§ The Land Commission, where interest on the purchase-money of any holding is payable to them, shall have for the recovery of such interest the same remedies as they have for the recovery of unpaid instalments 2026 of a purchase annuity, and in addition and without prejudice to those remedies, may, if they think fit, exclude from the estate any holding in respect of the purchase-money of which one year's interest is in arrear.
2027§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG moved to leave out the words, "and in addition, and without prejudice to those remedies, may, if they think fit, exclude from the estate any holding in respect of the purchase money, of which one year's interest is in arrear."
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ When a landlord sells his estate in Ireland, when compliance has been made with the Act of Parliament, and the estate has been declared to be an estate within the meaning of the Act, instead of the landlord collecting the rents from the tenants himself, as in the past, the tenants henceforth pay a percentage on the amount of the purchase money. That percentage is collected by the Land Commission, and is handed over each half-year to the landlord. To put the matter shortly, as soon as the estate has been declared to be an estate within the meaning of the Act, the landlord practically parts with possession of it. So long as the tenants pay their percentage of the purchase money regularly all goes well, but under this Clause, if at any time during the interval which elapses between the declaration of the estate and the payment of the money to the landlord—a period which may, and often does, extend, to four, five or six years—the tenant, who for three or four years may have paid his percentage punctually, for some reason or another, may not be able to pay it. If the Clan so is left as it is the Land Commission, on such tenant getting into arrear for one year, may exclude the holding, and may throw the tenant back on the landlord's hands as an ordinary tenant. I submit that this is very harsh treatment, not only on the landlord, but also on the tenant. As soon as his estate has been accepted by the Land Commission the landlord considers himself as practically free from all responsibility and the dangers incident to the position of a landlord. On the other hand, the tenant considers that as he is paying a smaller sum by way of interest than he formerly did as rent, that to be thrown back upon the landlord's hands—if such happens—would be to revert to the rent that he was paying before the negotiations for sale had been entered into. That, of course, a tenant, after paying a lower rate for some years, would very much object to.
§ Mr. DILLONWhy does not he pay it?
§ Mr. C. CRAIGThere are many reasons. In 99 cases out of 100 it is not the tenant's fault that he cannot pay the rent, but somebody else's fault. I maintain that the Land Commission and the Estates 2028 Commissioners are going too far when they say that in such a case as I have instanced they should have power to relieve themselves from all responsibility, which they have assumed, and throw back the tenant on to the landlord's hands. It is not good policy. It is extremely harsh both on the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to strike out these words, and to leave to the Land Commission this responsibility, which, after all, in their case is comparatively small, whereas in the case of the landlords it is a much greater responsibility, and one; which may lead from time to time to very great trouble.
§ Mr. DILLONI could have wished that the hon. Member had shown the same tenderness and delicacy for the tenants who could not pay their rent to their landlords as he has shown for those who may not be able to pay their interest. I never heard him elaborate an excuse for the tenants who could not pay their rent. He is seized with an extraordinary tenderness and solicitude for the tenants who decline to pay their interest to the State.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGFail!
§ Mr. DILLONWell, fail. When the tenant failed to pay his rent he was thrown on to the roadside.
§ Mr. DILLONYes, it was so. Hon. Members above the Gangway had very few words of sympathy and compassion then, although these rents were impossible rents forced upon the tenants without any choice upon their part. I have no interest one way or the other in this Amendment. I do not care three straws whether it is accepted or not. I am perfectly indifferent on the point, and I have no intention of interfering, and would not have done so but for the extraordinary speech from the hon. Member who has, always been the champion of landlordism. While I stand absolutely indifferent as regards this Amendment, the Government must not take the Nationalist party as supporting it. Our position has always been that the tenant who signed an agreement to purchase, and placed himself under an obligation to pay his annuity, is totally different from that of the tenant who is paying rent to a landlord. We have always held, and are prepared to argue, that owing to the circumstances of Ireland a tenant may be placed in a most cruel 2029 and unjust position as regards this rent, but I have always, both inside this House and outside, warned the Irish tenants that when they became purchasers of their own free will from the State they ought to have in their minds the obligation which they are under that they will have to pay, and pay punctually, their interest or annuities. I do not think it is wise on the part of those who have always championed the landlords to be appealing now for indulgence for tenants who, having signed agreements to pay a certain interest to the State, decline this year, or the year after, to pay that interest. So far as the Amendment is concerned, I do not care whether the Government accept it or not, but I would like to point out to the House that the demand for indulgence for tenants who do not pay their annuities comes from one of the Members of the Ulster Unionist party, and not from any Member of the Nationalist party.
