Commons Sitting of 26 August 1909

Preamble
The House being met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, at the request of Mr. Speaker, proceeded to the Table, and, after prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Buckie Burgh and Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Order Confirmation Bill—considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Importation of Cattle and Sheep.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made lately by the Argentine, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, or other Governments regarding the freedom of the flocks and herds of their respective countries from disease; whether any requests have been made by the Argentine or other Governments that the restrictions on the importation into Great Britain of animals from their respective countries for slaughter should be relaxed or removed; what replies thereto have been given by the Foreign Office; and whether he can lay any Paper upon the Table relating to the subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): A request has been received from the Argentine Government that the prohibition against the importation into this country of cattle from districts of the Argentine Republic unaffected by foot-and-mouth disease should be removed. In order that the matter may be considered the Argentine Government have been asked to be good enough to furnish detailed information as to the steps taken either by the Federal or the Provincial Governments to deal with the suppression of the disease. A request has also been received from the Danish Government that live sheep from Ireland may be allowed to be imported
  2276
  into the United Kingdom. They have been informed that there is nothing to prevent importation provided the sheep are slaughtered at the port of landing. No communications have been received from the Dutch or Norwegian Governments on the subject. In the circumstances I do not propose to lay any Paper upon the Table.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Am I correct in thinking that the Foreign Office instead of the Board of Agriculture has taken upon itself to deal with this question of the importation of sheep and cattle from foreign countries, or do they consult the Board of Agriculture? This is not a diplomatic matter; it is an agricultural matter.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Foreign Office does not treat it as a matter apart from the Board of Agriculture. At all events, the Board of Agriculture always decides these questions on the merits. This is a matter of diplomatic communication with the Argentine.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that no concession of a diplomatic character will be made to those countries as against the interests of agriculture?
  Mr. C. W. BOWERMAN: May I ask whether, in view of the difficulty of getting the Board of Agriculture to move in this matter, that His Majesty's Government will consider the property of removing the restrictions at present prevailing?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is certainly not a matter for the Foreign Office.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: May I ask why the Argentine is treated differently from the United States in the matter of the importation of cattle?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware the Argentine is treated differently. The Argentine Government made certain representations to us and we have asked them for certain information.

  Colthurst Estate (County Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, in considering the sale of the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Rathcoole, county Cork, and the sub-tenants concerned, have taken into account the case of Mr. John Buckley, who had a holding of over 10½ acres, and John Leary, who holds a tenancy of one acre three roods, and other sub-tenants; and under what circum-

  2277
  stances they have debarred these subtenants from purchasing their holdings, in view of the fact that the vendor and the direct tenants consented to the sale of these holdings?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners, in dealing with this estate, considered the cases of these two sub-tenants. The Commissioners did not, however, make any declaration under the provisions of Section (15) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, that these sub-tenants should be deemed to be tenants of the plots held by them, and the entire holding was accordingly vested in the direct tenant. If the parties are now disposed to apply for the sub-division of the holding and the apportionment of the annuity the Commissioners will be prepared to give their application favourable consideration.
  Mr. FLYNN: In a case of this kind, where a man has a holding of the fairly considerable size of 10½ acres, is he to be excluded from the benefit of a scheme of land purchase where all parties concerned are agreeable to his inclusion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, I cannot answer why it was that the Estates Commissioners in this case decided to vest the property in the tenant without regard to the sub-tenants, but I gather they are perfectly ready now to consider the question.
  Mr. FLYNN: I shall communicate with them.

  Evicted Tenants (County Fermanagh).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked whether any, and, if so, how many, evicted tenants in county Fermanagh have been restored to their holdings or provided with new holdings since the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; and have the Estates Commissioners acquired any, and, if so, how much, untenanted land in county Fermanagh available for evicted tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 44 evicted tenants belonging to county Fermanagh have been reinstated or provided with new holdings on estates sold under the Irish Land Act, 1903, since the passing of that Act. Proceedings are pending for the acquisition under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, of 316 acres in the county, but no tenants have yet been reinstated under the Act as the lands have not as yet been acquired.

  Heating and Cleaning National Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association, the Protestant Episcopalian Managers' Association, the Presbyterian Education Committee, and the Methodist Body in Ireland have declared their willingness to bear half the cost of heating and cleaning the National schools under their management providing that the remaining half be borne by the Treasury; whether the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) are willing to frame the necessary regulations, should such a scheme be brought to a successful issue; and, if so, whether, in accordance with his promise, he is now prepared to press the matter upon the Treasury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have received resolutions from the Catholic Managers' Association and the Methodist Body to the effect stated in the question, and they understand that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is also in favour of the proposal. They have not yet been made aware of the views of Protestant Episcopalian Managers. The best method of dealing with this most important question is still in the stage of consideration, and I am prepared to give careful attention to any practical solution which has the support of the school managers of the different denominations in Ireland. The Commissioners of National Education are ready to co-operate in every way in their power.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to arrive at any practical solution without calling all the parties together?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We have gone a long way as it is, and we have got them almost all in hand in the matter. I do not know that there is any great advantage to be gathered from a convention on the subject.

