lewis, John Herbert	Priestley, W. E. B. (BradfordE.)	Wardle, George J.
Lough, Thomas	Radford, G. H.	Wason, Rt HnE(Clackmannan
Lundon, W.	Rainy, A. Holland	Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney
Lupton, Arnold	Raphael, Herbert H.	Waterlow, D. S.
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Watt, Henry A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wilkie, Alexander	Winfrey, R.
Whitbread, Howard	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Wodehouse. Lord
White, George (Norfolk)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire	Williamson, A.	Young, Samuel
White, Luke (York, E.R.)	Wills, Arthur Walters
White, Patrick(Meath, North)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)	Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Whitehead, Rowland	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Whitley, John Henry Halifax	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Wiles, Thomas	Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Doughty, Sir George	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington
Ashley, W.W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Percy, Earl
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.Sir H	Fardell, Sir T. George	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fletcher, J. S.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Fredk. Peel
Baring, CptHn.G. (Winchester)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry,N.)	Gretton, John	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon.Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hervey, F.W.F.(B'ryS.Edm'ds	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hills, J. W.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Bull, Sir William James	Hunt, Rowland	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Kenyon Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col.W	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs.)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	King, Sir Hen. Seymour (Hull	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Thomson, W.Mitchell(Lanark
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cave, George	Liddell, Henry	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.	Lockwood, Rt.Hon.Lt.-Cl.A.R	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Long, Col. Chas.W.(Evesham)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt.Hn.Walt.(Dublin,S)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wilson, A.Stanl'y.(York, E.R.
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A. (Wore	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wortley, Rt. Hon.C.B.Stuart-
Corbett,A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Mason,.James F. (Windsor)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Younger, George
Courthope, G. Loyd	Moore, William
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craik, Sir Henry	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Nield, Herbert

Clause 2:—

Verbal Amendment made.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 346; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 304)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Barnard, E. B.	Branch, James
Abraham. William (Rhondda)	Barnes, G. N.	Brigg, John
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Beauchamp, E.	Brodie, H. C.
Agnew, George William	Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Burke, E. Haviland-
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Beck, A. Cecil	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Bell, Richard	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Bellairs, Carlyon	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ambrose, Robert	Benn, SirJ. Williams(Devonprt	Byles, William Pollard
Armitage, R.	Berridge, T. H. D.	Cameron, Robert
Astbury, John Meir	Bertram, Julius	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Bethell, SirJ. H.(Essex,Romfrd	Causton, RtHnRichard Knight
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cawley, Sir Frederick
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Black, Arthur W.	Chance, Frederick William
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)	Boland, John	Cheetham, John Frederick
Barker, John	Bowerman, C. W.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bramsdon, T. A.	Clancy, John Joseph
Cleland, J. W.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe	Mond, A.
Clough, William	Higham, John Sharp	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clynes, J. R.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Montagu, E. S.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Mooney, J. J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hodge, John	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Collins, Sir Wm.J.(SPancras W	Hogan, Michael	Morrell, Philip
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Holland, Sir William Henry	Morse, L. L.
Cooper, G.J.	Holt, Richard Durning	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Corbett.CH (Sussex.E. Grinst'd	Hope, W. Bateman (Som'setN.	Murnaghan, George
Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Horniman, Emslie John	Murphy, John
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Murray, James
Cowan, W. H.	Hudson, Walter	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hyde, Clarendon	Napier, T. B.
Crean, Eugene	Illingworth, Percy H.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Nicholls, George
Crooks, William	Jackson, R. S.	Nicholson, CharlesN.(Donc'str
Crosfield, A. H.	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Nolan, Joseph
Crossley, William, J.	Jardine, Sir J.	Norman, Sir Henry
Cullinan, J.	Jenkins, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Curran, Peter Francis	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Brien, Kendal(Tippera'y Mid
Dalmeny, Lord	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, William (Carn'rv'nshire	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jowett, F. W.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Joyce, Michael	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Delany, William	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Devlin, Joseph	Kekewich, Sir George	O'Grady, J.
Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)	Kelley, George D.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N
Dickinson, W.H.(St.P'ncr'sN.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Malley, William
Dobson, Thomas W.	Kilbride, Denis	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Donelan, Captain A.	Kincaid Smith, Captain	O'Shee, James John
Duckworth, James	King, Alfred John (Knutsford	Parker, James (Halifax)
Duffy, William J.	Laidlaw, Robert	Partington, Oswald
Duncan,C. (Barrow-in Furness	Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dunn, A, Edward (Camborne)	Lambert, George	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Elibank, Master of	Lamont, Norman	Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)
Erskine, David C.	Lardner, James Carige Rushe	Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)
Essex. R. W.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Layland Barratt, Francis	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Everett, R. Lacey	Lea, Hugh Cecil St.Pancras,E.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare,
Farrell, James Patrick	Lehmann, R. C.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Fenwick, Charles	Lever,A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Levy, Sir Maurice	Price, C.E. (Edinburgh, Central
Field, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)
Findlay, Alexander	Lough, Thomas	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lundon, W.	Radford, G. H.
Flynn, James Christopher	Lupton, Arnold	Rainy, A. Rolland
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Raphael, Herbert H.
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lynch, H. B.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Fuller, John Michael F.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Redmond, John E.(Waterford,
Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald,.J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs	Redmond, William (Clare)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rees, J. D.
Gilhooly, James	Maclean, Donald	Rendall, Athelstan
Gill, A. H.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richards, T.F. (Wolver'mpt'n)
Glendinning, R. G.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Richardson, A.
Glover, Thomas	Macpherson, J. T.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gooch, George Peabody	MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal,E.	Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradfrd
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Callum, John M.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robinson, S.
Griffith, Ellis, J.	M'Killop, W.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gurdon, Rt.Hn.SirW.Br'mpt'n	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Micking, Major G.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Halpin, J.	Maddison, Frederick	Roe, Sir Thomas
Hammond, John	Mallet, Charles E.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rose, Charles Day
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)	Rowlands, J.
Hart-Davies, T.	Marnham, F. J.	Runciman, Walter
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Russell, T. W.
Harwood, George	Massie, J.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hayden, John Patrick	Meagher, Michael	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hazleton, Richard	Meehan, Patrick A-	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Healy, Timothy Michael	Menzies, Walter	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hedges, A. Paget	Micklem, Nathaniel	Scott, A. H.(AshtonunderLyne
Helme, Norval Watson	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sears, J. E.