§ Mr. CHERRYThese words which the hon. Member by his Amendment seeks to omit are merely intended to enable the Land Commission to do in the future what they have been doing for a long time past. Owing to a decision of the Court of Appeal these words became necessary in the Clause. The Act of 1903 declares, as the hon. Members know, that it is the duty of the Estates Commissioners to declare certain lands to be an estate before they sell, and one they have made a private declaration that certain lands are an estate they must sell these lands, and if they found it necessary to change even a boundary they have to commence the whole proceedings de novo. The Estates Commissioners were in the habit of making provisional declarations to avoid that, and they were able to go through the details before the final sale was announced. If they found any particular holding was to be excluded for any reason, they were able to exclude it from the final order declaring the land to be an estate, but the Court of Appeal, in the case of the Weir estate, decided that that was illegal, and that the Land Commission had no jurisdiction to make any provisional declaration, and that once they had made a declaration that the lands constituted an estate, they could not vary the lands sold by them to the tenants. They were in the habit of excluding those who had failed to pay their interest, and they desire, and we desire, and the Lord Judge of the Land Commission desires that they shall continue to have this 2030 power. It is often found to be the best and most effective way of recovering interest, because nothing frightens a tenant more than a threat to exclude him from a sale, and they will tell such a tenant: "Unless you pay the interest, you cannot purchase," and almost invariably he pays. The great bulk of the tenants have paid most willingly, but there are cases where tenants have made default, and this has been one of the reasons by which they have been induced to fulfil their obligations. The State has agreed to make the advance to men to purchase, and, on the terms of the bargain, interest is paid at a certain rate, and is it most reasonable that the State should be entitled to cancel an agreement in a case where, in the early years, before the sale is completed, a tenant fails to pay his interest? We know that in a great many cases sales are pending for a considerable time, sometimes six or seven years. If in the first six years a tenant fails to keep his engagement, surely it is only reasonable to say there is very great risk to the State, and the State will not continue this man in subsequent years. The reasons why a man is unable to pay may vary. It may be his own fault, it may be that he is paying too much as interest, but the result is the same to the State. The State is landed with a bad security, from which it cannot recover its interest, and, therefore, it is most reasonable that the Land Commission should continue to have in the future the power they exercised in the past, namely, in a case where the tenant fails to pay his interest on the purchase money, to exclude him, and to restore the position of landlord and tenant, as if no advance was about to be made.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONAs far as I can learn from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the whole object of the amending Clause which the Government have introduced is to override a decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the Land Commission had been acting illegally in the past. I am afraid the Land Commission in Ireland has been a good many times acting illegally, and I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman would want to show some better case for this portion of his Clause than that the Land Commission should be allowed to carry on an illegal practice. I can imagine nothing more likely to lead to confusion than that such a provision as this should be allowed to come into law. What does it mean? A 2031 landlord is asked by the State to sell his property, or his estate as it is called, to the tenants. He agrees with the tenants; the sanction of the Land Commission is given to the purchase price; the agreements are signed; and the landlord parts with his property, and accepts a certain interest upon the purchase money. What does this section propose to do in these circumstances? It says this. If a tenant has failed to pay interest upon his purchase money at any time after the completion of the agreements—it may be three or four years, or it may be 10 years—but if he fails to pay, the Land Commission claim, having sanctioned the agreement between the landlord and the tenants, and having undertaken to pay to the landlord the price of the holdings, to say to the landlord so far as this tenant is concerned, that while the rest of your property is to be sold you are to be left with this solitary defaulting tenant through no fault of yours in order to relieve us from the bargain which the State has willingly entered into with you. That is the meaning of this Section. Could there be anything more unfair or ridiculous than if a landlord has ten tenants and agreed to sell to them according to the terms laid down by the Land Commission, the whole of those ten tenants three or four years after that transaction should be at liberty to say to the landlord, "We are not going on with this sale and purchase now so far as one tenant is concerned; you must keep that one tenant or we will not keep to our bargain." The right of cancelling such a transaction ought not to be left at the mere will of the Land Commission. The whole difficulty and delay out of which this state of circumstances arose is entirely due to the fault of the Land Commission not being in the position to carry out their bargain. If they had the money when the contract was first completed with the landlord and tenant this state of circumstances could not arise at all. Really, after you have sanctioned a transaction, after you have said to the landlord, "We will buy your estate, but as we have not got the money to pay you down you must put up with 3½per cent, until you are paid," it is unjust after three, four, five, six, or seven years to go back to him and say, "The tenant we took over from you is a year in arrears with his interest, and therefore you must take him back and have him as a solitary tenant on the estate which you originally sold to us." [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak 2032 up, we cannot hear you."] If this Sub-section was merely to put pressure upon the tenant to pay his annuity there would be a good deal to be said for it, but that is not the case. It is quite plain that the State desires to pick and choose, and if the Commissioners find a tenant of this kind they wish to have the power to leave him on the hands of the landlord. What is to happen when this state of affairs takes place after the contract has been in existence for four or five years and the tenant has paid something more than what would be his instalments? Will he get nothing at all? Can the Land Commissioners say to him, "You are a year in arrear with