EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 29 July 1907 vol 179 cc501-87

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

moved that the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee. A great deal more evidence and information was, he said, necessary before the House could agree to pass the measure. They had already finished the Committee Stage of the Bill, and so far as he could gather from what passed during the discussion, the only argument the Government could put forward was that of urgency. That might or might not be a good argument, but he wished to complain strongly of the very small amount of evidence the Government had brought forward in defence of the Bill. The reason for the Bill seemed an entirely sentimental one on the part of the Irish Secretary who, having failed to pass the Irish Council Bill, was determined to pass some sort of Irish measure this session. However that might be, the House was most certainly entitled to more information than that which had been afforded either by the report of the Estates Commissioners or by the Attorney-General and the Irish Secretary. In the first place they ought to know how these 2,000 tenants were made up. They were led to understand that in 1903 only 600 to 800 tenants were to be provided for. Now they were told that the number had increased to 2,000. They had been refused point blank any particulars with regard to the list. The Irish Secretary had urged that such information would entail a great deal of work upon the Estates Commissioners, but his reply to that was that all the information was at present in the Estates Commissioners office in tabulated form, and that all that was needed was to present it to the House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. They also required that they should have further information as to the methods to be adopted by the Estates Commissioners in settling the price to be paid per acre for the farms which they acquired compulsorily. There was also an important question as to how the grass-lands to be acquired were to be valued. Two possible views had been indicated, one that the landlord who was compelled to sell his grasslands should receive for them at least the full market value, and the other that the price should be what they would fetch if subject to a judicial rent. Where the grass-lands were subject to a judicial rent they would fetch 20s., 25s., and at the outside 30s. an acre, whereas when let on the eleven months system they were worth £2 to £4 an acre. That meant a great difference to the landlord, and it was a point upon which they should have some definite information. There was nothing laid down in the Bill as to the way in which these lands were to be valued. There ought to be more information than had been supplied as to the disparity between the number of tenants to be reinstated and the number they all thought would have to be reinstated to clear up the matter. Information was also required showing that the Commissioners had really used all the powers they possessed to acquire land voluntarily before they resorted to compulsion. He claimed that their Report did not show that. There was a bald statement that so many acres would be required for the purposes of the Act, and also that application made to a certain number of landlords had not produced up to the present any very great effect.

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

asked whether the hon. Member was in order in speaking on the merits of the Bill, the real question being whether it should be recommitted to a Select Committee.

MR. SPEAKER

said he gathered that the argument of the hon. Member was that before the House debated the Bill further it required further information, and that that information could only be obtained by sending it to a Select Committee which could call evidence. That was the only line of argument open to the hon. Member, and he must confine himself to that.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he thought he had been doing that. He was trying to show that it would be beneficial to the House to have evidence from the Commissioners and other persons to show that all efforts had been made to acquire the land necessary to carry out the Act. It was stated in the Report that the Commissioners had been able to acquire 80,000 acres for the purpose of reinstating tenants, and in the view of the Committee on Congestion it was required for that purpose. It was a point on which the House of Commons should ask for information whether the urgency of this evicted tenants question was not such that the 80,000 acres already acquired was not sufficient for the purpose. He submitted that no urgency had been shown for the Bill, and that before urgency could be accepted as the reason for it the House should have evidence from other persons besides the Chief Secretary. The Commissioners themselves and their innumerable inspectors engaged in the work could give very valuable information in that respect. The Chief Secretary's arguments had been entirely confined to the urgency of the measure. The proper way, therefore, was to recommit the Bill to a Select Committee who could examine not only the Commissioners and inspectors, evicted tenants and landlords in the West of Ireland, but generally the numerous persons who might be in many respects adversely affected by the Bill.

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

said that if ever there was an occasion on which a Bill should be recommitted the present was one. There never was a Bill so gagged as this one had been or where discussion had been so stifled. He thought he was correct in saying that only three clauses had been discussed, and he was quite sure that the Chief Secretary would admit there had been absolutely no obstruction but simply a desire to debate points and assist the Government. His hon. friend was fully justified in saying that this was one of the most revolutionary measures ever brought into the House. The fact that there had been practically no discussion whatever showed there was all the more need for re-examination before these unhappy people who had been in some cases more than a quarter of a century in their farms were turned out to make way for other tenants. There was nothing in the Bill to show what tribunal would carry out these evictions, and the fact that a number of men were coming from America and Australia, in fact from the ends of the earth, to claim possession of these farms which had been in possession of their present tenants in some cases for a quarter of a century, showed distinctly that there ought to be a very clear discussion as to what this tribunal should be, and a more thorough examination of the measure. The Bill would sow discord and, he believed, paralyse the agricultural industry by hanging an uncertain fate over the unfortunate present tenants, and that was an important reason why that and so many other important points should receive fuller discussion. He accordingly seconded the Motion for recommittal.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Charles Craig.)

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.)

said it was conceivable that there might be occasions when it would be proper on the Report Stage to move that a Bill should be recommitted to a Select Committee, but he submitted that the present was not such an occasion. The effect of carrying the motion would be clearly dilatory. The hon. Member had said there was no urgency for this Bill. How far he was in order in saying that he was not sure. It had been further stated that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of soothing his wounded pride because of the unfavourable reception which the Irish Council Bill received at the hands of the Irish representatives. Anyone who knew the circumstances would know that the Bill was brought in on account of a distinct pledge given before the Council Bill was introduced. He obtained permission from the Treasury to increase the staff of inspectors for the very purpose of being able to form something like a definite opinion as to the number of evicted tenants who would require to be dealt with. Accordingly as soon as that work was done, this Bill became an absolute necessity, a fulfilment of a definite Parliamentary pledge given by himself, and also by his right hon. friend who preceded him in office. Therefore, there was no association whatever between the introduction of this Bill and the reception given to the Irish Council Bill. This Bill would have been introduced even if the Irish Council Bill had not been introduced, or if, having been introduced, it had been proceeded with. The hon. Member had said that he wanted more information, but he would surely admit that the question had been argued and re-argued whether the number of evicted tenants was 2,000 more or less. They had dealt with that until he was nearly tired of giving the information, though he might not have satisfied the hon. Member's mind. In regard to another point, the hon. Member had said that there was a difference in the price per acre according as the land was used for one purpose or another. That might be a good ground for an Amendment to be introduced into the Bill, but it was no ground for its recommital to a Select Committee. Another point stated by the hon. Member was that there was no evidence before the House that the Estates Commissioners had taken all the steps they could to acquire land for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants without compulsion at all. It had been suggested that it might be sufficient if they wore allowed to acquire the land voluntarily. He submitted that that was a matter which the Government must take the responsibility of deciding upon. He had no desire to say that all the Commissioners were agreed on this point. He understood that Mr. Commissioner Wrench, for example, was of opinion that compulsory powers were not necessary. He did not, and never had, based himself on the evidence or the Report of the Commissioners. The Government was satisfied that this question had stood over long enough, and that unless steps were taken to enable the Estates Commissioners, or other persons who might be entrusted with the job, to acquire land in a short space of time, by compulsion if necessary, the question would hang fire for the next five or six years as it had hung fire in the past. He did not know what the Second Reading of a Bill was for if it was not to determine questions of that sort. The House of Commons determined on the Second Reading that that was not an unreasonable thing to be demanded. To ask that on the Report stage the Bill should be recommitted, or, in other words, that their labour was to be thrown away, was playing with the House. The hon. Member for North Down had said the Bill had not been properly discussed in Committee. He quite agreed that it had not been properly discussed, but whose fault was that? If they were going to say that they would never discuss properly a Bill put through by closure by compartments, if the Opposition said the House was insulted by closure by compartment, then of course they understood one another.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

said that after the first day the right hon. Gentleman would admit that there had been no obstruction.

MR. BIRRELL

said he was quite prepared to leave that to the sense of the House. If after the first day the Bill could have been dealt with in the course of three or four days, then he agreed that closure by compartments would have been quite unnecessary. The Government might have been mistaken in the spirit with which the Bill had been received, but they considered that they had given ample time for the discussion of every important clause. He quite agreed that as it turned out some of the clauses had not been sufficiently discussed, but if they could not discuss a Bill of this sort in three days then there was an end to all Parliamentary discussion. If they had not had ample time to discuss the Bill in Committee, that was all the more reason why they should not waste any further time in dilatory motions.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said that when the right hon. Gentleman accused his friend behind him of pursuing dilatory tactics he came perilously near coming under his own condemnation, because everybody knew that if the Irish Council Bill had been proceeded with there would have been no time for the discussion of this or any other measure unless the House had sat till Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman must have been speaking in a vein of sarcasm when he talked about the House coming to the conclusion that the tactics of his hon. friends behind him were of an obstructive character. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the House consisted of the Unionist and Nationalist Members from Ireland, himself and one of his colleagues, and two other hon. Members. That was the jury by whom the tactics of the Unionists were to be tried—that was to say they were to be tried by their political opponents.

MR. BIRRELL

said there were not many of his political opponents present. The opposition was almost entirely from two or three hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that that was a fair proportion. The right hon. Gentleman had declared the Motion to be one which ought not to have been made, and had asked how it could have been made after the Second Reading, on which the principles of the Bill had been accepted. The Chief Secretary apparently entirely ignored the fact that some of the Amendments proposed by the Opposition during the Committee stage would have had a safeguarding or limiting effect on the Bill. He did not expect that his opponents would agree that some of those Amendments were absolutely fair and reasonable and ought to have been accepted by the Government if they really meant what they said as to the way in which the Bill was to be carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment limiting the powers of the Estates Commissioners and the time during which they were to be exercised, there would not have been a necessity for a Motion of this kind. Some fuller evidence, he contended, ought to be given to the House as to the principles on which the Bill was to be applied. Whatever information the right hon. Gentleman had, he had never condescended to give it to the House. The principles referred to by his hon. friend were as to buying land worth £3 or £4 an acre at a price of £1 an acre. He did not wonder that his hon. friend had made that Motion. As to the reference to the time taken up for discussion, if there had been any attempt to repeat the points on which they had raised discussion, not on the principle of the Bill, but merely on the limitation, there would have been some grounds for complaint. As it was he submitted there were no good grounds for such complaints on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. His contention was there was no justification for powers so drastic to be given to the Estates Commissioners. If that was in order to do what the Government wished, namely, to reinstate a sufficient number of evicted tenants, that could have been done with a much more moderate measure than the present one.

MR. T. M. HEALY

desired to leave it on record as an historic fact that in the long course of years in which the Irish Party had been necessarily in antagonism to the Tory Party, and even to the Liberal Party, no Motion of this kind had over been made by the Nationalists on the Report stage of any Bill. They were opposed to the Arms Bill and all the Coercion Bills passed by that House, but they had never made a dilatory Motion of this kind. He believed that it had been made by another Party once within thirty years. He thought that it was of some importance as justifying the respect shown to Parliamentary forms and the position of the House by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to state that no Motion parallel to this had ever been made by them.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

wished to support the Motion for reasons which he thought were reasonable and strong.

*MR. LEIF JONES, (Westmoreland, Appleby)

on a point of order, asked what, seeing that the House had decided to finish the Report stage that evening, would be the position of the House if this Motion was carried. Would they have the moans of compelling the Select Committee to make their Report that day so that the Report stage might be taken at 10.30, as the House had already determined on the Motion of the Prime Minister?

MR. SPEAKER

said it was obvious that if the Motion was carried there was an end of the Bill for this session. He could not help Motions being made; several might be made which would put an end to the Bill. He could not object to a Motion when it had been moved.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said that it had been made pretty clear that the action for closuring discussion of the Bill by compartments had been taken for the convenience of the Government. It was necessary to assist the Government in carrying out their programme. The Chief Secretary surely did not expect the Opposition to have much sympathy with that line of argument. The right hon. Gentle man knew that his Bill was hanging fire. It ought to hang fire a good deal longer; and the right hon. Gentle man could not expect Members on that side of the House to sacrifice what they believed to be the cause of justice and fair play because the Bill was hanging fire. There ran through every line of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on almost every clause the suggestion that the House should take the Bill because he placed unlimited trust in the Estates Commissioners and that the Bill would be host administered by them. He was in direct conflict with the light hon. Gentleman. He did not trust the Estates Commissioners. This was not personal to the Commissioners them selves. He did not know and had never exchanged a word with any of them; and he did not impugn their sense of honour or their knowledge. He thought their position was absolutely impossible and they ought not to be in it. He knew quite well that the retort of the right hon. Gentleman would be that these gentlemen had been appointed by the late Government; but that did not preclude him from saying that that action was a mistake. The Commission ought to have been on the lines of the Charity Commission or of a Government Department, by whose action the Government would stand or fall. He believed that the constitution of the Commission was unconstitutional. In the second place he did not believe in the Commissioners or place any confidence in them, because of the language which they themselves had used in connection with some of the points in the Bill. That ought to be borne in mind when the House was putting the liberties, the property, and the amenities of life of the owners of that property absolutely under the heel of those gentlemen. He believed that there was a further intention on the part of the Government—

MR. SPEAKER

said he did not see how the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were pertinent to the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he wanted the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, which would take notice that the powers to be granted to the Estates Commissioners would be destructive of different classes of property, and put the owners under the heel of the Commissioners. He felt very strongly on this point. He had taken the trouble to read up what the Commissioners had said in regard to the way in which certain tenants had been treated, and he wished to show that these gentlemen were likely to do what was wrong.

MR. SPEAKER

remarked that if the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman had been destroyed, he did not think there was any hope of its being restored by further examination of the subject by a Select Committee.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said his confidence might be restored by a future discussion. His distrust was, he thought, justified.

MR. SPEAKER

said the right hon. and gallant Member's remarks were not relevant to the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee. The point the hon. Member was raising could be dealt with on a future day on another part of the Bill.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he wished frankly to lay before the House the reasons why he thought the Commissioners ought not to be entrusted with the carrying out of this Bill. That might not be the right season to raise the question, and if it was not, ho immediately gave way, but by the evidence which had been printed and made public, it appeared that the Commissioners had absolutely departed from the position they ought to have taken up.