Seaverns, J. H.	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe	White,J.D. (Dumbartonshire)
Seddon, J.	Thomas, SirA. (Glamorgan.E.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Seely, Major J. B.	Thompson, J. W. H. (S'm'rs't, E.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Shackleton, David James	Thorne, William	Whitehead, Rowland
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Tomkinson, James	Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)
Shaw, Rt. Hon.T.(Hawick,B.)	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Toulmin, George	Wiles, Thomas
Sherwell, Arthur James	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wilkie, Alexander
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Ure, Alexander	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Verney, F. W.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Simon, John Allsebrook	Vivian, Henry	Williamson, A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Wills, Arthur Walters
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Snowdon, P.	Walsh, Stephen	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Walters, John Tudor	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N.)
Soares, Ernest J.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancres, S.)
Spicer, Sir Albert	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.	Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)	Winfrey, R.
Steadman, W. C.	Wardle, George J.	Wodehouse, Lord
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wason, RtHnE. (Clackmannan	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Strachey, Sir Edward	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)	Young, Samuel
Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Waterlow, D. S.
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Watt, Henry A.	Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Sutherland, J. E.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	White George (Norfolk)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Doughty, Sir George	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n
Ashley, W. W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Percy, Earl
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hn. SirH	Fardell, Sir T. George	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balfour, Rt, Hn. A. G. (City Lon,	Fletcher, J. S.	Ratcliff; Major R. F.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banner, John S. Harmood	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Baring, Capt. Hn.G.(W'ch'ter)	Gretton, John	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry,N.)	Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervasse	Hervey, F.W.F.(Bu'yS.Edm'ds	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hill Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hills, J. W.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bridgman, W. Clive	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hunt, Rowland	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Bull, Sir William James	Kenyon Slaney, RtHonCol. W.	Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Keswick, William	Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormski'k
Butcher, Samuel Henry	King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cave, George	Liddell, Henry	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cavendish, RtHon.VictorC.W	Lockwood, Rt.HnLt.-Col.A.R	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent,Mid.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Long, Rt. Hn. Waiter(Dublin, S	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.
Chamberlain, RtHonJ.A.(Wor	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Courthope, G. Loyd	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S	Morpeth, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Nield, Herbert

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.