your instalments, and therefore we cancel the whole sale"? Supposing he becomes a tenant again, what takes place? Does he become a tenant at the old rate or at the rate fixed on the interest on the purchase money? What are the remedies a landlord is to have? Is the landlord to be driven by the State, which can say to him, "We have not collected this year's arrears of interest, but here you are, take your tenant back, bring your ejectment against him, and we will allow you to evict him," and this after he has had a contract which the State has not been able to carry out? The only remedy now is to resort to eviction and call upon the landlord to carry out the law and evict his tenant. Is that the state of things to be brought about? If the tenant becomes a tenant again can he ever afterwards become a purchaser I Can he enter upon a new holding, or is that one solitary spot on the map of the estate to remain a kind of heirloom to be handed down as an example of the wisdom of our legislation and as a reminiscence of the relations which formerly existed in Ireland between landlord and tenant? I submit that there is no real, sound, substantial reason for keeping in this part of the Clause. The Land Commission have some power to deal with the instalments of the purchase money, and it is quite unnecessary for the Government to introduce a sub-section of this character which, years after the settlement of the estate, is going to permit the breaking up of an agreement which has been come to not only with the consent of the two parties concerned, but also with the consent of the State. Is it worth while keeping in a Clause of this kind, which will eventually leave a certain number—not a large number—upon the land in Ireland in an anomalous position, apparently having no rights whatsoever under the Land Purchase Acts?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe right hon. Gentleman has stated his case with moderation, but he overlooks the fact that the great amount of injustice of which he speaks is not the fault of the Estates Commissioners, but is due to the fact that the course he recommends was followed by the Estates Commissioners until the result of proceedings in the Weir case made it clear that they were not entitled to do that having regard to the wording of the Act, and therefore it is necessary to amend the Act. I do not quarrel with that decision. Having regard to that practice, we desired to do what I apprehend would have been done before if the case had received the consideration it now has received. I submit to the Committee that although I regret the incidental hardships and inconvenience that may be occasioned to the landlord, we are bound by every means in our power to see to it that these tenant purchasers are people in a good position, and able, at all events, during the first years of their obligations, to discharge them. When we find a tenant purchaser so weak financially owing to the fact that the holding does not justify the interest he has to pay for it or for any other reason; if at the very beginning and commencement we find he is unable, after the second, third, or fourth year, to discharge the obligations which he has willingly assumed for a period of 65 or 68 years, I think we are entitled at the earliest possible moment in the interests of the State and the success of land purchase to get rid of such an incompetent person. In a most effectual way we say to this tenant, "No; you have had your preliminary canter, and you have failed to show that you have got staying power enough, and you are not likely to keep going for 65 years (or whatever the period may be), and therefore we claim the right to get rid of an unpromising tenant." The result is, no doubt, unfortunate, because it tears up this particular agreement, and it leaves the landlord with a holding in respect to which he is still the landlord. I am very sorry for that, but look at the other case. You will have the State in the position of a landlord, with a tenant who cannot even keep going for the first few years. Therefore, sorry as I am, not so much for the individual landlord, as because the symmetry of the transaction is interfered with, it does not necessarily mean that the landlord is left with this one somewhat unsatisfactory person to fulfil the tenant's obligations. There may foe other tenants as well. It only means 2034 the Land Commission have power of ex-eluding from the State obligation the person who has proved his incapacity to perform his obligations. I do not see any injustice in that. I am glad to think these cases are not of very frequent occurrence, but they are much more likely to occur if you remove the pressure of this Clause, because this is a very strong pressure indeed, and one which hits the man in his tenderest place. I think, therefore, the practice of the Estates Commissioners, although not sanctioned by law, was sound, having regard to the interest of the community; and, although I agree it is very disappointing to the landlord to have the breaking down of a matter of this sort, I do not see my way to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman asks me the effect of the section. The effect is to refer the parties to their original position. This attempted transaction having broken down, the relationship between landlord and tenant will exist. I can only hope and believe the number of cases in which this Clause is to enforced will be very few.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe Chief Secretary has based his defence of the second part of this Clause upon cases which he himself hopes will be rare, and, in considering those cases, he only had in mind the security of the taxpayer. He thinks, if the bargain turns out at first blush to be an unfortunate bargain, they should be able to throw the tenant, or the two or three tenants, back upon the landlord, so that the State will then be quit of the matter. I assume the case he has given—of an estate upon which agreements have been signed. The estate is passed by the Land Commission, and interest, not sinking fund, is payable during a period of one, two, or, it may be, three or four years, and two or three tenants fail to pay that interest. Then comes in this provision of the Chief Secretary. He holds that the Estates Commissioners—that is to say, the Government—are then entitled to say the one, two, or three tenants will revert to their former position. Let him carry his mind a little bit further. The rest of the estate has been sold. There are only three tenants and the landlord. If they do not pay the interest are they going to pay the rent, and does the Chief Secretary presume the landlord is to put up with tenants who are not paying rent at all in perpetuity? I presume the landlord will proceed against those tenants by ejecting them. But then those men so ejected will be able to come forward in the character 2035 of evicted tenants under another Clause of this Bill, and, so far from the State being free of this awkward circumstance and of liability, the Government are by this alternative inventing a new machine for creating evicted tenants.