MR. SPEAKER

did not think the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were relevant to the Motion before the House. He could attack the Commissioners at a later stage of the Bill.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he would in that case raise the question at the right time, and it would knock the bottom and substance out of the Bill, if it was to be a measure of justice and was not brought forward merely to sustain the reputation of His Majesty's Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes. 249. ("Division List No. 331.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, RtHn. SirAlex.F.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Salter Arthur Clavell
Baldwin, Alfred	Fell, Arthur	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Balfour, RtHn. A. J.(CityLond.)	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Baring, Capt. Hn.G (Winchester	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hunt, Rowland	Valentia, Viscount
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kenyon Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kimber, Sir Henry	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Liddell, Henry	Younger. George
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Nield, Herbert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Craik, Sir Henry	Parker. SirGilbert (Gravesend)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
NOES,
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Acland, Francis Dyke	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Cooper, G. J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Alden, Percy	Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Haworth, Arthur A.
Ambrose, Robert	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hayden, John Patrick.
Asquith, Rt.HonHerbertHenry	Cox., Harold	Hazleton, Richard
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Crean. Eugene	Healy, Timothy Michael
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Crombie, John William	Hedges, A. Paget
Barker, John	Crooks, William	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Barlow, Prcy (Bedford)	Crossley, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Cullinan, J.	Hodge, John
Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Curran. Peter Francis	Hogan, Michael
Beauchamp. E.	Dalziel, James Henry	Horniman. Emslie John
Bell, Richard	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inderness-sh.)	Hudson, Walter
Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd	Donelan, Captain A.	Idris, T. H. W.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex,. Maldon)	Duckworth. James	Illingworth. Percy H.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Duffy, William J.	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Black, Arthur W.	Dunn. A. Edward (Camborne)	Jenkins, J.
Boland, John	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Boulton. A. C F.	Elibank, Master of	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)
Bowerman, C. W.	Evans, Samuel T.	Jones. Leif (Appleby)
Branch. James	Everett, R. Lacey	Jordan, Jeremiah
Brigg. John	Fenwick, Charles	Jowett, F. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Ferens, T. R.	Joyce, Michael
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)	Ffrench, Peter	Kearley, Hudson E.
Brunner, RtHnSir J. T.(Cheshire	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Kekewich, Sir George
Burke, E. Haviland-	Flynn, James Christopher	Kennedy. Vincent Paul
Burns, Rt. Hon. John.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Kilbride, Denis
Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas	Fowler. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Laidlaw. Robert
Byles, William Pollard	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lambert, (George
Cameron. Robert	Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)	Lamont. Norman
Campbell-Bannerman. Sir H.	Gilhooly, James	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn	Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Chance, Frederick William	Gooch, George Peabody	Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras,E.)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Grant, Corrie	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lehmann. R. C.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gulland, John W.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Cleland, J. W.	Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton	Lewis, John Herbert
Clough, William	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Clynes. J. R.	Halpin, J.	Lough. Thomas
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hammond, John	Lundon, W,
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	O'Shee, James John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Lyell, Charles Henry	Parker, James (Halifax)	Snowden, P.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Partington, Oswald	Spicer, Sir Albert
Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Mackarness. Frederic C.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Strachey, Sir Edward
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Pikersgill, Edward Hare	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Mac Veigh, Charles)Donegal, E.)	Pollard, Dr.	Sutherland, J. E.
M'Callum, John M.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central	Tennant, SirEdward (Salisbury)
M'Killop, W.	Pullar, Sir Robert	Thorne, William
Maddison, Frederick	Radford, G. H.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Mallet, Charles E.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Marnham, F. J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Ure, Alexander
Massie, J.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Verney, F. W.
Masterman, C. F. G.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Meagher, Michael	Reddy, M.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Meehan, Patrick A.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wardle, George J.
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, William (Clare)	Waring, Walter
Micklem, Nathaniel	Rees, J. D.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Molteno, Percy Alport	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Montagu, E. S.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradfrd	Waterlow, D. S.
Mooney, J. J.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Watt, Henry A.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Weir, James Galloway
Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Whitbread, Howard
Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Rogers, F. E. Newman	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Rose, Charles Day	Whitehead, Rowland
Murnaghan, George	Runciman, Walter	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Murphy, John	Russell, T. W.	Wiles, Thomas
Murray, James	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Myer, Horatio	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Wilson, Henry J.)York, W.R.)
Napier, T. B.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.)
Nolan, Joseph	Sears, J. E.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Seaverns, J. H.	Winfrey, R.
O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid	Seddon, J.	Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Seely, Major J. B.
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
O'Grady, J.	Sheehy, David
O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.	Sherwell, Arthur James
O'Malley, William	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sloan, Thomas Henry

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

moved a new clause giving the Estates Commissioners power to acquire land subject to an annuity by agreement. He explained that he had been induced to leave out words which would refer back to the Irish Land Act of 1903 as amended by this Bill, because he understood they would create difficulty in the way of Estates Commissioners getting rid of the now tenants, which it seemed would be necessary in order to restore the evicted tenants in every case. The evicted tenants were now said to amount to 2,000 in number, and it seemed that under this provision it would be necessary to get rid of the now tenant in every case. In some cases no doubt it would be difficult to do so, but if this clause was enacted the Estates Commissioners would be very easily able to get lands upon an estate in the neighbourhood for the evicted tenants and provide them with new farms. For these easons he thought he should have the support of hon. Members above the gangway. Hon. Members ought to view this clause with considerable favour, because if the annuity for the redemption of the farm had been paid up for fifteen or sixteen years it could be acquired more cheaply than on terms which could be procured now. It would enable the Estates Commissioners to deal more generously with new tenants and also with the evicted tenants. There was no available untenanted land throughout the length and breadth of the counties of Waterford, Cork, or Tipperary to provide for the evicted tenants unless they evicted the new tenants in every case. The men, however, when offered better farms in county Meath preferred to stick to their own county. They preferred a farm on the mountains and highlands of Waterford rather than one on the plains of Meath. If a part of the annuity had been paid off be did not see why they should not save the Treasury money.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

seconded, and urged the difficulty of securing lands in localities suitable for evicted tenants. He need hardly point to the difficulty of securing untenanted land unless some provision of this sort was made. It was very great, and from the Treasury point of view he thought some inexpensive way under which the land could be acquired should be devised. It was impossible to acquire untenanted land without a large expenditure as to buildings being entered upon, but under the Amendment, if an inspector was sent down to look after the buildings and found them suitable to the farm, a good deal of trouble and expense would be avoided. His hon. friends around him had not the least desire that the Estates Commissioners should come into competition with those who might put up the prices. If their inspector had visited a farm, and that farm could be obtained at a reasonable price, what they said was that it would be judicious and wise that the Commissioners should acquire it. In his own parish there was a farm with excellent buildings which could be obtained and would be suit able for the evicted tenants; and there were three other farms which could also be acquired. It would be deplorable if the chance of obtaining those farms was allowed to slip, and the evicted tenants had to be sent at greater expense to some other county. Technicalities stood in the way which it was the object of this proposed clause to remove, and if it were adopted the Estates Commissioners must be prepared to have as little red-tape in the transaction as possible, because the men who were prepared to sell their farms wanted the money almost immediately. Some of them were gentlemen farmers who found that farming involved a loss; one other case which he had in his mind was that of an old and feeble man who was anxious to get rid of his holding at a reasonable figure. If this proposal were adopted, and the money for the farms were not paid as soon as possible, land grabbers with their money ready would try to get those places which were so desirable for the evicted tenants. Some of the planters, who knew very little about farming, and who were now liable for instalments, were prepared to give up their farms upon reasonable conditions, and he sincerely hoped that the Government would not lose this opportunity of dealing with the matter in the cheapest way. There was no compulsion in the clause; it was merely to enable the Commissioners, if, through their inspectors, they learned that certain farms were available at prices which represented their value, to give those sums. In several cases the Commissioners had reported that land was for sale on terms which gave ample value, but owing to technicalities which stood in the way the Commissioners were incompetent to acquire the land except by a process which was unsuitable and expensive to the people concerned. He hoped the case they had made out would commend itself to the Government and the Treasury, because so far from its involving additional cost it would be very much cheaper for the land to be acquired in the way suggested than by the more expensive process.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Estates Commissioners may acquire by agreement, for the purposes of this Act, any land which is subject to an annnity under the Land Purchase Acts or the Irish Land Act of 1903, and they may create an additional annuity repayable out of such land provided that they are satisfied that the security for the repayment thereof is sufficient.

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that if hon. Members on those benches thought that the proposed new section would be voluntary in its operation they would have no objection to it, but they did not take that view. So far as the wording of the section was concerned it was undoubtedly voluntary, but they had too much knowledge of what went on in Ireland to think that compulsory methods would not be employed quite outside the section. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment informed them that ever since the Act of 1903 he had done his best to get the evicted tenant reinstated on the farms from which they had been evicted, and would continue to do so. It was for that very reason that they had considerable doubts about such an Amendment as this, and would vote against it. In Galway and Roscommon if land was purchased through the Commissioners by a tenant, then simply because the surrounding tenants for one reason or another thought it was too much, the United Irish League would call upon the owner of the farm to surrender it; exactly the same thing would happen under this clause. In Waterford and other counties precisely the same class of agitation had been started, and if this clause was included pressure would be brought to bear from all sides on these men by local branches of the United Irish League to surrender their holdings because the original holder ought to be reinstated. It was perfectly futile to tell the House that it was a voluntary provision. It would be easy for hon. Members in conjunction with the United Irish League to coerce these unfortunate men into leaving their farms.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said the clause had no reference to planters who had bought their holdings.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he believed it would include planters, and he and his friends had the strongest objection to any further powers being given to the Estates Commissioners. They felt that pressure would be brought to bear on these people, and they would oppose the Amendment.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the; hon. Member for South Antrim was in some confusion as to the meaning of the clause. His whole speech was framed as if the Amendment was dealing with farms which had been taken by and subsequently sold to planters, and he had said that if they put in a clause of this kind pressure would be brought to bear on the planters to sell their farms. The clause did not apply to them at all. It was a general clause, and its natural operation had been going on ever since land purchase was started. Men who had purchased their farms and had not completed their annuities for some reason or other wished to sell their farms, which came into the open market. The clause simply provided that the Estates Commissioners might come in and buy such farms for the purpose of this Bill.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the hon. Member for West Waterford had said that in 279 cases of applications no less than ninety were cases of planters.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

.said he had not understood him to say anything of the kind. But if he had how was that any answer to his point? If any ordinary tenant purchasers in Waterford desired to sell, why should the Estates Commissioners be precluded from going into the open market and buying that farm for the purpose of this Bill? All that his hon. friend said about the tenants in Waterford was that there was no un-tenanted land to be obtained there, and that unless compulsory powers were put in the Bill none of the evicted tenants could get back. This clause would provide a voluntary means to some extent of providing land for those men. It was extremely hard to please hon. Members above the gangway. When a compulsory clause was asked for they were up in arms, and when a voluntary clause was proposed they said they would vote against it. The only possible explanation of that attitude was that these Members did not want the question settled at all. If they wanted the question settled, and objected to compulsion, why did they not vote for this clause? Their attitude was entirely inconsistent, and he hoped the House would take notice of it. He sincerely hoped the Attorney-General would accept the clause? He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept it. He might say it was a matter for the Treasury, but that was no answer. If it was an answer, where were the Treasury officials? The clause had been on the Paper for some days, and if it was a matter for the Treasury they ought to be present to explain their objections. He could not imagine what objection the Treasury would have to the clause, because its effect would be undoubtedly to save money for the State without any risk. Fie hoped the Attorney-General would give the House his opinion on the merits of the clause.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

said it was unfortunate that this provision which his hon. friend now proposed was not inserted in the Act of 1903, for it would have saved a considerable amount to the British taxpayer. He was personally aware of cases in which planters had been most willing and anxious to sell, and their holdings could have been obtained for comparatively small sums, for the purpose of restoring the evicted tenants. But the Commissioners were unable to deal with them, and in some cases they had supplied land to the evicted tenants and had spent large sums on buildings and equipments, with considerable loss to the Treasury. He was afraid that owing to the puffing of these planters by hon. Members above the gangway the Estates Commissioners would find that the price of their land had gone up; still, even under those circumstances, he thought his hon. friend's proposal would be a considerable gain to the Treasury.

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

said he was fully in sympathy with the arguments used by hon. Members below the gangway on this point. There was a great deal to be said in favour of voluntary purchase, but when the matter was considered carefully he did not think hon. Members would be inclined to press this Amendment. There was a financial objection to the proposal which could not be got over. This was an Irish question and meant the loss of money to Ireland. The security for the advances under the Act of 1891 was carefully provided for by Section 9, which laid down that in no case was an additional advance to be made for the purchase of a holding until the whole of the previous advance had been repaid. That provision had been rigorously applied to all sales and it was absolutely necessary to maintain it in its entirety. This Amendment would enable the Estates Commissioners to create an additional annuity. He understood that the hon. Member's proposal was that the State should make the advance for the purchase not only of the landlords' interest, but also the interest of the tenant. The advances were purely to purchase the landlords' interest.

MR. O'SHEE

said the Attorney-General was absolutely wrong. When they were acquiring untenanted land at a certain price to the landlord and the evicted tenant came in as well, they added that to the price they gave the landlord and made out an annuity for the whole amount.

MR. CHERRY

said he was not aware of that, but what the hon. Member said as regarded untenanted land had nothing to do with the matter, because it was in quite a different position. The Amendment really proposed to charge a fresh annuity, and thus they would start with two annuities instead of one. That was a transaction which they could not accept.

MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)

said it was rather curious that the Attorney-General did not yet know the powers of the Estates Commissioners. Apparently he was absolutely ignorant of the everyday procedure of those Commissioners when dealing with evicted tenants. It was a notorious fact known to everybody who had had anything to do with the reinstatement of evicted tenants that where the Estates Commissioners purchased untenanted land for the purpose of reinstating tenants they made a loan and also a free grant to the tenant who was to be put on to the holding. The free grant, of course, carried no interest or percentage, but if they advanced £500 to the evicted tenants they would give him £200 as a free grant and £300 as a loan. Of course the loan would be added to the purchase money which they paid to the landlord, and if the price to be paid to the landlord was £1,000 and the free grant was £300 the tenant would be charged interest upon £1,300. That transaction appeared to be new to the Attorney-General who had stated that the Estates Commissioners had no power whatever to make any arrangement by which the Treasury were to receive an annuity which would exceed 3¼ per cent. on the amount they had paid for the untenanted land.

MR. CHERRY

said he did not state anything of the kind. What he said was that the Estates Commissioners had no power to charge a second annuity on land which was at present liable to an annuity.

MR. KILBRIDE

said the Attorney-General stated that under the Act of 1891 it was necessary that the outstanding loan should be paid off before that particular farm could be dealt with. He could not see where the Treasury was going to lose by advancing the Estates Commissioners sufficient money to pay off the outstanding loans in view of the fact that if they paid off the loans they could charge that sum or even a larger sum to the evicted tenants. This seemed to him to be an unreasonable difficulty which had been thrown in the way in order to pre vent the Chief Secretary finally settling the question. It had been stated that the proposal affected Irish finance, but he would remind the House that those who represented Irish taxpayers in the proportion of about four to one as compared with hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, were quits satisfied that the Irish taxpayers were ready to take the risk. If the Chief Secretary desired to settle the question, he did not see why he should not adopt the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that in dealing with bona fide farmers the compulsory powers of the Bill would not be put into operation. He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could deal effectively with the question unless the present proposal or something similar was adopted. Every bit of untenanted land across the Shannon was required to increase the size of the present holdings. He did not think the British taxpayers would ever have consented to pledge British credit for £100,000,000 if they had not firmly believed that the object was to get rid once for all of the Irish land trouble and the evicted tenants question. He had no doubt that the Unionist Party wished to get back into office as quickly as possible, and naturally they had no overweening desire that the evicted tenants question should be settled, because they believed that they could continue to make political capital out of the unrest of the people of Ireland. There was nothing objectionable in principle to the proposal of the hon. Member for West Waterford. If the Chief Secretary did not accept the new clause, he might find that the evicted tenants question would remain an open sore, and that he would not be able to say at an early date that he had finally and satisfactorily dealt with the Irish land question. He wished to ask hon. Members in all parts of the House whether they desired to have the Irish land question removed from the purview of that House. Did they wish to have it settled, and to let the House get on to other business? If English and Scottish Members did not settle the evicted tenants question now, as they would by this proposal finally and satisfac- torily, it would still continue to block the way of social reform in this country.

MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.)

said he did not think the Attorney-General realised the importance of this matter.

MR. CHERRY

said he quite realised its importance.

MR. DUFFY

thought that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman realised fully the seriousness of the matter, he would accept the new clause. He wished to direct attention to certain cases in the West of Ireland. A short time ago, acting on behalf of tenant occupiers, he brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners the advisability of taking over from them certain lands. While mediating in the matter he learned that the Estates Commissioners had no power to take over the lands, although the tenant occupiers were willing that they should do so, and that thereby the transfer of the lands to the evicted tenants should be facilitated. The proposal of his hon. friend was that wherever a tenant was willing to part with his interest in a holding the Estates Commissioners should have power to step in and buy the interest in order that the holding might be transferred to an evicted tenant. The Estates Commissioners were at present acquiring land in the West of Ireland. He supposed that was being done in the interest of the evicted tenants. He knew that, speaking so far as the West if Ireland was concerned, the Estates Commissioners in acquiring land had paid more to the landlords for it than they would have had to pay to the tenants who were willing to sell out. Why should the Government interpose difficulties in the way of willing tenants selling to the Estates Commissioners in order that the holdings might be transferred to the evicted tenants? By doing so they were only creating fresh trouble. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to try to clothe the Estates Commissioners with sufficient power to enable them to take over these lands.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

said he understood that this was purely a question of finance. Where tenanted land was acquired the purchase price was usually two or three years purchase more than in the case of untenanted land. But if land which was derelict was bought, cattle and other stock had to be supplied, and out-houses had to be built, the result being that, in addition to twenty-three or twenty-four years purchase, there was an outlay of £300 or £000 for equipment. The effect of that was to make the annuity very high. On the other hand, if they bought tenanted land, they got it fully equipped for the incoming tenant, and therefore the annuity would be in many cases less than when untenanted land was bought. There was an opinion in Ireland that evicted tenants should not be sent from one county to another if land could be provided for them in their own county. If the Party to which he belonged wished to keep the agrarian question alive in Ireland they would not vote for this new clause. By voting against it they would vote for what they did not desire, namely, the continuation of the agrarian war. In the interest of all parties in Ireland, and of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in this country, they wanted to have an honest and amicable settlement of the evicted tenants question. As far as the ratepayers were concerned—and he could speak for Conservatives as well as Nationalists in Kerry—the universal wish was to have the question closed, and if there was to be any extra taxation for that purpose they were ready to meet it. He denied, however, that there would be any necessity for additional taxation. He knew several cases where tenants were willing to sell fully-equipped farms at a small price to the Estates Commissioners in order that evicted tenants might be reinstated. There would be no compulsion on the Estates Commissioners to buy in such cases. He would be one of the first to oppose a mandatory clause. This was a purely optional clause giving discretionary power to the Estates Commissioners. The Irish ratepayers were responsible to the British Treasury for every single penny, and he thought no difficulties would arise, financial or otherwise, from the acceptance of the clause. It would be in the interest of all parties concerned to try to keep the evicted tenants in their own districts.

MR. BIRRELL

said they were all quite alive to the great difficulty in the way of any Government which sought to acquire the necessary land to reinstate tenants in their old holdings or to find other holdings for them. Hon. Members would see that this measure was necessarily composed under certain final restrictions, and one of the restrictions in the minds of those responsible for framing it was that nothing should be done in any way to interfere with the confidence in, or the system of, the Land Purchase Acts. He agreed that the financial burden cast on the tenant purchaser was sufficiently great already to cause, he would not say alarm, but a reasonable amount of anxiety, and a determination that these purchase annuities should not be made larger than they now were. The Government did not wish to interfere with the operation of the land purchase measures, and therefore they had excluded from the powers of the Estates Commissioners the power of acquiring compulsorily land which had been already made the subject-matter of purchase annuity. It was true that this was a voluntary provision, but the Estates Commissioners had power to take land compulsorily; and were such a power placed within the control of all the parties it might give rise to a feeling of lack of confidence in the measure, leading to pressure being put on persons to part with land for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants. It was not desirable, therefore, to extend the area of that confusion. The House also could not leave aside the Treasury in this matter, and say that it was a question wholly for the Irish ratepayers. The Treasury question was one of grave importance. The annuities were already sufficiently high, and he contemplated with alarm the idea of adding another annuity on the land itself. The Government could not accept the new clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he would not have taken part in the debate had it not been for the suggestion made from below the gangway that the attitude of the Opposition towards the evicted tenants was one of genuine hostility, and that their opposition to the Amendment before the House was a justification of that view. He thought that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would be forced to admit that their attitude towards the Amendment was the same as that of the Government. If the proposal embraced in the Amendment had been made under normal conditions it would not have been so much objected to. But there was a dominant power already to superimpose annuities on the land which, in one respect, was a tenant's affair rather than a landlord's. The Amendment would raise a financial difficulty, which the Government could not accept. If it were certain that they could confine the operation of the clause to purely voluntary cases, there might be something to be said in favour of including the clause in the Bill; but the Chief Secretary had pointed out that one of the reasons why it could not be accepted was because its acceptance might lead to the use of undue pressure on the occupying tenant. [Cries of "No," from the Irish benches.] He hoped not, but undoubtedly where a tenant was occupying land which was wanted for a particular purpose very great pressure would be put upon him. He was not raising this as a question for which anybody was to be blamed, but there was a reserve of pressure on the man who came in on what was nominally a voluntary bargain, but which was not really a voluntary bargain. The Chief Secretary had commented somewhat sarcastically upon their opposition to the Amendment; but they wore learning now from these who were bringing evidence from different localities what were the real difficulties in the settlement of the question. The Chief Secretary had told them on the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill that no further information was required, but the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that it had been pressed upon him from below the gangway that this was not a final settlement of the question. It was well that those home truths should be brought home to the Government. These facts would not interfere with the action of the Opposition, but they would go to show that this was not a fully considered measure. If the Government went to a division in refusing to accept the clause the Opposition would support them.

*MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)

said he wished to bring under the notice of the House a case in his own constituency, where the tenant purchased his holding previous to the Act of 1903. After a few years the tenant was unable to pay the purchase annuity, and consequently he was evicted. Previous to his eviction the landlord sold the guarantee deposit to a gentleman in Dublin, and when the tenant was evicted the gentleman from Dublin took up the land and had farmed it ever since. He was informed that since the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, the Dublin gentleman was quite willing to sell the land to the Estates Commissioners in order that they might reinstate the two sons of the former tenant, who had died. But, owing to the Treasury difficulty, the Estates Commissioners could not purchase the farm. If the Chief Secretary accepted this clause it would meet the difficulty, for the farm was practically boycotted, and the two boys would be reinstated in the home from which their father had been evicted.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the case quoted by the hon. Gentleman was of great importance. Under the old system evicted farms were taken up as speculative investments when there was some default in the payment of the annuities. But when the speculators found that there was great local feeling they at once offered to give back the farms if the Land Commissioners would give their sanction. The Government ought to find some means of dealing with the case mentioned by the hon. Member for West Limerick. A man had been saddled with an estate in Limerick which he did not want, and he had offered the evicted tenant to give him back the land if the Land Commission would give their sanction to the transfer, but the Land Commission refused to accept back the old evicted tenant on the ground that it had not power to regulate the transaction. In the name of common-sense why should not some modification be made in the section? He was greatly afraid there was some force in what was said by the hon. Member for South Dublin, and that there would be some cases of hardship still in existence after the passing of this Bill. Why not wipe the slate clean when they could by the acceptance of some such Amendment? It was extraordinary that every time a reasonable Amendment was moved the dead hand or live hand of the Treasury was lifted up against it. The House ought to be master of the Treasury. He remembered in 1886 they could not get clipboards because the Treasury would not go to the expense, but after years of agitation each of them got his cupboard and a key. All that was wanted was that someone should kick the rascals who were in office—take those gentlemen and give them a thorough dressing. He had always considered the Irish office was more or less paralysed in its dealings with the Treasury. If they were not going to have Home Rule they ought to go back to the days when there was a Minister of Finance in Ireland. It was said that this farm was boycotted, and if so he must say it was most unjust

to the gentleman who never sought the. farm but had it thrust on him by the Land Commission. Was it not absurd not to end this running sore and allow the Land Commission to take back the land?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 244. (Division List No. 332.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Hogan, Michael	O'Malley, William
Ambrose, Robert	Hudson, Walter	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Shee, James John
Boland, John	Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Bowerman, C. W.	Joyce, Michael	Power, Patrick Joseph
Burke, E. Haviland-	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Reddy, M.
Byles, William Pollard	Kilbride, Denis	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Clynes, J. R.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, William (Clare)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Richards,T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Cooper, G. J.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Crean, Eugene	Lundon, W.	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Crooks, William	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Cullinan, J.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Delany, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J.	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)	Snowden, P.
Ffrench, Peter	M'Killop, W.	Sutherland.,J. E.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meagher, Michael	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Flynn, James Christopher	Meehan, Patrick A.	Tennant, SirEdward(Salisbury
Gilhooly, James	Mooney, J. J.	Thorne, William
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Murnaghan, George	Wardle, George J.
Halpin, J.	Murphy, John	White, Patrick (Meath. North)
Hammond, John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph
Hazleton, Richard	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Captain Donelan and Mr.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Patrick O'Brien.
Hills, J. W.	O'Grady, J.
Hodge, John	O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N.
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd	Chance, Frederick William
Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cheetham, John Frederick
Alden, Percy	Black, Arthur W.	Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Boulton, A. C. F.	Clough, William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Boyle, Sir Edward	Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)
Ashley, W. W.	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Branch, James	Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Astbury, John Meir	Brigg, John	Corbett, C.H.(Sussex., E. Grinst'd
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brooke, Stopford	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Baldwin, Alfred	Brunner, RtHnSirJ. T. (Cheshire	Cox, Harold
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Craik, Sir Henry
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Crombie, John William
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cameron, Robert	Crossley, William J.
Barker, John	Carlile, E. Hildred	Curran, Peter Francis
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Castlereagh, Viscount	Dalrymple, Viscount
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)	Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)	Cave, George	Dickinson, WH.(St Pancras. N.
Beauchamp, E.	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)
Bell, Richard	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Duckworth, James
Bellaire, Carlyon	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Du Cros, Harvey
Bertram, Julius	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lehmann, R. C.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Elibank, Master of	Lewis, John Herbert	Sears, J. E.
Evans, Samuel T.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Seaverns, J. H.
Everett, R. Lacey	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R	Seely, Major J. B.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lough, Thomas	Sherwell, Arthur James
Fell, Arthur	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Fenwick, Charles	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkBg'hs)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	M'Callum, John M.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Fletcher., J. S.	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Forster, Henry William	Maddison, Frederick	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Mallet, Charles E.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Fuller. John Michael F.	Marnham, F. J	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Massie, J	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Menzies, Walter	Strachey, Sir Edward
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Micklem, Nathaniel	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gooch, George Peabody	molteno, Percy Alport	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Grant, Corrie	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Taylor, Theodore C."(Radcliffe)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Thompson. J. W. H.(Somerset, E
Gretton, John	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Toulmin, George
Gulland, John W.	Morpeth. Viscount	Ure, Alexander
Gurdon. Rt.Hn. SirW. Brampton	Morrell, Philip	Verney, F. W.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Murray, James	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Myer, Horatio	Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Napier, T. B.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Helmsley, Viscount	Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Henderson. J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Nield, Herbert	Waring, Walter
Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Hervey. F. W. F.(BuryS.Edm'ds	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wason, Rt. Hn.E.(Clackmannan
Higham, John Sharp	Partington, Oswald	Waterlow, D. S.
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Watt, Henry A.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Weir, James Galloway
Holland, Sir William Henry	Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Horniman, Emslie John	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Whitehead, Rowland
Hunt, Rowland	Pirie, Duncan V.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Hyde, Clarendon	Pollard, Dr.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Idris, T. H. W.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wiles, Thomas
Illingworth, Percy H.	Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh,Central)	Williamson, A.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Pullar, Sir Robert	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jenkins, J.	Radford, G. H.	Wilson, Henry J. (York,| W.R.)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Jones. Sir D Brynmor(Swansea)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Kearley. Hudson E.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm
Kekewich, Sir George	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Wood. T..M'Kinnon
Laidlaw, Robert	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Younger, George
Lambert. George	Robertson, J. M. (Tyueside)	Yoxall, James Henry
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Rowlands, J.
Lamont. Norman	Runciman, Walter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Lane-Fox. G. R.	Russell, T. W.	Whiteley and J. A. Pease.
Layland- Barratt, Francis	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Leese, Sir Joseph F)Accrington)	Salter, Arthur Clavell

*MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said he wished to move a clause incorporating certain sections of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845. He believed he would have been more strictly in order if he had moved the incorporation of the clauses of the Railways (Ireland) Act, but as the two Acts were drawn on much the same lines, and as the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to incorporate one or two clauses of the Land Clauses Act in the Bill, he moved this new clause in order to have a discussion as to the means to be taken under the Bill to assess the amount of money which was to be paid for the land to be taken away from the landlord and new tenant. The sections he wished to incorporate were fifty-three, Suctions 15 to 68. They provided that the would-be purchaser who made an offer to the owner of the land should be compelled to purchase just in the same way as the owner could be compelled to sell. That was a fair provision, because if the Land Commission came to close quarters with a landowner and made an offer and put him to trouble, it was only right that he should be in a position to compel them to continue the bargain. They also provided that where the value of the land sought to be taken exceeded £50 the two parties should agree on an arbitrator who should assess the value and the amount to be paid for the land to be taken compulsorily. If the two parties could not agree on an arbitrator, they each appointed an arbitrator, and the arbitrators appointed an umpire, and if that was not done and there was no arbitrator, the case was decided by a jury. They also provided for the payment of the costs of the arbitration. The tribunal it was proposed to set up in this Bill was only worthy of a comic opera. It was a tribunal that did everything itself. It judged the amount of land that it was to take, made an offer, and if the seller did not think that the offer was sufficient he was to have the right to appeal to the same tribunal. There was no justification for such a tribunal. In the Public Sites Act of 1903, and also in the Labourers Act passed last year, it was the arbitrator who fixed the price of the land which was taken, and why should the right hon. Gentleman now change the whole course of legislation by making in this case the people who were taking the land judges in their own cause? There was undoubtedly a great deal of distrust with regard to the Estates Commissioners on the part of Irish landowners owing to the way in which they had been treated in the past. He would, as an illustration, state a case within his own knowledge. A friend of his had an estate in the West of Ireland, and on that estate was a farm the tenants' interest in which had been bought out in order that accommodation land might be given to the other tenants. In February, 1905, his friend approached the Land Commissioners voluntarily, and asked them to buy this farm from him in order that the holdings of his tenants who had agreed to purchase them might be made economic. The Land Commissioners said they would consider the matter, and this gentleman did not get a valuation from them until December, 1906. The farm was 147 acres and the average net rental was £145. The price his friend put upon it was twenty-five years purchase, which, capitalised at 4 per cent. gave him £145 a year. That could not be considered an excessive price having regard to the fact that the average price of such land in 1905–6 was twenty-nine years purchase, and that for the last six years the average price was twenty-seven. The Land Commissioners, after twenty-two months consideration, offered him fourteen years purchase, or £2,100, and said that if he would not accept that they would not declare his estate, which was going to be sold to the tenants, an estate under the Land Act. Under the Act of 1903 the landlord and tenant agreed, voluntarily, the number of years purchase the landlord was to receive for his land, and the arrangements for this estate were made in 1904, and for the Commissioners to come forward with this scandalous threat was a shameful proceeding. Of course his friend was obliged to accept the fourteen years purchase. He said nothing personally against the Estates Commissioners, but in view of the case he had just put to them could the House be surprised that there was considerable distrust, not to say dismay, on the part of the landowners of Ireland when they saw that the final appeal in regard to the price of the land to be taken from them or the new tenant was to be to the Commissioners? There was a precedent for the Government proposal, but they had to go back some thousands of years to the days of Ahab who coveted the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. When his wife. Jezebel asked him— 'Why is thy spirit so sad that thou eatest no bread?' he replied— 'I spoke unto Naboth the Jezreelite and said unto him, give me thy vineyard for money or else if it please thee I will give thee another vineyard for it; and he answered, I will not give thee I vineyard.' Jezebel said to him— 'Arise and eat bread and let thy heart be merry. I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.' They saw the hon. and learned Member for Waterford desiring the vineyards of the new tenants and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, like Jezebel, said—" I will give thee the vineyards of the new tenants. I will write a letter to the Estate Commissioners and say 'got rid of these pestilent fellows who require so many police to look after them.'" The methods of the right hon. Gentleman no doubt were different from the methods of King Ahab, bat the end they aimed at was the same.

*MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH, (Fermanagh, N.)

in seconding the Amendment, said the Public Sites Act had been spoken of, under which a Government Department acquired land, but they were not allowed to assess the land at the value they were willing to pay. There wore other Acts of more importance in which the House had not thought fit to entrust power to a Government Department compulsorily to acquire land and at the same time fix the price. Under the National Defence Acts tracts of land were acquired, and it might be said that land for the purposes of national defence ought to be acquired at a moderate price. But in that case Parliament had decided that the land was to be acquired under the Lands Clauses Act, and that the full market value was to be paid and independently assessed. This Bill, however, for the first time proposed that the purchaser should fix the price. Many people in Ireland must be reminded, when they considered the Government proposal, of the famous character in the Rebellion, who was not only judge and jury, but who also took advantage of his great stature to hang the prisoners as well. The Estates Commissioners would be put in that position, and, as a lawyer, he confessed he shared the apprehensions of his hon. friend behind him that the Estates Commissioners might not do justice. The Estates Commissioners had used their power of declaring land not to be "an estate" as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the owners to sell at a price which was not adequate. A man might have land in hand, unlet, which was producing a good income, and he was willing to sell it. He agreed with his tenants to sell his tenanted land at a price mutually satisfactory, but when the estate went to the Commissioners they submitted an offer for the lands in hand which the owner considered to be wholly inadequate and which he refused to take. In nearly every instance where the price of the tenanted land had been agreed upon the Estates Commissioners used their power to compel the landlord to sell his untenanted land at a price which he considered inadequate. That had been the system put in operation all over Ireland in connection with the acquisition of the untenanted lands. Ho would be very glad indeed, even at some sacrifice of principle, to see a settlement of this question, but he did not see the justice of settling the question by employing other people's land, after having acquired it at an inadequate price. If land was to be acquired for the purpose of settling this question, it ought to be bought at a price to be ascertained by the ordinary methods of the law and not by these new powers given to the Commissioners. He did not desire to make any personal imputation upon the Estates Commissioners, but they were certainly interested parties; their whole object was to facilitate the working of the Act, and their fear of the Treasury and of the Irish Office led them to offer prices which were entirely inadequate, and there was no possibility of freedom of bargain. The Commissioners if the Bill passed could say to a man, "We want your land, and offer you so much for it. Whether it is too little or not you have got to take it;" there was to be no appeal and thus there would be absolutely no security against the Commissioners offering even a ridiculous and inadequate sum. He did not say that they would offer a ridiculously inadequate sum, but they did offer, and daily offered, as everyone knew, inadequate prices; and if they resorted to the indirect process of declaring land to be or not to be an estate, in order to compel landlords to take prices they did not like, what would they do when they had power, not by this indirect method, of bringing pressure to bear, but to say, "You are going to get so much and no more "? There was no appeal under the Act, and the proposed purchasers could take the land by compulsion and themselves name the price they were prepared to give. So far as he was personally concerned if the Bill embodied the principles of his hon. friend's Amendment, his objections to the measure would be practically at an end. Everyone was anxious to see the question settled, but he thought it ought to be settled with justice, and, if the Amendment was not adopted, there would be left behind in the minds of the owners of land a rankling sense of grievance that they had been compulsorily deprived of their lands at an inadequate price.

New clause— The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, relating to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement, are incorporated in this Act."—(Mr. Ashley).

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. CHERRY

said he was really surprised that this clause should be moved, and he was still more surprised that such an eminent lawyer as his hon. friend who had just spoken should have appeared in support of it. He had only to point out to the House the effect of the adoption of the clause to show its absurdity. If it was passed it would entirely contradict the Bill as it had passed through Committee. In this Bill they had a complete scheme for the acquisition of land, a scheme which followed the same lines as the House adopted last year in the Labourers Act. In Clause 2 they provided what the Commissioners were to do, and what were the kind of steps that were always necessary in order to obtain land compulsorily. If they incorporated the Lands Clauses Act of 1845—only one Act was mentioned, although there were a whole series of Lands Clauses Acts which were different in Ireland from those in England—whenever anyone came to interpret the Act, they would be met with the question whether the procedure was to be under Clause 2 of this Bill or under the Lands Clauses Act. It would introduce confusion and uncertainty, and no Judge or lawyer would be able to interpret the Bill when it became law. Moreover, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment could not be aware that the ultimate tribunal under the Lands Clauses Act for ascertaining the value of land taken was the jury of the county in which the land was situated. The effect would be that a jury of Roscommon or Leitrim would fix the value of land that was being purchased for the reinstatement of evicted tenants. He knew some hon. Members from Ireland who would be rather in favour of adopting a clause of that kind. But the Government were bound to protect the owners. They thought that the system proposed was a fair system, and that the Estates Commissioners were not gentlemen whose only object was to try and cheat the landlords out of their property; they were gentlemen who would perform their public duties to the best of their ability. The procedure under the Bill would be simple, and he could not assent to a clause which would throw the whole thing into confusion, and which if put in force would lead to injustice to the very persons. the hon. Member wished to protect.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

said the right hon. and learned Member had expressed his amazement at the clause proposed, but he thought the feeling of those who had listened to the debate—especially after the attempt of the right hon. and learned Member to evade the point—must be one of amazement that the Government should harden its heart to resist this clause. The Chief Secretary laughed, but he would not laugh so much if he knew the state of affairs in Galway. To many persons the case of many tenants in Galway was no laughing matter.

MR. BIRRELL

I was not laughing at the evicted tenants.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

asked what was the state of things now? The absolute power of evicting these tenants and of fixing the amount of compensation which they wore to receive was to be in the hands of the Estates Commissioners. It must be obvious to anyone who knew the circumstances in Ireland or in any other country that if power was given to three men to evict tenants who had occupied their holdings for over twenty-five years and fixed the compensation it would be very unjust. He would remind the House that the hon. Member for South Tyrone once stated that he would never vote for a proposal which said to a man who had lived on a farm for twelve or fourteen years, "You must give up your holding to the man who previously had it." A feeling of friction must be caused against the Commissioners when they came to decide who should be evicted; the feelings of the tenants who were evicted towards the three men who had evicted them must be anything but kindly. Surely the Commissioners were not fair arbiters as to the amount of compensation to be paid to the tenants who would be turned out. Although the Chief Secretary had made so merry over the unfortunate condition of these men—

MR. BIRRELL

When did I make merry over them?

MR. T. L. CORBETT

said the right hon. Gentleman had treated the debate with the greatest levity and had done so again and again whenever they tried to meet the case of the unfortunate men who had been upon their holdings for a quarter of a century and whose families had been born and bred there, and who, under this Bill, would be turned out of their holdings.

MR. BIRRELL

That will not be the effect of this Bill.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

thought the fact he had stated was a conclusive argument for the re-committal of the Bill. Anybody who knew anything about Ireland know that what he had described was the actual state of things. The right hon. Gentleman said that the turning out of the men who had been on these holdings for forty years would not be the effect of this measure. He was sorry to say that he did not think the Chief Secretary knew what the actual effect of his Bill would be.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)

said he had failed to find any relevancy whatever in the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool. Ho hoped the Government would not be induced to depart from their decision to oppose this Amendment. The value of this Bill was that it should become operative expeditiously, and this Amendment would add fifty-two cumbersome clauses. This was a small and simple Act dealing with a subject which did not affect a very wide area. It contained only fifteen clauses, and to suggest that fifty-two new clauses of a cumber-some character should be added to it was one of the most preposterous propositions he had ever heard made. This Bill was intended to restore a certain class of tenants to their former holdings. The evicted tenants were standing at the present time outside the gate of the peasants' paradise in Ireland, which was the ownership and possession of land. The springs of the gate were already moving to admit them, and the proposals contained in this Bill had set those springs going. The Amendment under consideration would introduce a method of procedure calculated to greatly delay that operation. It proposed arbitration; where arbitration failed, umpires were suggested; and where umpires failed, special juries would be called in. All this was cumbersome from beginning to end, and instead of oiling the springs of the Bill the Amendment would hamper, frustrate, and probably annul it altogether. The case was very urgent, and that was the main reason why the House should not accept the Amendment. The proposal had no doubt been made in good faith, but if the hon. Gentleman would only look into the clauses he proposed to embody he would see that instead of expediting its the operation of the Bill, it would hamper it considerably, and that was a good reason why the House should reject it.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the Bill dealt with matters of very great importance, and he felt very strongly in regard to the position of the unfortunate new tenants. Upon several occasions he had been obliged to laugh at some of the explanations which had been given by the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the procedure which the Bill set up for ascertaining the price to be paid for these lands as a simple procedure. That procedure certainly was the greatest example of simplicity which the House had ever had to consider. Let the House compare for a moment the procedure suggested by the Bill with that contained in any other Act proposed under similar conditions. In all other similar measures there was some form of arbitration, and the person whose property was taken compulsorily had some say in the appointment of the persons who were to fix the price of the land. Under this Bill the owner had absolutely nothing to say in the matter, and the duty of fixing the price of the land was placed on persons in whom the owners had very little confidence. But even if they had all the confidence in the world, surely when their property was taken from them it was only right that they should have some say in the choice of an arbitrator or judge? This simple procedure, they had been told, was exactly the same as that under the Labourers Act. He wished to point out that under this Bill an inspector was sent down who practically said, "I want this piece of land and I am going to give you so much for it." It might be 50 per cent. under its proper value or it might be over its proper value, but, at any rate, here was a person in the appointment of whom the landlord had no say whatever, who had the power to choose what land he required and also to fix the price to be paid for it That was bad enough, and if the matter stopped there, and if some such provision as was provided for in the Amendment were inserted, things would not be quite so bad; but there was to be no appeal from that extraordinary procedure, and it would be placed in one person's hands to say what land was to be taken and how much was to be paid for it. That might be simple from the point of view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but it was very unjust, and in his opinion, if the House was allowed to judge for itself instead of accepting the view of the Attorney-General, it would never consent to put such extraordinary powers into the hands of a single individual. The Attorney-General had told them that the procedure was the same under the Labourers Act.

MR. CHERRY

said that that was not what he said. His statement was that they found a precedent in the Labourers Act.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that under the Labourers Act the rural district council held the position which under this Act was given to the Estates Commissioners. They were empowered to go to a landowner and say "We desire to have this piece of land for labourers cottages." They would then draw up a scheme, but they had to bring in an outside authority in the shape of an inspector to fix the price. There was a fundamental difference between the two Acts at the very outset. In the case of the Labourers Act the persons who chose the ground were not the same persons who fixed the price. The machinery of the Labourers Act enabled a scheme to be thrown out if it was found on inquiry that the provisions were being used for the purpose of persecuting a farmer or landlord, but there was absolutely nothing of the sort in this Bill, and to say that it in any way resembled the Labourers Act was to mislead the House, though not intentionally. It was absolutely futile to say that because this measure would be administered by public servants that they had no interest in giving a smaller price for the land than its value. Anyone who was provided with public money for the purpose of buying anything had as a matter of duty to make as good a bargain as he could, and it was not fair that the Estate Commissioners who were in the position of buyers should also have the fixing of the price. It certainly was unfair to the landlords. The Amendment had been objected to it by the Nationalist Members because it would incorporate in the Bill the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act had been in operation for over fifty years. Its peculiarities and shortcomings were well-known to lawyers, and he did not think there would be any particular difficulty caused by its application in this case. He did not say that the tribunal provided by the Lands Clauses Act was the best in the world, but it was far better than the proposal in the Bill. The incorporation of the Lands Clauses Act would remove a great blot on the Bill, namely, the absolute unfairness and injustice to those whose land was to be compulsorily acquired. The Chief Secretary had said that he did not know this Bill would have the effect of putting out tenants who had been in possession of their farms for twenty-five years. The right hon. Gentleman must be more simple-minded than he thought if after listening to the Amendments proposed by Nationalist Members, designed to give still greater powers to the Commissioners than the Bill proposed, he was still of opinion that the measure would not operate in the direction of turning out new tenants from their holdings. It was absolutely futile for the Chief Secretary to pretend that the agitation when the Bill was passed would not be directed to clearing out the present holders and rein stating persons who had been evicted Hon. Members below the gangway had admitted that they would use their powers of persuasion towards having the evicted tenants reinstated in the identical holdings from which they had been evicted. He was not very much enamoured of the particular form of the Amendment. It was difficult to suggest an efficient tribunal which would be comparatively cheap and free from cumbersomeness, but that such a tribunal could be suggested, and ought to be set up, he had equally no doubt.

MR. BIRRELL

said the Attorney-General had already pointed out that hopeless confusion would follow from the adoption of the Amendment which would mean the incorporation of fifty-two clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Were they to believe that the mover of the Amendment wished that?

MR. ASHLEY

said he did not pretend that this would be the most perfect form, but under the Re-solution which closured the Bill it was quite impossible to have any discussion whatever on this very important point.