§ Mr. DILLONWhat does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be done to tenants who will not pay their rent?
§ Mr. WYNDHAMWhat is done to those who will not pay their instalments? There are two alternatives: One is to treat the man who has signed an agreement exactly the same during the interest period as during the instalment period. There are various remedies and pressures to be applied. Nobody objects to their having that power.
§ Mr. DILLONAre the Government to evict them?
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI think the hon. Member for East Mayo said he had always warned the tenants of Ireland when they signed these agreements that they were undertaking an obligation of a binding character. Does he wish to introduce an element of doubt in the matter?
Mr. Dl LLONNo; I really want to make the matter clear. If the men will not pay the interest they have undertaken to pay somebody has to deal with them. What the right hon. Gentleman wants is that the State should have that job. He wants to throw the dirty work on the State instead of the landlords having to do it.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. Gentleman has changed his position.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI do not think I am misrepresenting what has fallen from the hon. Member. He said he had constantly warned tenants in Ireland not lightly to set their hand to an agreement of this character. He does not wish to undermine the moral guarantee of this transaction. He thinks if a man fails to pay rent he should enjoy the sympathy of his fellows, but if he fails to carry out one of these purchase agreements he is not to enjoy that sympathy. That is his position. What he last said is not very easily to be reconciled with that position. If three out of 200 men who solemnly sign these agreements deliberately go back upon their agreements they are to enjoy 2036 the sympathetic support of their fellows. It comes to that. You bring an element of doubt into the whole transaction. All those who wish land purchase to prosper desire to exclude the element of doubt. They wish the agreement once arrived at to be considered a binding agreement. All the Chief Secretary has said would have great force if we were still dealing with individual bargains between landlord and tenant. That is the old position.
§ Mr. DILLONIt is the present position.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI beg pardon, it is not. The present position is to deal with tracts of land in the mass rather than with isolated bargains between landlord A and tenant B. The whole essence of land purchase, as we now understand it, is that in the main the transaction should be in the mass over areas denned on administrative and economic as well as other grounds. You cannot have it both ways. As the law now stands, if three-fourths of the tenants of an estate agree, the other fourth are held to have agreed. That has been passed with the full assent and support, and even at the instance of Nationalist Members as well as others, because they see it is important to deal with land in globo with some regard to economic conditions and so forth. As this Clause now stands, if the Land Commission has bought a property out and out, and one of the tenants fails to pay the interest due, it can go back upon the transaction, and return to the landlord two, three, five, seven, or 11 tenants. That is an absurdity. It goes absolutely against the whole policy of land purchase as it is now understood. The Chief Secretary has dealt with the particular case of the Weir estate, but certain difficulties always have to be encountered, and you cannot have land purchase in Ireland without encountering difficulties of that nature.
§ Captain P. A. CLIVESurely the Chief Secretary has enunciated a new proposition. He suggested that the intention of the Land Purchase Act has not been to transfer the whole of the land of Ireland from landlord to tenant, but merely to give certain tenants their holdings; and that would leave the landlords, after all with those tenants who give trouble with regard to rent collection, and who do not intend to pay their instalments regularly. I venture to think if that proposition had been enunciated in 1904 there would not have been half the land purchases effected that have as a fact 2037 been carried out. If one thing more than another tempted the landlords to take advantage of the Act, it was the prospect of getting rid of their estates altogether. Now the right hon. Gentleman has thrown a new bombshell into their midst, and he has suggested that the worst of their tenants may be thrown back upon their hands. Is the Committee aware of what the landlord has suffered from not being paid at once? In most cases, I venture to assert, they have lost from 20 per cent, to 30 per cent, since selling to the tenants. Of course, I am speaking of those who have not yet received their purchase money, and that is what they have suffered as the result of giving the tenants the advantage of the Act. The landlords have hitherto had the consolation of knowing that they have done with the matter altogether; but now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put them under the necessity of keeping on their hands tenants who are likely to give trouble. The hon. Member for East Mayo said it was a binding contract between the tenants and the estate; but surely if it is binding there must be some method of enforcing it. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman could not have framed any better means of stopping land purchase than this. Landlords are to be given to understand that they can only take advantage under the Land Act for the better class of tenant, but they are to continue to keep the worst tenants to themselves. I venture to assert that they will not accept this somewhat doubful advantage under the Irish Land Purchase Act.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe Chief Secretary has suggested that the Clause we are now enacting applies to cases where the Land Commission themselves bought for re-sale under the Act of 1903. If that is so, the result would be that two-thirds of the estate might be sold, but not the remainder. Is it possible that the Government are going to give a very small minority of the tenants power to upset the whole arrangement? Will the Committee be able to go behind the order of sale by the Land Judges?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)We are convinced that the Clause will not have the effect which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The situation is complicated by Sub-section (a).