MR. BIRRELL

said that was a matter as to the disposition of time. In his opinion hon. Members opposite were to blame if the Bill was not discussed. Any Opposition could, if it chose, prevent the later clauses of a Bill from being discussed by discussing at enormous length the preceding clauses. He maintained that ample time was provided for the discussion of Clause 2. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should be substituted for Clause 2? If so, it might have been supposed that he would have had the foresight to put on the Paper an Amendment to strike out Clause 2. He did not know whether the hon. Member was really serious in his proposal. He could not suppose the hon. Member was anxious to refer these matters from the Estates Commissioners to a jury. As to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, he had benefited as a lawyer far too much from it ever to speak disrespectfully of it. He remembered attending a dinner at the Surveyors' Institute where there was only one toast, and it was drunk with almost royal honours, namely, "The Lands Clauses Act and no amendment." He did not exaggerate when he said that it had put millions of money into the pockets of lawyers, surveyors, and other ministering angels of justice, and if they applied its provisions to the acquisition of land under this measure they would defeat the purpose in view and load the matter with costly proceedings. If 80,000 acres were to be acquired for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants, either in their old holdings or in new holdings, some cheap and speedy tribunal must be set up, otherwise the thing could not be done. An hon. Member had stated that he would have preferred the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to any other machinery. That would have involved the nomination of a single arbitrator. He could not believe the proposal of a single arbitrator by the Irish Government for the purpose of determining the value of land would have received any support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not think anything could be made of the point that a single arbitrator would be a better tribunal than the three Estates Commissioners. He must not say that this point had been discussed ad nauseam, but if there was one point which had been argued over and over again it was the question whether the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was preferable to that proposed by the Bill-He still maintained that the mere fact that the Estates Commissioners were the persons who had set this machinery a going in any way exposed them to the suggestion that they had a personal interest in the fixing of the value of the land. He could not understand how it possibly could be said that these gentlemen, who had no personal interest to serve, who were not going to benefit by Is. from the measure, who were not to be paid in proportion, but in inverse proportion to the amount of the purchase money which fell to the landlord, were to gain any advantage whatever from the Bill. They had got no interest in keeping down the value of land in Ireland. And to impute to them motives which even a rural district council had in keeping down the rates was unworthy. Everybody would admit that to substitute the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act would be to admit that they did not attach importance to their own Bill.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Commissioners would not have the slightest interest in the administration of the Act; but they had announced that they would like to increase the number of holdings in Ireland by 183,000. That might be a very laudable object, but if the Commissioners gave a less price for the land they would get more land for the new holdings. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the Amendment because it would take time. He agreed that it would take time, but better that than that injustice should be done. There was an underlying necessity in all tribunals that justice should be done. They, on the opposition side of the House, thought that they were not getting justice. This new tribunal would exercise its great powers unchecked, absolutely without control, and confiscation would be the result. The Commissioners could take what land they liked, put their own price upon it; they would be responsible to no one, and there would be no appeal. There was no wonder that those who had a liking for fair play and justice should support the Amendment. He preferred delay to expeditious injustice.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

asked whether it was correct to say that grazing lands which at present were worth £2 an acre could be bought by the Estates Commissioners compulsorily; at £1 an acre? If so, would not that keep down the price of land all over Ireland? The hon. Member for North Kildare had stated that in his opinion the

Amendment would be unworkable because it would cause delay in the administration of the Act and that the necessity of the case was expedition. He believed in expedition in all the affairs of life, but not at the expense of justice. It had been stated that the Amendment would incorporate into this Bill fifty-two clauses from the Lands Clauses Act. No doubt that was a large number, but under those fifty-two clauses justice would be obtained. Those clauses had been in existence for sixty years, and under them justice had always been administered. [Cries of "No" from the Ministerial and Irish benches.] At any rate a proper price had been given to people whose property had been taken from them by compulsion. Now came the right hon. Gentleman and said that the Commissioners when they saw a piece of property which they liked could take it compulsorily and fix the price, and there was no rule laid down in the Bill to indicate what price they should pay, and there was no appeal from their decision. It was absurd to say, therefore, that a fair and proper price would be given under the provisions of the Bill. Instead of settling the land question—which they all wished to do—[Cries of "Oh" from the Irish benches]—it would unsettle it. Under these circumstances he would support the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 333.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Keswick, William
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.	CraigCharles Curtis(Antrim, S.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Balcarres, Lord	Craik, Sir Henry	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R
Balfour, RtHn.A. J.(City Lond.)	Dalrymple, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester	Du Cros, Harvey	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Barrie, H-T.(Londonderry, N.)	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Nield, Herbert
Bowles, G. Stewart	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fardell, Sir T. George	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Carlile, E. Hildred	Fletcher, J. S.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Castlereagh, Viscount	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cave, George	Gardner.Ernest (Berks, East)	Ratherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Helmsley, Viscount	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hervey, F. W. F (BuryS.Edm'ds	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)	Hunt, Rowland	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Tumour, Viscount	Wards, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Valentia, Viscount	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)	Ashley and Sir Frederick
Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)	Younger, George	Banbury.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Agnew, George William	Elibank, Master of	Levy, Sir Maurice
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Erskine, David C.	Lewis, John Herbert
Ambrose, Robert	Evans, Samuel T.	Lough, Thomas
Astbury, John Meir	Everett, R. Lacey	Lundon, W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Fenwick, Charles	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J. R(Leicester)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Ffrench, Peter	Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Findlay. Alexander	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Barker, John	Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Flynn, James Christopher	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Barnes, G. N.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Callum, John M.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Craie, George
Beauchamp, E.	Gilhooly, James	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	M'Kean, John
Bell, Richard	Glover, Thomas	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bellairs, Carlyon	Grayson, Albert Victor	M'Killop, W.
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Micking, Major G.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Maddison, Frederick
Bertram, Julius	Gulland, John W.	Mallet, Charles E.
Bethell,SirJH (Essex, Romford	Gurdon, RtHnSir W.Brampton	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Marnham, F. J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Massie, J.
Black, Arthur W.	Halpin, J.	Meagher, Michael
Boland, John	Hammond, John	Meehan, Patrick A.,
Boulton, A. C. F.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Menzies, Walter
Bowerman, C. W.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Bramsdon, T. A.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Branch, James	Haworth, Arthur A.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Brigg, John	Hayden, John Pastick	Mooney, J. J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hazleton, Richard	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Brodie, H. C.	Healy, Timothy Michael	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Hedges, A. Paget	Morrell, Philip
Brunner, Rt. HnSirJT (Cheshire	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morse, L. L.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Henderson, J. M.)Aberdeen, W.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Murnaghan, George
Burke, E. Haviland	Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hodge, John	Napier, T. B.
Byles, William Pollard	Hogan, Michael	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cameron, Robert	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nolan, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Causton, Rt.HnRichard Knight	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hudson, Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cleland, J. W.	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Donnell, T.(Kerry, W.),
Clough, William	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.
Clynes, J. R.	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Malley, William
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Jenkins, J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Collins, SirWm. J (S. Pancras, W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Shee, James John
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jones, SirDBrynmor (Swansea)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Corbett.CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Partington, Oswald
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Jordon, Jeremiah	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jowett, F. W.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crean, Eugene	Joyce, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crooks, William	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Crossley, William J.	Kekewich, Sir George	Pollard, Dr.
Cullinan, J.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Power, Patrick Joseph
Curran, Peter Francis	Kilbride, Denis	Price, C. E. (Edinbugh, Central)
Delany, William	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Pullar, Sir Robert
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Laidlaw, Robert	Radford, G. H.
Donelan, Captain A.	Lambert, George	Rainy, A. Rolland
Duckworth, James	Lamont, Norman	Raphael, Herbert H.
Duffy, William J.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Reddy, M.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, RtHnE. (Clackmannan
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Waterlow, D. S.
Redmond, William (Clare)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Watt, Henry A.
Richards, TF (Wolverhampton)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Weir, James Galloway
Rickett, J. Compton	Snowden, P.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Spicer, Sir Albert	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Robertson, SirGScott (Bradf'rd	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitehead, Rowland
Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roche, John (Galway, East)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rowlands, J.	Sutherland, J. E.	Wiles, Thomas
Runciman, Walter	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Russell, T. W.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland.)	Toulmin, George	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Ure, Alexander	Winfrey, R.
Sears, J. E.	Verney, F. W.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seaverns, J. H.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Yoxall, James Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.)	Walters, John Tudor
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Sheehy, David	Wardle, George J.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Sherwell, Arthur James	Waring, Walter	Pease.

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. ASHLEY

moved a new clause which provided that: "Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken under this Act all sporting rights: hitherto enjoyed by the vendor shall, if he so desires, remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase." He maintained that this clause was not out of harmony with the traditions of the Act of 1903, and the House ought to continue the spirit of that Act. When pieces of a landlord's property were to be dealt with compulsorily the general amenities as well as the sporting rights of the property would be injured, and it was a distinct asset to the old landlord that he should be left in possession of his demesne and the amenities attached to his residence. The Irish landlords were debarred in consequence of their religion and politics from taking any political or other share in the local life of the community, and were, therefore, thrown back on the enjoyment of the amenities of their residences. The policy of the Government should be to encourage the spending of money in Ireland in the same way as was now done in the cause of sport in Scotland.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

seconded the Motion.

New clause— Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken under this Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor shall, if he so desires, remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase."—(Mr. Ashley.)

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. GWYNN

said ho opposed this clause because he was one of the people who were extremely anxious that there should continue to be game in Ireland. The hon. Member did not know very much about Ireland or understand the people very well. He held that the only way to make Ireland a comfortable country for shooting or fishing was to vest the game in the occupiers of the holdings. The only places where shooting and fishing were satisfactory at the present moment were those places where the sporting rights were vested in the occupiers. The effect of this clause would prohibit anything of the sort. He protested against the clause and prophesied that if an evicted tenant was planted on a holding over which the landlord had shooting and fishing rights he would undertake that there would be nothing either to shoot or fish.

MR. CHERRY

said the Government could not accept the proposal. He did not think anything would be more likely to cause friction and trouble between landlord and evicted tenant who was restored compulsorily to the land than the continuance of the sporting rights in the hands of the landlord. The exercise of the landlord's right to enter upon the land at any time give rise to very great trouble between the parties and disputes and bloodshed might arise. It was very desirable now that the whole system of land purchase was being carried out that the landlords should waive all rights whatsoever. The reason that the Bill was brought in was to do away with quarrelling and friction.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought there was a good deal in the argument that if the sporting rights were properly exercised they would form a valuable source of revenue to the country. If they were allowed to be distributed over a large number of people owning each a small amount of land there would be no sporting rights at all. He thought it would be a bad thing if a single plot of land were taken in the middle of an estate for the purposes of reinstatement and that the tenant should have the sporting rights. That would spoil the whole of the shooting on the estate.

MR. CHERRY

stated that in the Act of 1903 there was a provision which left it open to the Estates Commissioners to allow the vendor in any particular case to retain by agreement the sporting rights.

MR. WALTER LONG

agreed that that met that part of the case. It was important that a landlord should be enabled to retain the sporting rights when only a portion of his estate was taken. It was in the best interests of Ireland that the sporting possibilities of the country should be developed, for they would undoubtedly be a very valuable source of income to the country

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he supposed the Amendment would be withdrawn. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for South Dublin as to the specific value of the preservation of game. But the preservation of game depended absolutely on the sympathy of the people, and any attempt to preserve game without that sympathy must be an utter failure. He controverted the statement that game could not be preserved if the preservation was distributed over a large number of people. He knew a mountain in Wicklow that was sold some time ago. Before it was sold the sporting rights were leased every year and gamekeepers were employed and so forth. But for the last few years the game had been diminishing in quantity. The mountain had now been bought by some fifteen families who lived in the valleys who purchased the grazing rights. They formed themselves into a committee for the preservation of the game and leased the shooting j every year, and it was interesting to know that the rental for the shooting on that mountain was more than enough to cover the annuity which these families had to pay to the Commissioners. The moment this arrangement was made these men themselves became the gamekeepers, and it was only in that way in his opinion that the game could be made a valuable asset to Ireland. If that example could not be followed they must undoubtedly despair of preserving the game, but if they enlisted the sympathy of the people themselves in the work, he believed that game in Ireland would soon become a valuable asset to the country.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said, as the discussion had assumed such a friendly character, he ventured to suggest that if the Government could not accept the words proposed they might do something else in the way of concession. He quite agreed that it was quite impossible for game to be preserved unless there was co-operation between landlord and tenant. He thought the rights should be vested in the owners of the soil. If they were vested in the tenants game would very soon disappear. To his mind the experience of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken was a unique one, and they must be far from expecting it all over Ireland. The preservation of game ought certainly to be a bond of union between landlord and tenant, and he believed that if words were put in the Bill by which the rights were left with the landlords, very good results would follow. As they were endeavouring to conciliate all sides by means of this Bill, he believed that it would only be justice that the rights in question should be left with the landlords. They were rights which they certainly exercised under the Act of 1903, and which he hoped would be continued to them.

New Clause and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

moved a clause which provided for non-liability of tenants for debts contracted prior to purchase. It would be remembered, he said, that the other night a subsection was put into Clause 8 protecting the restored tenant's holding in respect of debts incurred previous to the reinstatement. That had been done on the ground that the money was given by the State for the purpose of reinstatement, and that it would be absurd if the next day a private creditor could walk in and sell the tenant up. The Amendment which stood in his name was really part of the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Dublin, who had asked him to move this portion of it. He admitted that as it stood on the Paper it was too wide, and all he asked was that there should be some protection of the property given to these restored tenants. It would be absurd that, after the Government had given the tenant a farm and stocked it, the next day a creditor might walk in and seize the property provided with the money of the State. If the Government could suggest words which would protect these chattels he would not move this Amendment, which he thought too wide, and wider than he intended. He would, however, formally move the clause in order to see what the Government would do.

MR. O'SHEE

seconded the Motion.

New clause— No evicted tenant who has purchased a holding under the Act of 1903, or who shall purchase a holding under the said Act or under this Act, shall be liable to be adjudicated a bankrupt, or to have any of his property taken in execution, or otherwise made liable to satisfy any debt contracted or incurred by such evicted tenant prior to the date of the order vesting such holding in him."—(Mr. John Redmond.)

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. BIRRELL

said the Bill as already drawn up contained, as the hon. and learned Member had just said, a subsection in Clause 8, protecting the holding in respect of debts contracted by the tenant before his reinstatement, and he agreed that the protection given to the holding itself should extend to stock and equipment, where such was provided by the State. Although it was quite understood the Commission would carefully consider the financial position and would not reinstate a notoriously impecunious tenant or one who was heavily in debt, still there might be a debt hanging over the tenant, and on the morrow of his reinstatement his means of livelihood might be swept away by the creditors. He apprehended that it was not the intention of the House to give a person the means of paying his debts. The object in making a grant was to enable the tenant to live and thrive, and therefore some words should be inserted to protect the stock and equipment as the holding was protected under Clause 8. Caution in the selection of words was necessary, and perhaps there should be a time limit, but the intention was that the Treasury grant should not be forthwith appropriated for the satisfaction of an outstanding debt. While providing for protection for the grant from the State, at the same time it was necessary to avoid the setting up of a class of tenants who would not be liable for the settlement of their debts. He could not at the moment propose words in substitution of those in the Amendment which were too wide, but he would undertake that the proposal should be made in another place.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I can withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman moves.

MR. BIRRELL

I am afraid I cannot do that without notice. All I can do is to undertake that words shall be moved in another place.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was comforting to hear these allusions to another place where work could be done that could not be done in that House; and it was satisfactory, in spite of what was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there was still some practical usefulness in a Second Chamber.

MR. BIRRELL

was understood to say that that had never been denied.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had merely offered the observation in passing. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not the intention of the House that there should be taken from a man goods which had been made his as the result of the action of Parliament. He took it that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring up in another place would not protect any property which was the tenant's own, and which had not been acquired by him under the Bill. Of course, it was obvious that it would be ridiculous that somebody else should get the benefit of what the State had given the tenant, but he hoped that the words drawn up for the purpose of meeting that case would make it perfectly clear that a man would have no advantage from them save in respect of that which he held by the kindness of the State.

MR. BIRRELL

Certainly.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the words now, how did he know what another place would do? The right hon. Gentleman had not command of big battalions in the other House, and the Bill might come back without anything having been put in.