§ Mr. WYNDHAMMy point is this. The first two lines of this Section say that, "The Land Commission where interest on the purchase money of any holding is payable to them," shall have the same remedies for recovery as they have in the case of the unpaid instalments of a purchase annuity, and, in addition, they may exclude from the estate a holding where a; year's interest is in arrear. In all the cases under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1903 interest is payable to them, and therefore you include cases under those sections of that Act.
§ Mr. REDMOND BARRYIf I may say so, with great respect, I think the right hon Gentleman's interpretation or examination of the words is too critical. At all events, the Government had no intention of giving effect to an operation such| as the right hon. Gentleman alludes to,, but the Chief Secretary is prepared to confine the operation of the Section by express terms to direct sales by landlords to tenants. There is no doubt, how-1 ever, as to the operation of the Section.
§ Mr. GORDONI fail to understand what is the meaning of this Clause, and I should like to know from the Chief Secretary what it really means. Under Clause 35 you have the same right given to the Land Commission to recover interest that you have in respect of an annuity. That is a definite, clear, and simply remedy, which they have exercised occasionally, though not very frequently. The way they exercise it is by ordinary process in the Civil Bill Courts. They are put to no greater trouble or disadvantage in the recovery of the arrears of interest than they are in respect of the recovery of arrears of annuity. Why does the right hon. Gentleman wish to have a provision here which will enable them to dispense altogether with the ordinary remedy which they have found effective for the recovery of arrears of annuity? They found it effective, and have resorted to it in many cases in getting in arrears of annuity. Why do they wish to avoid applying the same remedy during the time until the advance is made? I cannot understand the reason, although there must be one. It is a matter of very great inconvenience, even supposing that it is limited to the case of direct sales by landlords to tenants. What is the position they wish' to put the parties into? The landlord has sold to all the tenants on the estate, arrangements have been made by every one of them that interest is to be paid 2039 until the advance is made through the Land Commission. Suppose a tenant wanting to get out of the arrangement refrains from paying, the Land Commission then says they will strike him out of the bargain altogether, and for the future he may be treated as a person who has not agreed to buy from his landlord. I do not think, in the interests of land purchase, that is desirable, and I do not think it was intended by anyone who has had to do with this class of transaction that the landlord should be put in the position of having the possibility before him that certain holdings would be left on his hands while others were purchased. I should be glad if the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General for Ireland, or the Solicitor-General would disclose to the Committee the reason why this is put in. There is no reason on the face of it. The remedies which are adequate in regard to land purchase annuities are prefectly applicable to be put into force in regard to these sums.
§ Mr. CHERRYI am afraid we have been very unfortunate in trying to explain this, which is a very simple matter. When an agreement is made between landlord and tenant for the sale of a holding to the tenant the latter, under the agreement, becomes liable to pay interest in place of the old rent, and the landlord is the person who is entitled to get the interest, but the Bill goes on to say that in the interests of the purchaser it is to be collected and recoverable by the Land Commission. The Land Commission has no effective means of collecting it. The only thing they can do is to issue a personal action and recover judgment. That is all that they can do, and that is very often ineffective. They therefore want some efficient power to recover interest. A remedy which used to be applicable, under a recent decision cannot now be used, and the power is now given them to say to a tenant, "if you do not pay interest we will not sell to you or make an advance to you." The whole object of the earlier part of the Clause is to reserve that remedy. The other remedy suggested is a very expensive one and involves Chancery proceedings. You have to take proceedings for the sale of the holding as if you were a mortgagee, but the other is a simple remedy and has been exercised ever since 1903. We only seek in this Bill to preserve the same power which has been exercised up to the present, and I think the Committee will 2040 agree that it is most necessary and reasonable that we should do so. If a man has broken his contract and failed to pay his interest the Government should not be bound to make the advance they promised to make, and all they do is to exclude the whole of the estate and say, "We will have nothing more to do with you."
§ Mr. GORDONWill the right hon. Gentleman inform me of this: When the agreement of the tenant is to pay interest which is less than the rent and the Land Commission say, "We exclude you," how is the landlord to recover?
§ Mr. CHERRYThe landlord's right under the 35th Section of the Act of 1896 provides for all arrears of rent which are due.
§ Mr. GORDONThen it becomes a question of the landlord suing for the rent and not for the interest, and he will sue for the whole rent, and the tenants on the rest of the property will be paying a much smaller sum. That is a nice state of affairs.
§ Mr. MOOREI want to say a few words on behalf of the tenant, and I should like the House to consider what an extraordinary position, viewed from the legal aspect, this Section puts us in. I am dealing now with the first part only. The Land Commission are to have the same powers in respect of land which is merely agreed to be sold as they have in respect of land which is being sold and the purchase of which has been completed. The real power that they have for enforcing payment of purchase annuities after the sale is complete, and which they have exercised in many parts of the country, is to put up for sale holdings where the purchaser is in default. They do that because the law recognises that the first charge is on the holding because the advance is in the nature of a mortgage, repayable by instalments, and when the instalments fall into arrear the Land Commission, having an estate in the land which any mortgagee has, are entitled to put it up for sale to realise the amount of their advance. But under this Section, although the Land Commission have no estate in the lands whatsoever, up to the date of purchase they are to have these extraordinary and arbitrary rights of a mortgagee to put the holding, in which they have no estate, up for sale. How can that be defended? The estate in the holding is in the landlord until the 2041 purchase is carried out, when it becomes vested in the tenant. But during that period the Land Commission has no charge on it whatever. They are not mortgagees or chargers, and the extraordinary thing is that, though there is an agreement between vendor and purchaser as landlord and tenant for the payment of interest in lieu of rent, a third party comes in, and the Estates Commissioners, who are neither mortgagees or chargers, and have no estate in the land at all, are by this Clause to have the powers of sale of a full mortgagee in a transaction which may never come off. Those who are so anxious to defend the tenant's interests ought to be very particular before they sit silent and allow third parties to come in with the full powers of a mortgagee with power to sell up the tenant's interest. The Land Commission are mere collectors for the persons to whom the instalments of interest ate due. The whole policy of a great many of the Land Acts is that everyone is deemed to be something that he is not. Here, in section after section, the tenant is deemed to be the tenant in possession of the holding, though he may be living in England, and although the courts have decided that he may represent not one person but half a dozen. The same here. The Land Commission are deemed to be mortgagees when they are mere collectors of rent for the landlord under the Act, and under this Section for the first time they are now endowed with powers to bell holdings in which they have not a halfpenny worth of interest. If anyone was interested on behalf of the tenants they ought to object to that. The Government tell us this is quite an ordinary transaction, and hon. Members below the Gangway also say this is an ordinary transaction, and the Government will have their support no doubt in putting the tenant-under these exceedingly extraordinary powers of being sold up by persons who have no interest, and may never have any. If that commends itself to the Committee the Committee is taking an extraordinary innovation very quietly, and I shall be happy to support the Amendment.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI should like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to a point in connection with this Clause which has not been pointed out yet. The Attorney-General has told us very explicitly what the object of the Clause is, and I think his explanation was quite in accordance 2042 with the actual wording of the Clause. But in the end does it not come to this, that in order to protect the Estates' Commissioners from the default of the tenant the person you are going to punish is not the defaulting tenant but the innocent landlord? The Attorney-General has said that the effect of this provision will be that once the Estates Commissioners have excluded this particular tenant from the estate, which otherwise would have been sold, they make him liable to his former landlord for rent. Does anyone imagine for a moment, having regard to what we know of the relations between landlord and tenants in Ireland, that any tenant who has ever been paying reduced interest in lieu of rent would ever agree to go back to the old relation of landlord and tenant, and be liable for the old rent? Then the Attorney-General said the remedy of the landlord in that case will be to evict them. Has he forgotten that in that case by a provision in this Bill, which was passed without discussion, a provision of the most extraordinary character, the landlord, as regards that particular holding, will never be able to put a tenant into it and sell it to the Estates Commissioners? I will read that provision, which, I think, has escaped notice. Clause 16 provides as follows:—"No advance shall be made under th3 Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of a holding if the tenancy was created after the 1st day of January, in the year 1908."
The case put by the Attorney-General is that under this Clause if a tenant make default in paying his interest the Land Commission excludes him from the estate and deprives him of the benefit of the change, and the Attorney-General says that is no harm to the landlord, because he has his rights to resume again, and can evict the tenant. Supposing he does evict him. What is he to do with the parcel of land? Clause 16 puts a black mark on it, and says it is no longer, under any circumstances, to form the subject-matter of an advance by the State.
§ Mr. DILLONNot at all.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLIt does in the most distinct way.
§ Mr. DILLONIt says it is untenanted land.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLThank you for nothing. I am not dealing with that suggestion, but with the statement of the Attorney-General that the landlord is not 2043 prejudiced, because he can evict the tenant for non-payment of rent. They have provided that under what I consider to be the most monstrous Clause in the Bill from the point of view of common justice and fair play.
§ Mr. DILLONindicated dissent.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLI can quite understand that the hon. Member for East Mayo admires that Clause more than any other clause in the Bill, but that rather confirms me in the view I take that from 1908 any portion of land which the landlord gets into his hands by the eviction of a tenant for any reason will remain a black mark upon the estate, which can never be afterwards utilised for the purpose of creating a new tenancy which will be the subject-matter of an advance by the State. It was illusory for the Attorney-General to say that no injustice is done under this Clause to the landlord because he was thrown back upon his ordinary rights as a landlord. But you have deprived him by a previous Clause, which was passed without discussion, of those ordinary rights, and what you are really doing under this Clause is, not punishing the defaulting tenant but the landlord, because no landlord, if this Bill ever becomes law with the iniquitous Clause 16 in it, can ever evict a tenant, because he will have the land on his hands. Will he be able to let the holding to a tenant who cannot get an advance upon it? Really, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite has no more sensible statement than that to make I would suggest that he should observe a discreet silence. It is trifling with the Committee to say—no one knows it better than himself—that the landlord is not prejudiced because he may relet the land. What tenant would take a holding if he knows that he can never convert it into a holding of his own under the Land Purchase Act? The suggestion is ludicrous. We know perfectly well how difficult it was in the past for any person to go into occupation of an evicted farm. It is a mere flippant impertinence for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the landlord is not prejudiced.