MR. BIRRELL

said he had been told that he could not move a new clause without notice.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it would be possible to move an Amendment to the proposed new clause by inserting the words: "No chattel appertaining to the holding and acquired within the meaning of Section 8 or Section 2 of this Act shall be liable to be taken in satisfaction of any debt prior to," etc. He thought those words would meet the ease; at all events it would give them something on which they could draft their Amendments in the House of Lords.

MR. BIRRELL

said that what he could do was to leave out all the words after the word "No," and insert these words: "Farm stock or other chattels provided for the evicted tenant by means of a grant or loan from the Estates Commissioners, under the Act of 1903, shall be liable to be taken in execution or otherwise made liable to satisfy any deb prior to the date of the Order vesting the holding in him."

MR. T. M. HEALY

That would be right.

MR. T. L. CORBETT,

on a point of order, asked what they were discussing. He understood they were considering a particular Amendment, and hon. Members had been simply bandying words across the floor of the House.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said the hon. and learned Member for Waterford seemed somewhat apprehensive on this subject, and he shared that apprehension. They had ample cause to be apprehensive with regard to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move in place of the proposition before the House. A proposal of this kind must inevitably destroy the credit of the evicted tenants, because they would be boycotted. Any words of the kind suggested would be liable to the greatest possible abuse, and it was obviously undesirable that goods should be taken at a moment's notice. It should be remembered that in reinstating evicted tenants consideration would be paid to finding out whether they were desirable tenants. It could not be held that a man who had a great many debts in the neighbourhood was a desirable tenant.

Clause read a second time.

MR. CHERRY

moved to amend the clause so that it would read: "No farm stock, or other chattels, provided for the evicted tenant by means of a grant or loan from the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903, or under this Act, shall be made available in any bankruptcy, or by any process or proceeding at law, to pay, satisfy, or discharge, in whole or in part, any debt contracted or incurred by such evicted tenant prior to the date of the Order vesting such holding in him."

MR. WALTER LONG

said that more than once the Government had declined to amend the Act of 1903. They had held that this Bill was based upon that Act, and they had declined to accept Amendments contrary to the spirit of the main Act. Under the Amendment now suggested by the Attorney-General they might be doing something in regard to which many of them had very little knowledge, because they were now making this proposition applicable to the evicted tenants under the main Act. He would like to know whether the Government were accepting responsibility now for doing what they had frequently refused to do before, namely, making a serious Amendment of the Act of 1903 under cover of this Bill.

MR. BIRRELL

replied that when the Government had said they had no intention of interfering with the Land Act of 1903 they meant the operations of land purchase under that Act. This was a small matter relating simply to the position of evicted tenants who had obtained an equipment grant. It was not desirable to make distinctions between tenants in this matter.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that his representative in another place would be authorised to go very carefully into this matter.

Amandment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

moved a clause limiting the number of evicted tenants to be reinstated or supplied with new holdings under the Bill to 2,000. He said his object was to provide some finality to the Bill. It was generally supposed that not more than 500 or 600 tenants would have to be dealt with under the Act of 1903, but from the Report of the Commissioners they found that 1,000 evicted tenants had been dealt with already, and that it was proposed to deal with 2,000 more. While he and his friends adhered to what they said in 1903—namely, that all bona fide evicted tenants should be reinstated, such a large number above the number supposed to exist in 1903 had been produced that they thought some definite limitation should be inserted in the Bill beyond which the Estates Commissioners should not be allowed to go. The object he had in view might be met either by limiting the number of persons to be reinstated or the amount of land to be provided; but he held that some limitation should be placed on the powers of the Commissioners in this respect.

MR. BARRIE

seconded the Motion. He appealed to the Government, in the interests of the Estates Commissionres and of those tenants who would be dispossessed of their holdings to make room for the evicted tenants, to accept the clause. The duties of the Commissioners under the Bill were not properly appreciated in the House, affecting as they did their primary duties which they had to discharge under the Land Act. The agitation which had led to the introduction of this Bill had met with marked success. As the representative of another class of tenants in Ireland he felt that he was fairly entitled to ask that the Government should state the total number of evicted tenants to whom this revolutionary piece of legislation was to apply. He deplored that these new duties should be laid upon the Estates Commissioners, because it would lead to the hanging up of the voluntary provisions of the Land Act. He understood that the hon. Member for South Tyrone had received remonstrances from the north of Ireland as to the delay that was taking place in the operation of the purchase clauses of the Land Act.

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

I have had remonstrances as to the price.

MR. BARRIE

said he believed that remonstrances had appeared in the public Press that the hon. Gentleman had not introduced his own Bill. He was sure that many of the hon. Member's friends in the north of Ireland would be interested to hear from him what his intentions were in regard to that matter. An earnest desire existed in many parts of Ireland that they should finally see the end of this class of pernicious legislation. He thought he would not be using too strong language when he said that it was legislation which put a premium on dishonesty.

MR. FLAVIN

asked if the hon. Gentleman would say where the dishonesty came in.

MR. BARRIE

said he would remind the hon. Member that the official body which he represented were responsible for the evicted tenants. They heard a great deal in these latter days of patriotism. He always understood that true patriotism was an unselfish thing; but his hon. friends below the gangway did not see it in that way

MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)

asked the Deputy-Speaker if the hon. Member was in order.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member was not dealing with the new clause.

MR. BARRIE

said that, in deference to the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker, he would not pursue that subject. But he would say that there was a tendency for the number of evicted tenants who sought to be re-instated still to increase He maintained that in the interest of the British taxpayer, if not in that of the Irish taxpayer, some provision should be inserted in the Bill limiting the number. He objected to the taking away of the Estates Commissioners from their duties connected with the working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903.

New clause— The number of evicted tenants to be reinstated or supplied with new holdings under this Act is hereby limited to two thousand."— (Mr. Charles Craig.)

Brought up, and read a first time.

Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. CHERRY

said he had heard that speech over and over again. It and the previous speech had consisted of nothing but vain repetition, and he could only repeat the answer which had been given over and over again. The Estates Commissioners had reported that 1,609 tenants appeared to them to be such as deserved to be restored. They estimated that of the remaining applications about 400 would similarly be considered to be suitable to be restored, say, in all, 2,009, although they might be willing to cut off the nine.

MR. BARRIE

said that as far as he was concerned he would be quite willing to cut another 200.

MR. CHERRY

said he could not understand why hon. Members would not allow some sense to the Estates Commissioners. They had gone through all this matter, and they had practically made up their minds. They, however, did not want to be tied down to a particular figure, but to be allowed a little freedom.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he could share the complaint of the Attorney-General against the manner in which the Amendment had been moved. But he thought the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway had subserved a useful function by moving those foolish Amendments which enabled the House to take the measure of the opponents of Home Rule. They were asked, for the first time, to place a numerical limitation on an act of justice. Supposing there were 2,001 persons who sought reinstatement, when they came to 2,000 they were to be told that no more justice was to be given! Suppose a limitation of the kind was proposed to the right to recover small debts, or in actions for breach of promise! The thing was absurd. Really hon. Gentlemen had done a useful service by repeating themselves over and over again, but he wished to give them the benefit of the admission that they were doing their best.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked the Attorney-General if he could state definitely whether there would or would not be more than 2,000 applications.

MR. CHERRY

said he could not say.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said that there were a great many men in Ireland who had gone so far as to curse the hon. Members for Waterford and East Mayo when they lost their holdings under the Plan of Campaign. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not give the House the information he asked for, he begged to move the adjournment of the House in order that the Chief Secretary might return to his place and supply them with the information.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

A Motion for the adjournment of the House from a private Member is not possible under the. Resolution governing our procedure on this Bill.

MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)

said that many of those who did not take part in these debates felt very strongly in regard to this Bill. He supported the clause because he thought that if a smaller sum were stated they were likely to do less injustice. He had received a letter from a man in Ireland in regard to this Bill. That man owned property in Ireland, and twenty years ago he turned out several of his tenants who had paid no rent for three or four years. During those twenty years he had built up his property, and had put it in order; in fact he had made it his life's work. And now he found himself obliged to leave

his farm and hand it over to some other man.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

asked why the hon. Gentleman assumed that a man in that position was going to be compelled to leave his farm. Why was it that hon. Gentlemen opposite denied to the Estates Commissioners, who were appointed by their own Government, all sense of fair play, all sense of public decency? He had never heard men attacked, even in the most troubled times of Irish history, as these three officials had been attacked. He had heard a great many hard things said about Irish magistrates and others, but he had never heard such attacks made on these men, who were incapable of defending themselves there, ever since this Bill had been brought before the House. All he could say was that it was a gross outrage that it should be so.

MR. PIKE PEASE

said that by the courtesy of the House he wished to be allowed to read the letter. [Loud cries of "No" from the Irish Benches.]

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member could not read the letter without the general assent of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 43; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 334.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood,Rt,Hn.SirAlex.F	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Rawlinson,John Frederick Pee
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert(Lanark,G'v'n)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord	Fardell, Sir T. George	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fell, Arthur	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beach,Hn.Hichael Hugh Hicks	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Fletcher, J. S.	Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hardy, Laurenc (Kent, Ashf'd)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds)	Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.	Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. G. Stuart-
Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Younger, George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Courthope, G. Loyd	Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)	Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Hugh Barrie.
Craik, Sir Henry	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dalrymple, Viscount	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)	Ambrose, Robert	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Barker, John
Agnew, George William	Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Barnes, G. N.	Hammond, John	O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.	Harmsworth, Cecil B (Worc'r)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Beauchamp, E.	Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Bell, Richard	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hazleton, Richard	O'Malley, William
Bennett, E. N.	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hedges, A. Paget	O'Shee, James John
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'd)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen,W.)	Partington, Oswald
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Black, Arthur W.	Higham, John Sharp	Pearson,Sir W.D. (Colchester)
Boland, John	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Boulton, A. C. F.	Hodge, John	Pirie, Duncan V.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hogan, Michael	Pollard, Dr.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Power, Patrick Joseph
Brigg, John	Horniman, Emslie John	Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hudson, Walter	Radford, G. H.
Brunner,F.J.L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Hyde, Clarendon	Rainy, A. Rolland
Brunner,Rt.Hn.Sir J.T. (Ches.)	Idris, T. H. W.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jenkins, J.	Reddy, M.
Byles, William Pollard	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cameron, Robert	Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richards,T.F. (Wovlerh'mpt'n
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Jordan, Jeremiah	Rickett, J. Compton
Cheetham, John Frederic k	Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cleland, J. W.	Kekewich, Sir George	Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd
Clough, William	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Clynes, J. R.	Kilbride, Denis	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	King,Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Laidlaw, Robert	Rowlands, J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lamont, Norman	Russell, T. W.
Crean, Eugene	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Crooks, William	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Crossley, William J.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Sears, J. E.
Cullinan, J.	Lewis, John Herbert	Seddon, J.
Curran, Peter Francis	Lundon, W.	Shaw, Rt.Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lupton, Arnold	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Delany, William	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Sheehy, David
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Lynch, H. B.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Donelan, Captain A.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Duffy, William J.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Snowden, P.
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall	M'Callum, John M.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	M'Crae, George	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Elibank, Master of	M'Kean, John	Sutherland, J. E.
Erskine, David C.	M'Killop, W.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Evans, Samuel T.	M'Micking, Major G.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Everett, R. Lacey	Maddison, Frederick	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E
Fenwick, Charles	Mallet, Charles E.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Ferens, T. R.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Toulmin, George
Ffrench, Peter	Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)	Ure, Alexander
Findlay, Alexander	Marnham, F. J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Massie, J.	Walters, John Tudor
Flynn, James Christopher	Meagher, Michael	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Meehan,Patrick A.	Wardle, George J.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Waring, Walter
Gilhooly, James	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wason, RtHn.E.(Clackmannan
Gill, A. H.	Mooney, J. J.	Wason,John Cathc art(Orkney)
Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Waterlow, D. S.
Glover, Thomas	Morse, L. L.	Watt, Henry A.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Weir, James Galloway
Grayson, Albert Victor	Murnaghan, George	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Murphy, John	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Gulland, John W.	Murray, James	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton	Napier, T. B.	Whiteley,John Henry (Halifax)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nolan, Joseph	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Halpin, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.	Winfrey, R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Wilson, J.H.(Middlesbrough)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon	Whiteley and Mr. J.A.
Wilson, P.W.(St. Pancras, s.)	Yoxall, James Henry	Pease.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