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the right hon. Gentleman use the word "impertinence" as meaning rudeness? If he does, the expression is out of order.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLNo, Sir, I mean irrelevance. It is mere flippant irrelevance for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest 2044 that the landlord is not prejudiced. He says a landlord can relet this to another tenant. I say that the unfairness and injustice of the Clause is found in the fact that it punishes the innocent landlord for the default of the tenant. It places the landlord in the position of having a plot of land put back on his hands, which, under Clause 16, he is not at liberty to relet to a tenant except under the penalty of his never being able to convert him into a purchaser under the Land Purchase Act. Therefore, I say this portion of the Clause is iniquitous and unjust. It is wholly unnecessary, and it violates the elementary principles of ordinary fair play in punishing an innocent man for the fault of another.
§ Mr. CLANCYIt is difficult on some occasions to avoid the use of un-Parliamentary language. I do hope that I will not be guilty of un-Parliamentary language if on this occasion I say that during the 24 years I have been a Member of this House I have never listened to a greater piece of claptrap and ad captandum argument than I have to-night. The Front Opposition Bench and the leaders of the landlord party are complaining of the amount of time which has been devoted to this Bill, and they have themselves devoted to-night to a minor Clause several hours of Parliamentary time, although they know, and perhaps because they know, that there are later on the Paper two Clauses which are quite the most important, in their opinion, namely, the Clauses relating to compulsory purchase. They are endeavouring, I say it advisedly, to delay the discussion of these Clauses by discussing this Clause, which is, comparatively speaking, of no importance whatever. I think the public ought to be informed of that fact, and I hope they will be.
§ Mr. GORDONdissented.
§ Mr. CLANCYI do not reply to the hon. Member for South Londonderry, because he is not a man who would accuse anyone of using claptrap. What does this Clause propose? At present the remedies in the hands of the Estates Commissioners against persons who do not pay the interest upon their annuities are various and most efficient. They can sell a man out, they can strip him of every particle of property he has, they can deprive him of every single right he may have under any Land Act whatever, but this Clause at the end introduces another remedy more merci- 2045 ful to the tenant than those they at present possess. Instead of selling the tenant's goods and chattels, instead of evicting him and depriving him of every particle of right which he possesses under any Land Act the Government propose, as I understand, to leave him where he is, and to exclude him from the sale. It is this merciful course, to which hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, for the first time in their lives, in the supposed interest of the tenant, object. I quite understand why this course should be pursued by Gentlemen like the hon. Members for South Londonderry and North Armagh, who have always supported landlord measures during the time I have been in this House, but when we find Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who expect themselves some time or another to be on the Treasury Bench again—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not so long."] Then there is all the more force in my argument. When they expect themselves next year to be on the Treasury Bench, then to find them supporting these impostures and actually inciting tenants not to pay their annuities and not to pay their interest, is to me a surprising thing—except that indeed I have never regarded Front Bench men on either side as possessed of very much principle. To find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Dublin University, late a Crown prosecutor, who earned his way to the Bench, I suppose, and his present position, at all events, by prosecuting people who were said to have incited tenants not to pay their rents, to find these gentlemen engaged, now 20 years after date, in this very operation of inciting to the non-payment of annuities and interest, is to me, but for the consideration I have mentioned, one of the most surprising things that I have seen in the course of my experience in this place. All I can say is
§ I will vote against this Amendment, believing it to have been supported by the greatest series of clap-trap speeches I have ever heard in my life, and to have no motive whatever except to waste the time of the House.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. and learned Member no doubt supposes he has done his best to enable the Committee to advance rapidly to the consideration of the Clauses to which he attaches importance. He began his speech and ended it by criticising the action which some of us have taken as a waste of time. Had it not been so late I would have appealed to the Government to accept this Amendment. Why should they not? Remember the conditions. We are working under the Closure. They know that Clause 39 is a matter of great and deep political importance. They know that our discussions must end at half-past ten. They might tell the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that they may accept this Amendment if they liked. They have the greatest latitude which they ever enjoyed. Then there is the further fact that the Clause is so drawn as to apply to all the cases of sales from the Land Commission and sales from the Land Judges' Court, under Section 7 of the Act of 1903. But have they not had enough experience of doubtful language in Acts of Parliament to accept an Amendment of this kind and to take three or four days to think over the matter and bring it up on Report? We are working under the guillotine, and, despite what has been said by the hon. and learned Member, let us have no more charges against those sitting on the Front Bench that we are wasting the time of the Committee.