moved to omit Clause 1 (power to acquire land compulsorily). He apologised for inflicting upon the House what was practically a Second Reading speech, but said the clause was of the utmost importance as it contained the main principle of the Bill. It contained the principle of compulsion, and allowed the Estates Commissioners to acquire tenanted land. He desired to register again the determination of his colleagues and himself that, so far as it lay in their power, they would not allow such a clause to pass. They considered that compulsion was unnecessary to carry out the intention of the Act of 1903 so far as it applied to evicted tenants. They considered it unnecessary because they believed that under the voluntary powers of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners had carried out far more in the way of reinstatement of evicted tenants than was ever expected, or hoped by the supporters of the Act. During the discussion it was repeatedly said by Nationalists that if 600 or 700 evicted tenants were reinstated the evicted tenants' question would be settled once and for all. Over 1,000 tenants had been reinstated. He had understood at the passing of the Act of 1903 that only tenants who had been evicted in the course of the Plan of Campaign were to be reinstated, and it was a revelation to him to know that all evicted tenants, no matter what was the cause of their eviction, were to be reinstated. There were a hundred and one reasons which caused people in all countries to be evicted—bad farming, failure to pay rent, thriftlessness, and many other causes led to it; but of the seventeen Plan of Campaign estates, fifteen had been settled, so that it might be said that fifteen-seventeenths, or at any rate a large proportion of the bona fide political evicted tenants, had been restored to their farms. Besides the Plan of Campaign estates, there were a great number of other tenants throughout Ireland who had been evicted. The present Bill asked the House to grant the most extraordinary powers of compulsory acquisition of land which had been granted to any body of men. They could reinstate, not only the so-called "wounded soldiers of the land war," but the men who lost their farms for other than political reasons. If it were admitted that the vast majority of the political evicted tenants had been reinstated, and if it were admitted that those were the persons whom they were primarily legislating for in 1903, then there was no necessity in the wide world to come to the House and ask for compulsory powers to reinstate those other evicted tenants. The tenants who lost their farms for non-political causes had less claim on the indulgence of the House than the political evicted tenants. It was quite unnecessary to ask for compulsory powers to acquire land to reinstate these tenants, because it had been shown that in the three years that had elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1903, 1,000 tenants had already been reinstated, and if the same rate of progress continued the whole of the evicted tenants, if they did not exceed 2,000, would be reinstated in from four to six years. With regard to acquiring tenanted land, both the hon. Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo had categorically and specifically stated that they did not ask that any new tenant should be put out of his holding to make room for the evicted tenant, and he regarded it as a breach of faith on the part of those two hon. Gentlemen and their Party as a whole to ask now that these unfortunate men should leave their farms which had been their homes for so many years in order to put back men who would be greater strangers to the holdings than the present tenants. Having regard to the way in which the debate had developed, his hon. friends and. himself thought the question of the tenanted land was the most important part of the Bill. If the Bill was passed in its present form the Chief Secretary told them that the case of a new tenant being put out of his holding would be very rare and that that power would be exercised by the Estates Commissioners only on the rarest occasions. If they had had some real assurance that that would be so—if they had had any limitations in the Bill—they might have taken another view of the matter. But there were no limitations which differentiated the new tenant who was a bona fide farmer from the man who was a mere caretaker. He had no great objection to the latter class being compensated and turned out of their holding to make room for the original tenant, but that class did not constitute the majority of new tenants. His information was that the majority of new tenants were bona fide farmers, and it was not right for the House of Commons to hand over these men to the animosity and hostility of the Estates Commissioners, who would have the whole command of this Act put into their hands and who would be subjected to the enormous power wielded by the United Irish League to get these unfortunate men out of their farms. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford made no secret of the fact that since the passing of the Act of 1903 he had done all in his power to dispossess the new tenants and get the evicted tenants put into their places, and it was contrary to all conceptions of human nature to suppose that these three gentlemen could resist the pressure brought to bear upon them. Those were the two chief considerations which prompted him to move the omission of Clause 1. There were other minor points which made the clause unjust. It should contain a provision with regard to the amount to be paid by the Commissioners for the grass land which formed a large portion of the land to be acquired by the Commissioners under this Bill, and stringent regulations should be made to compel the Commissioners to pay the market value of the land. It was an axiom of English law that if anything was taken away from any person for the public benefit the loss should not fall on him, but on the persons benefited. Some conditions or directions ought also to be inserted in the clause compelling the Commissioners to offer, not what they thought was a proper price, but the real market value of the land. If a man was to have land taken from him compulsorily they should give him the full market value, and if possible a further sum because of the compulsory acquisition. That was the ordinary procedure in cases of compulsory acquisition, and if that were done he did not think that there would be very much need to complain. But there was nothing in the Bill which would ensure that the tenant would receive the full market value. In the Minutes of Evidence before the Commissioners on Congested Districts the various witnesses had different ideas as to what the value of grass lands should be. It had been stated that Mr. Finucane, one of the Commissioners, had certain ideas as to the value of grass lands which if carried out would not give the owners the full value of those lands. Therefore, there should be included in the Bill specific directions which would make it incumbent on the Estates Commissioners, or on the Court of Appeal which it was hoped would be incorporated later in this measure, to give the top market value for the land. ["Tip-top."] An hon. Member suggested tip-top; he had no objection. He thought it perfectly reasonable that where land was taken compulsorily the full market value should be given. ["Hear, hear."] The Chief Secretary cheered that, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, before the Bill left the House, so alter the clause as to carry that out. Hon. Members on his side of the House thought that before the Estates Commissioners were allowed to acquire these holdings or any holdings compulsorily, the proposal to acquire them should be put before some independent tribunal, he thought it ought to be the Judicial Commissioner. Reference had been made by the learned Attorney-General to the analogy to be found in the Labourers Act passed last year, and he had said that this Bill was drawn up in strict conformity with the provisions of that enactment. But he thought they had proved to the House that this Bill in its essentials differed absolutely from the Labourers Act, for under that measure the rural district council, when acquiring land for the purpose of erecting upon it labourers cottages, had to draw up a scheme which was submitted to a separate tribunal altogether, namely, an inspector sent down by the Local Government Board to make inquiry. They thought the same thing might be done under this Bill, and that where the Estates Commissioners desired to acquire land, whether tenanted or untenanted, for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants, they should have to put their proposal before the Judicial Commissioner, who should inquire into the reasonableness of taking the land. He thought that was a very reasonable suggestion, and that the clause should be left out of the Bill. He freely admitted that these reasons, although they applied to the first clause, were equally against the whole Bill, roughly speaking. In view of the inordinate and extraordinary powers to be given to the Commissioners to apply compulsion where compulsion was not necessary, and the proposals to take un-tenanted land, while placing no restrictions on the Estates Commissioners, he opposed this clause. He begged to move.

MR. T. L. CORBETT,

in seconding the Amendment, said he thought that the whole aim and scope of this clause had been very clearly defined by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who a short time ago had said that they were going to reward those who had broken the law while those who had obeyed the law were to be turned out to starve. The hon. Member for South Tyrone at a meeting the other day had stated that he(Mr. Corbett) had changed his views on the question of compulsory purchase. "No."] He had not changed his views, and he was very glad that the hon. Member had not meant to taunt him with having done so. At all events the hon. Member had interrupted him during his speech by throwing that taunt across the floor of the House. He had not changed his views, and he was still prepared to carry out compulsion to give full effect to the Act of 1903. But he did not confine the benefits of compulsion as the hon. Member for South Tyrone did to dishonest men. They felt that they had to protect the tenants of the North of Ireland and the honest tenants in the South and West of Ireland; but this proposal went far to paralyse the normal working of the Act of 1903. The right hon. Gentleman must know even with his short acquaintance with Ireland that contracts had been entered into between landlords and tenants for the sale of approaching to £50,000,000 worth of land in Ireland. Some £20,000,000 had already been provided, and they were simply waiting for the remaining £30,000,000, which was wanted to carry out these contracts between honest men who had done their duty and the landlords who were willing to sell. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] Where were they? They were throughout all Ireland. The work of carrying out these contracts was going to be stopped by giving a preference to men who a quarter of a century ago were turned out of their farms because they would not pay their rents. The hon. Member for South Tyrone laughed, but he knew that the facts were exactly as he had stated them. He had quoted the words of the hon. Member, and he had a long string of quotations from speeches of the hon. Gentleman in his pocket. What they proposed to do in behalf of these men was most iniquitous; if they wanted to do anything for them let the State do it and do it generously, but let them not interfere with the working of the Act of 1903, or with the carrying out of that for which great numbers of tenants were anxiously waiting—men to whom the hon. Member for South Tyrone used to promise the fulfilment of their hopes, but with whom he was now going to interfere in behalf of another class.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Craig.)

Question proposed, "That the clause down to the word 'land' in line 6 stand part of the Bill."

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said the hon. Member had stated that under the Act of 1903 those for whom they legislated were the political evicted tenants, or the Plan of Campaign tenants. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that of seventeen estates fifteen had been dealt with, and the cases of the evicted on those fifteen estates had been settled. He ventured to say that when the Land Act of 1903 was going through what the hon. Gentleman had stated was not the fact. As he understood, the bona-fide evicted tenants since 1879 were to be reinstated, if not in their original holdings, in other holdings of an equivalent character. They knew that in 1879 the Plan of Campaign was not started, and he ventured to submit that what the hon. Gentleman had stated was not the fact.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he did not deny that they had now to deal with evicted tenants of all sorts. He had only said that at the time of the passing of the Act of 1903 very few persons realised that they had to deal with a very large number of non-political evicted tenants. What they had thought was that they had only to deal with the Plan of Campaign tenants.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said he differed from the hon Member. They knew that a great number of these evicted tenant cases had not been settled, and that for four years negotiations with the Commissioners and their inspectors had been going on. Many of the landlords would not consent to the reinstatement of their tenants, and there were many farms in the occupation of "grabbers" which the holders would not give up, although under the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners had power to grant them compensation. To settle this question by compulsion was, therefore, absolutely necessary. He wished to congratulate the Chief Secretary upon the courageous manner in which he had tackled the question. He hoped the measure would pass into law as it stood, and if it did it would bring happiness to a most deserving class, and peace and prosperity to Ireland.

MR. BIRRELL

said that if he lived to be a hundred he would never be able to understand the notion which some hon. Gentlemen opposite had of what constituted debate. The objections which had now been stated had been repeated over and over again in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. and he was much more impressed by them the first time he heard them than the last. The hon. Member opposite said it afforded him great pleasure to re-register his protest against the Bill. There was, however, only one way of discussing a Bill properly, and that was to proceed from point to point, and after making them clear proceed to other points and state their objections to them. Hon. Members opposite had their own conception of what debate was and their powers, and if they were satisfied by saying the same thing over and over again and derived pleasure from it, of course the Government were powerless in the matter, and the Bill would go to another place with a number of its clauses undiscussed. Those clauses might have been discussed that evening. Why did not hon. Members proceed to other points? There were other matters which admitted of, and were deserving of, discussion, and on which Amendments might perhaps be accepted. By-and-bye it would be said that a number of the clauses had not been discussed at all, but they might have discussed them that evening.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman ought not to confine himself to the clause.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. BIRRELL

I will say no more.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the right hon. Gentleman had had much experience in other walks of life, but not a very long experience of passing Bills through that House.

MR. BIRRELL

I have never had anything like this.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was all very well for the Chief Secretary to lecture the Opposition for the time they had taken up in discussing this measure so far, but he knew perfectly well that the Government had made the closure a necessary part of their policy in carrying legislation. Therefore it was idle to talk about adequate time having been allowed for discussion. Nobody deplored more than he did any legislation which was not adequately discussed, but adequate discussion was rendered impossible under the system adopted by the Government. There was only one way of proceeding under the closure, and that was for the Government to constitute themselves the sole judges as to what it was necessary to discuss and what not. The right hon. Gentleman said they had been discussing points which were of no importance, and had repeated over and over again the same arguments. He himself had been Minister in charge of a Bill more than once, and he never felt so sick as he did when the Opposition repeated arguments which he felt had weight and which he had difficulty in answering. What the right hon. Gentleman objected to was not speeches which he could answer, but the repetition of arguments which he admitted himself had some weight the first time he heard them, but had since lost their weight by repetition. If an argument had force the first time it was used surely it did not lose its force by repetition. Hon. Members below the gangway said the Opposition were opposing this Bill because they were opposed to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. [NATIONALIST cries of "Hear, hear!"] He made no complaint of that argument, because in politics as in other things different ways of fighting were justifiable. The Unionist Members were not opposing this Bill because they were opposed to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. On the contrary, they accepted the view that the evicted tenants were to be reinstated, and the majority of his friends had not denied that it might be necessary to resort to compulsion in certain cases. But that did not mean that any form of compulsion exercised in any way was justified just because there was need of some compulsory powers. Two things ought to be proved—first, that compulsory powers were needed in order to meet a public need, and, secondly, that they would be exercised with such precautions as would secure justice for those against whom they would be exercised, as well as justice for those in whose favour they would be exercised. Clause 1 gave a right for compulsory powers to be exercised by a Department of the Irish Government without control, without appeal, and without any limitation. They were quite justified in saying that by this Bill they were conferring powers of an unprecedented character. Not one precedent for such compulsory powers had been given except by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who alluded to a private Bill dealing with a certain part of London. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Opposition had been repeating arguments over and over again. Certainly they had repeated arguments, and nobody denied it. The point upon which they had repeated them was the main principle of the Bill, and the rest of the measure consisted of comparatively small and unimportant matters relating to machinery. By this Bill they were conferring unlimited powers upon the Estates Commissioners. He had never said a word against the members of that Commission, for he had always held that every permanent official should be safe from attack in the House of Commons. Whenever he had had to speak of the action of civil servants he had never attacked them. The permanent officials could not stand up in that House and defend themselves. He had pointed out, however, that these particular public servants were in an exceptional position. They could act independently, as it were, and they could give expression to opinions such as those quoted earlier in the debate.. That necessarily exposed them to the criticism of those who did not believe that their opinions were well founded. It was to these men that exceptional powers were to be given. If these officials were given further powers without any control from the Administration, the Government could not complain if the conduct of these officials was made the subject of criticism in that House. The Opposition believed that these compulsory powers should be in the hands of an independent tribunal, subject to the administration, who could answer for them; and secondly, that these powers should be surrounded by such limitations as would secure that those who appeared before the tribunal should have the right of presenting their case. That right was denied under this Bill. He resented the charge which had been made by a Nationalist Member that the Opposition wished to keep this question of evicted tenants alive for political purposes, and in order to attack the Nationalist Party in Ireland. He did not blame hon. Members below the gangway for fighting hard, but such an attack was utterly unworthy of any opponents, no matter how strong their views might be. The Opposition believed that the evicted tenants should be put back under certain limitations and under certain conditions, but to say that because they held these views they were bound to accept this Bill without discussion, for that was what it amounted to, was to make a preposterous demand, and, although the Opposition were small in number, they would nevertheless persist in opposition to the measure, and they would be in no way deterred by the criticisms of the Chief Secretary, which they believed to be as unfounded as they believed their own attitude to be thoroughly justified.

MR. A. ROCHE (Cork)

thought he could claim to have more personal experience on the question of the evicted tenants, and particularly those in connection with the Clanricarde estate, than any other man in or out of Parliament. What was the condition of affairs there at the present moment? There were between fifty and sixty families still unsettled in connection with the Clanricarde estate. During all the years which had passed since they were evicted there had never been more than eight new tenants or planters on the estate. The 'holdings which were formerly occupied by the evicted tenants had been grouped together to form larger farms for the planters. These tenants had been described as industrious, hard working, and reliable men, but he would point out that some of them had left the estate without paying the rent for the years they had been in occupation of the farms, and the remainder had run away, not only in debt to Lord Clanricarde, but to others from whom they had obtained credit. There were tenants in other districts also, who had been served with writs on account of the rent being unpaid, and others had received notice to quit. He maintained that unless the Estates Commissioners had compulsory powers to acquire land, it would be utterly impossible to deal with the estates of Lord Clanricarde and certain other landlords. There were other districts in the neighbourhood a which exactly similar conditions pre-ailed. Some planters had been cleared out, others had writs for rent served upon them, and others had received notice to quit. He maintained that it would be the duty of the Government to come to the relief of these men with compulsory power, so that they should get something for clearing out.

MR. BARRIE

said he had an Amendment to this clause dealing with tenanted as compared with untenanted land. He was anxious that the compulsory powers under the clause should be limited to untenanted land. They were all aware that the Commissioners had stated that 80,000 acres of land would be necessary to reinstate the evicted tenants. He most respectfully submitted that the Government should very seriously consider whether they were warranted in taking the large powers which they claimed under this Bill. They had heard many descriptions as to the worthlessness of the planter tenants. It was no part of his duty to say that all the planters were eligible agriculturists, but many of them had proved themselve, to be so. They had tilled their farms in a manner satisfactory to their landlords, and he felt that it was very revolutionary that a measure should be passed to take from them the farms which they were properly cultivating and hand them over to those of whom the less the House heard the better. Certainly they would not be better farmers than those whom they were to dispossess. Under the Land Purchase Act of 1905, no fewer than 150,000 tenants had already become by voluntary arrangement the owners of the soil which they cultivated, but if they took another section who had not been able to purchase under the provisions of that Act, and reinstated them in their old holdings, they would be putting the latter in a better position than the honest tenants. That was neither the spirit nor the intention of the Act of 1903. He had always maintained that compulsion would have to come for the balance of the tenants not yet reinstated, but he was now speaking of the rent-paying tenants who had fulfilled all their honourable obligations. He supported the Amendment in the interests of his constituent, who were largely composed of tenant farmers.

Question put

The House divided:—Ayes, 296; Noes, 82. (Division..List No. 335.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Delany, William	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.	Jordan, Jeremiah
Agnew, George William	Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.	Jowett. F. W.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Joyce. Michael
Alden, Percy	Donelan, Captain A.	Kearley. Hudson E.
Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)	Duffy, William J.	Kekewich.Sir George
Ambrose, Robert	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Kennedy. Vincent Paul
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kilbride. Denis
Astbury, John Meir	Dunne,Major E.Martin (Wals'll	King. Alfred John (Knutsford)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Laidlaw. Robert
Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Elibank, Master of	Lambert, George
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Erskine, David C.	Lamont. Norman
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Evans. Samuel T.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barker, John	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Everett, R. Lacey	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Barnes, G. N.	Fenwick, charles	Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Ferens, T. R.	Lehmann, R. C.
Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Levy. Sir Maurice
Bell, Richard	Ffrench, Peter	Lewis, John Herbert
Bellairs. Carlyon	Findlay, Alexander.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Benn,Sir J.WilliamsDevonp'rt	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lough, Thomas
Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.	Flynn, James Christopher	Lundon. W.
Bennett, E . N.	Foster. Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lupton. Arnold
Berridge, T. H. D.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Luttrell. Hugh Fownes
Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'd	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lynch. H. B.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon	Gilhooly, James	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gill. A.H.	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Black, Arthur W.	Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Boland, John	Glover, Thomas	MacNeill. John Gordon Swift
Boulton, A. C. F.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.
Bowerman, C W.	Grant, Corrie	MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal,E.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Grayson, Albert Victor	M'Callum, John M.
Brigg, John	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Crae, George
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Kean. John
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Gulland, John W.	M'Killop, W.
Brunner.Rt. Hn.Sir J. T. (Ches.	Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirWBrampton	M'Micking, Major G.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gwynn. Stephen Lucius	Maddison. Frederick
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mallet. Charles E.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Halpin, J.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Byles, William Pollard	Hammond, John	Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston
Cameron, Robert	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Marnham, F. J.
Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Massie, J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Meagher, Michael
Cheetham, John Frederick	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meehan, Patrick A.
Cherry. Rt, Hon. R. R.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cleland, J. W.	Hayden, John Patrick	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clough, William	Healy, Timothy Michael	Montagu, E. S.
Clynes, J. R.	Hedges, A. Paget	Mooney, J. J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Henderson. Arthur (Durham)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.	Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morrell. Philip
Cooper, G. J.	Higham, John Sharp	Morse L. L.
Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hodge, John	Murnaghan, George
Cox, Harold	Hogan. Michael	Murphy. John
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Holden. E. Hopkinson	Murray, James
Crean, Eugene	Holland, Sir William Henry	Myer. Horatio
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Horniman, Emslie John	Napier. T. B.
Crooks. William	Hudson, Walter	Nolan, Joseph
Crosfield, A. H.	Hyde, Clarendon	O' Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid
Crossley, William J.	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cullinan, J.	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Curran, Peter Francis	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Davies,David (Montgomery Co.	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry. W.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jenkins, J.	O'Grady. J.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Kelly,.James(Roscommon,N.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea	O'Malley, William
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Rose, Charles Day	Ure, Alexander
O'Shee, James John	Rowlands, J.	Verney, P. W.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Russell, T. W.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Partington, Oswald	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Walters, John Tudor
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Pearson, Sir W. (Colchester)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Wardle, George J.
Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)	Sears, J. E.	Waring, Walter
Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)	Seaverns, J. H.	Wason,RtHn.E. (Clackmannan
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Seddon, J.	Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Pirie, Duncan V.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Watt, Henry A.
Pollard, Dr.	Sherwell, Arthur.James	Weir, James Galloway
Power, Patrick Joseph	Silcock, Thomas Ball	White, George (Norfolk)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Centr'l	Simon, John Allsebrook	White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)
Radford, G. H.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Smeaton, Donald,Mackenzie	White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
Raphael, Herbert H.	Snowden, P.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wiles, Thomas
Reddy, M.	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilkie, Alexander
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Spicer, Sir Albert	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wills. Arthur Walters
Renton, Major Leslie	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rickett, J. Compton	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Sutherland, J. E.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Winfrey, R.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd	Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury	Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thompson,J. W. H.(Somerset,E.
Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Thorne, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Roche, John (Galway, East)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Toulmin, George
NOES.
Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F	Craik, Sir Henry	Pease,Herbert Pike)Darlington
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dalrymple, Viscount	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.	Duncan,Robert (Lanark,G'v'n	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fardell, Sir T. George	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Fell, Arthur	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry.N.)	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Scott, Sir S. (Marvlebone, W.)
Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Fletcher, J. S.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Smith,F.E . (Liverpool, Walton
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gretton, John	Starkey, John R.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bull, Sir William James	Helmsley, Viscount	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds	Thomson, W.Mitchell- (Lanark
Carlile, B. Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.	Keswick, William	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.	Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)	Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred	Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Nield, Herbert
Courthope, G. Loyd	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, MR. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House of 22nd July, successively to put forthwith the Question upon any Amendments moved by

the Government of which notice had been given.

Amendment made— In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the land a price which appears to them to represent the fair market value there of, and he has not within the prescribed time accepted the offer.' "—(Mr. Birrell.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 14, after ' 1903,' to insert the words ' who, or whose predecessors, were evicted from their holdings before the passing

of the said Act in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of their landlords and ' "—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided:—Ayes, 301; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 336.)

AYES
Acland, Francis Dyke	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir AlexF.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis
Agnew, George William	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Cleland, J. W.	Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd
Alden, Percy	Clough, William	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)	Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Haworth, Arthur A.
Ashley, W. W.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hedges, A. Paget
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Helmsley, Viscount
Astbury, John Meir	Collins,SirWm.J. (S.Pancras,W	Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon. SirH	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's
Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Higham, John Sharp
Balfour,RtHnA.J.(City	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hobhousc, Charles E. H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Courthope, G. Loyd	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Cox, Harold	Holland. Sir William Henry
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.	Holt, Richard Durning
Barker, John	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Horniman, Emslie John
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Crosfield, A. H.	Hyde, Clarendon
Barrie,H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Crossley, William J.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)	Dalrymple, Viscount	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Beach,Hn.Hichael Hugh Hicks	Davies, David (MontgomeryCo	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Beauchamp, E.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, SirD Brynmor(Swansea
Bell, Richard	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kekewich, Sir George
Bennett, E. N.	Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan	Keswick, William
Berridge, T. H. D.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bertram. Julius	Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall	King, Alfred John (Knutsford
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Laidlaw. Robert
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Erskine, David C.	Lambert, George
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Evans, Samuel T.	Lamont, Norman
Black, Arthur W.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lane-Fox. G. R.
Boulton, A. C. F.	Everett, R. Lacey	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Boyle, Sir Edward	Faber, George Denison (York)	Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington
Bramsdon, T. A.	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Lehmann, R. C.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Fell, Arthur	Levy. Sir Maurice
Brigg, John	Fenwick, Charles	Lewis, John Herbert
Bright, J. A.	Ferens, T. R.	Lloyd-George, Rt, Hon. David
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lockwood. Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R
Brunner,J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S
Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire	Findlay, Alexander	Lonsdale. John Brownlee
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Fletcher, J. S.	Lough. Thomas
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Forster, Henry William	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bull, Sir William James	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lupton. Arnold
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Lynch, H. B.
Cameron, Robert	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lyttelton. Rt, Hon. Alfred
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John	Mackarness. Frederic C.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Grant, Corrie	M'Crae. George
Cave, George	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Micking, Major G.
Cavendish,Rt,Hon.Victor C.W.	Gretton, John	Maddison. Frederick
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Mallet. Charles E.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gulland, John W.	Manfield. Harry (Northants)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton	Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)
Marnham, F. J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Massie, J.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.	Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall	Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E
Micklem, Nathaniel	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Molteno, Percy Alport	Rose, Charles Day	Toulmin, George
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Rowlands, J.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Montagu, E: S.	Runciman, Walter	Turnour, Viscount
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Russell, T. W.	Ure, Alexander
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Verney, F. W.
Morpeth, Viscount	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Morrell, Philip	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Morse, L. L.	Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walters, John Tudor
Murray, James	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Myer, Horatio	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Waring, Walter
Napier, T. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan
Nield, Herbert	Sears, J. E.	Waterlow, D. S.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Seaverns, J. H.	Watt, Henry A.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Seely, Major J. B.	Whitbread, Howard
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	White, George (Norfolk)
Partington, Oswald	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Shipman. Dr. John G.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wiles, Thomas
Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wills, Arthur Walters
Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton	Wilson, Henry J.(York,W. R.)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Pollard, Dr.	Soares, Ernest J.	Winfrey, R.
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wodehonse, Lord
Radford, G. H.	Starkey, John R.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rainy, A. Rolland	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Younger, George
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Strachey, Sir Edward
Rees, J. D.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Remnant, James Farquharson	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Renton, Major Leslie	Sutherland, J. E .	Pease
Rickett, J. Compton	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Hammond, John	Murnaghan, George
Ambrose, Robert	Hayden, John Patrick	Murphy, John
Barnes, G. N.	Hazleton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Boland, John	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hodge, John	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.
Byles, William Pollard	Hogan, Michael	O'Grady, J.
Clynes, J. R.	Hudson, Walter	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jenkins, J.	O'Malley, William
Cooper, G. J.	Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crean, Euguene	Jowett, F. W.	O'Shee, James John
Crooks, William	Joyce, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cullinan, J.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Power, Patrick Joseph
Curran, Peter Francis	Kilbride, Denis	Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh. Central)
Delany, William	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Reddy, M.
Duffy, William J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Lundon, W.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Ffrench, Peter	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Richards, T.F(Wolverh'mpt'n
Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Flynn, James Christopher	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Gilhooly, James	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Gill, A. H.	M'Kean, John	Seddon, J.
Glover, Thomas	M'Killop, W.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Grayson, Albert Victor	Meagher, Michael	Sheehy, David
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Meehan, Patrick A.	Snowden, P.
Halpin, J.	Mooney, J. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Thorne, William	Wilkie, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Wardle. George J.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Captain Donelan and Mr.
White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)	Patrick O'Brien.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words, 'For the purposes of this enactment a person shall be deemed to be a tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, if the agreement was entered into after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seven, and if the holding has not

become vested in him as a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts.' "—(Mr. Birrell.)

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided:—Ayes, 310; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 337.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Cooper, G. J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Haworth, Arthur A.
Agnew, George William	Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Hayden, John Patrick
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hazleton, Richard
Alden, Percy	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Healy, Timothy Michael
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Crean, Eugene	Hedges, A. Paget
Ambrose, Robert	Cremer, Sir William Randal	Henderson. Arthur (Durham)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Crooks. William	Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen,W.]
Astbury, John Meir	Crosfield, A. H.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Crossley, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cullinan, J.	Hobhouse. Charles E. H.
Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Curran, Peter Francis	Hodge, John
Barker, John	Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.)	Hogan, Michael
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Barnes. G. N.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Holland, Sir William Henry
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Delany, William	Holt, Richard Durning
Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Horniman. Emslie John
Beauchamp, E.	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Hudson, Walter
Bell, Richard	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hyde, Clarendon
Bellairs, Carlyon	Donelan, Captain A.	Idris, T. H. W.
Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt	Duffy, William J.	Illingworth. Percy H.
Benn. W. (T'W'r Hamlets,S. Geo.	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Isaacs. Rufus Daniel
Bennett, E. N.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Berridge, T. H. D.	Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall	Jenkins. J.
Bertram, Julius	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)
Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd	Elibank, Master of	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)
Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)	Erskine, David C.	Jones. Leif (Appleby)
Birrell, Rt, Hon. Augustine	Evans, Samuel T.	Jordan. Jeremiah
Black. Arthur W.	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Jowett, F.W.
Boland, John	Everett, R. Lacey	Joyce, Michael
Boulton, A. C. F.	Fenwick, Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.
Bowerman, C. W.	Ferens. T. R.	Kekewich, Sir George
Bramsdon, T. A.	Ffrench, Peter	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Brigg, John	Findlay, Alexander	Kilbride. Denis
Bright, J. A.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Flynn, James Christopher	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Laidlaw. Robert
Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lambert, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lamont, Norman
Buckmaster. Stanley O.	Gibb. James (Harrow)	Lardner. James Carrige Rushe
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Gilhooly. James	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas	Gill. A. H.	Layland- Barratt. Francis
Byles, William Pollard	Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John	Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)
Cameron, Robert	Glover, Thomas	Lehmann, R. C.
Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Levy, Sir Maurice
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Grant, Corrie	Lewis, John Herbert
Channing, Sir Franc is Allston	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Cheetham, John Frederick	Gulland, John W.	Lough. Thomas
Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.	Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton	Lundon, W.
Cleland, J. W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Lupton, Arnold
Clough, William	Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Clynes, J. R.	Halpin, J.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hammond, John	Lynch. H. B.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Harmsworth, Cecil B. Wore r)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Spicer, Sir Albert
MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
M'Callum, John M.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
M'Crae, George	Pollard, Dr.	Strachey, Sir Edward
M'Kean. John	Power, Patrick Joseph	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
M'Killop, W.	Price,C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
M'Micking, Major G.	Radford, G. H.	Sutherland, J. E.
Maddison, Frederick	Rainy, A. Rolland	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Mallet, Charles E.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Rea,Walter Russel (Scarboro')	Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Reddy, M.	Thompson, J. W.H(Somerset,E.
Marnham, F. J.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thorne, William
Massie, J.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Meagher, Michael	Rees, J. D.	Toulmin, George
Meehan, Patrick A.	Renton, Major Leslie	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Micklem, Nathaniel	Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Ure, Alexander
Molteno, Percy Alport	Rickett, J. Compton	Verney, F . W.
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Montagu, E. S.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Walters, John Tudor
Mooney, J. J.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wardle, George J.
Morrell. Philip	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Waring, Walter
Morse, L. L.	Roche. John (Galway, East)	Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmanann
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Rogers, F . E. Newman	Waterlow, D. S.
Murnaghan, George	Rose, Charles Day	Watt, Henry A.
Murphy, John	Rowlands, J.	Weir, James Galloway
Murray, James	Runciman, Walter	Whitbread, Howard
Myer, Horatio	Russell, T. W.	White, George (Norfolk)
Napier, T. B.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Nolan, Joseph	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	White, Patrick (Meath. North)
O' Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wiles, Thomas
O'Connor, John (Kildare; N.)	Sears, J. E.	Wilkie, Alexander
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Seaverns, J. H.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Seddon, J.	Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Grady, J.	Seely, Major J. B.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.
O'Malley, William	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sheehy, David	Winfrey, R.
O'Shee, James John	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wodehouse. Lord
Parker, James (Halifax)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Partington, Oswald	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Snowden, P.
Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Soames. Arthur Wellesley
Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)	Soares, Ernest J.
NOES.
Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Helmsley, Viscount
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hervey,F. W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's)
Ashley, W. W.	Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt,Hon.SirH.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E.	Hills, J. W.
Balcarres, Lord	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hunt, Rowland
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Keswick, William
Banner. John S. Harmood-	Courthope, G. Loyd	Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Craik, Sir Henry	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Dalrymple, Viscount	Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Long,Rt.Hon.Walter (Dublin,S
Boyle, Sir Edward	Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bull, Sir William James	Pell, Arthur	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Magnus, Sir Philip
Carlile, E. Hildred	Fletcher, J. S.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Cave, George	Forster, Henry William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Morpeth, Viscount
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gretton, John	Nield, Herbert
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Pease,HerbertPike)Darlington)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Starkey, John R.	Wilson,A.Stanely(York,E.R)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Worthy, Rt, Hon C. B. stuart-
Remnant, James Farquharson	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wyndham. Rt Hon.George
Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)	Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)	Younger, George
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Turnour, Viscount
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Valentia, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard	Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. George Faber.
Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)	Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)
Smith, F. E.(Liverpool,Walton)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Amendment made— In page 3, line 27, after the word 'serve,' to insert the words 'in the prescribed manner.' "—(Mr. Cherry.)

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.