§ Question put: "That the words to the word 'if' ['may if they think fit'] stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 32.
2047| Division No. 507.] | AYES. | [10.20 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Brigg, John | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Bright, J. A. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Armitage, R | Brodie, H. C. | Cox, Harold |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Crean, Eugene |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bryce, J. Annan | Crooks, William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Crosfield, A H. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crossley, William J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Cullinan, J. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Curran, peter Francis |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Delany, William |
| Bell, Richard | Clancy, John Joseph | Devlin, Joseph |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cleland, J. W. | Dillon, John |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Boland, John | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St Pancras, W) | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Cooper, G J. | Duffy, William J. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kavanagh, Walter M. | O'Shee, James John |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Keating, M. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kekewich, Sir George | Partington, Oswald) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Kelley, George D. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Elibank, Master of | Kilbride, Denis | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lambert, George | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Essex, R. W. | Lamont, Norman | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lehmann, R. C. | Radford, G. H. |
| Falconer, J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lundon, T. | Reddy, M. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lupton, Arnold | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Field, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Maclean, Donald | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roche, Augustine (Cork) |
| Gilhooly, James | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Gill, A. H. | Macpherson, J. T. | Rowlands, J. |
| Ginnell, L. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | M'Callum, John M. | Samuel, S M. (Whitechapel) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Kean, John | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Grayson, Albert Victor | M'Micking, Major G. | Seddon, J. |
| Gulland, John W. | Mallet, Charles E. | Shackleton, David James |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Marnham, F. J. | Sheehy, David |
| Hancock, J. G. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massie, J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Harrington, Timothy | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Mooney, J. J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Muldoon, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Murnaghan, George | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Vivian, Henry |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Napier, T. B. | Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholls, George | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Norman, Sir Henry | Waring, Walter |
| Hodge, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | O'Connor, James (Wickiow, W.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Jackson, R. S. | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Grady, J. | Young, Samuel |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gardner, Ernest | Moore, William |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Gordon, J. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Gretton, John | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Valentia, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hill, Sir Clement | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Craig and Mr. Lonsdale. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Keswick, William | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
§ Mr. MOORE moved, after the word "may" ["to those remedies, may"], to insert the words "at the option of the vendor."
§ Up to this the consideration of the Clause has rather gone, I think, on the basis that there are only two panties to 2048 the transaction, that is the Estates Commissioners and the tenant. Let me inform the Members of the Committee who have just come in that the Clause deals with the case where the tenant who has not yet completed his purchase agreement is in default in his instalments, and as the 2049 Clause stands it is to give power to the Estates Commissioners to exclude that tenant in arrear from the completion of the sale of the estate. I beg to move the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment is not in order.
§ And it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 15th June to put forthwith the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 34.
2051| Division No. 508.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Massie, J. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Glendinning, R. G. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Armitage, R. | Glover, Thomas | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Grayson, Albert Victor | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gulland, John W. | Muldoon, John |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Murnaghan, George |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hancock J. G. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Napier, T. B. |
| Bell, Richard | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithnees-sh.) | Nicholls, George |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Harrington, Timothy | Nolan, Joseph |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Boland, John | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) |
| Brigg, John | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bright, J. A. | Hazleton, Richard | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Brunner, J F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Henry, Charles S. | O'Grady, J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hodge, John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hogan, Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hooper, A. G. | O'Malley, William |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | O'Shaughnessy, P J. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Shee, James John |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hudson, Walter | Partington, Oswald |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jackson, R. S. | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Cox, Harold | Jardine, Sir J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jenkins, J. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Crean, Eugene | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Crooks, William | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Radford, G. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cullinan, J. | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, M. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Keating, M. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Delany, William | Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kelley, George D. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dillon, John | Kilbride, Denis | Roche, Augustine (Cork) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lambert, George | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lamont, Norman | Rowlands, J. |
| Duffy, William J. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lehmann, R. C. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lewis, John Herbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lundon, T | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lupton, Arnold | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Seddon, J. |
| Essex, R. W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shackleton, David James |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Maclean, Donald | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sheehy, David |
| Everett, R. Lacey | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Falconer, J. | Macpherson, J. T. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Fenwick, Charles | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Callum, John M. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Kean, John | Summerbell, T. |
| Field, William | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | M'Micking, Major G. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Gilhooly, James | Mallet, Charles E. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gill, A. H. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Vivian, Henry |
| Ginnell, L. | Marnham, F. J. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Whitehead, Rowland | Young, Samuel |
| Waring, Walter | Wiles, Thomas | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller. |
| White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gordon, J. | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Gretton, John | Moore, William |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Haddock, George B. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hamilton, Marquess of | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hill, Sir Clement | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Keswick, William | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
§ The CHAIRMANthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of Clauses 36, 37, 38, and 39.