  Junior Inspectors of National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have made a rule to the effect that a knowledge of Irish shall only be required in one-third of the number of appointments to the junior inspectorate in future; if so, whether he can

  2279
  state on whose recommendation this rule was adopted; and whether, having regard to the fact that a larger percentage of inspectors with a knowledge of Irish will be required, he can get the rule amended?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have made a regulation to the effect that, in the case of one-third of the vacancies for inspectorships, candidates will in future be required to undergo a qualifying examination in Irish. This regulation was adopted in consequence of the necessity, for the purposes of the efficient administration of the system of national education, of appointing inspectors who had a good knowledge of Irish, and in view of the fact that very few of otherwise highly qualified candidates for recent appointments were conversant with that subject. It would not be in the interest of the public service to say on whose recommendation this rule was adopted. The Commissioners do not propose at present to modify the regulation which they have so recently adopted, but, should the exigencies of the service require it, they would at some future date reconsider the matter.

  Cloonquirk (County Longford) Grazing Ranch.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, now that they have signified their intention to divide during the present month of August the grazing ranch on the Douglas property at Cloonquirk, county Longford, will give the names of the evicted tenants and other parties to whom they intend to give this grazing ranch; and by whom were the parties selected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet settled a scheme for the allotment of the lands referred to which they are acquiring under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, for the purposes of that Act.

  Castlecomer (Countv Kilkenny) Pension Cases.
  Mr. P. WHITE (for Mr. Meagher)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the cases of appeals made by the pension officer against pensions granted by the Castlecomer old age pension subcommittee to Richard Shea and Anne Wilson on the question of means, the Local Government Board took any steps further than reading the pension officer's report
  2280
  to inquire into the means of said claimants, before deciding against the decision of the committee granting them pensions; and, if so, will he state the steps so taken?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that in both these cases the Local Government Board obtained returns as to the claimants' stock and crops.
  Mr. P. WHITE (for Mr. Meagher)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Castlecomer old age pension sub-committee passed a claim for pension to William Tracey and Mary Comerford, and that the said claims respectively were appealed against by the pension officer, who relied on the Census Returns, and that the sub-committee, having local and other proofs of the ages of the applicants, and statutory declarations made by the applicants, that each of the two was over 70 years of age, passed the pensions, and that the Local Government Board decided against their claims; if he will state the reasons which influenced the Local Government Board to set aside the decisions of the committee and the statutory declarations of the applicants in favour of a record from the Census, having regard to the fact that a statutory declaration is accepted as evidence, whereas a certificate from the Census will not be so accepted in a court of law; whether he is aware that, in the case of William Tracey, the Local Government Board was requested to send down an inspector to verify the declaration made by Tracey; whether the Local Government Board did so; and, if not, will he say why they did not so send down before setting aside a statutory declaration?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the appeals in these cases as there was not sufficient evidence that the claimants had reached the statutory age. In Mary Comerford's case letters were forwarded from two persons stating that they believed her to be seventy years of age. Tracey made a statutory declaration that he was thirty-two years old at the time of his marriage in 1868, and submitted a letter from a clergyman to the effect that he believed his statement. The Board could not accept this evidence, having regard to the fact that the claimants appeared from the Census Returns of 1851 to have been then nine and eight years of age respectively. Tracey asked the Board to send down an inspector to see him, but, having regard to the documentary evidence, it was not considered necessary to do so.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Census Returns would not be received as legal evidence in any court of justice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I daresay that may be, but the misfortune of the case is that there is no legal evidence obtainable in these cases with regard to age, and the authorities have to act in each case upon their general view of the facts. It is a very difficult thing to do.

  Kinsale (County Cork) Pension Claim.
  Mr. CREANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the claim of Jeremiah Stapleton to an old age pension was, after full and careful inquiry, sanctioned by the Kinsale (No. 1) pension sub-committee, county Cork; that the Local Government Board, on the appeal of the pension agent, has decided that the claimant was not entitled to a pension on the ground that the claimant's wife was in receipt of poor relief; that the medical officer has certified that the relief granted was medical, and, as such, was no disqualification; and, if so, will this case be reconsidered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the pension officer in this case on the ground that the claimant's wife had been in receipt of Poor Law relief. It appeared from a return furnished by the clerk of the Union that during a portion of last December the claimant's wife was an ordinary inmate of the workhouse, and he was, therefore, disqualified for receiving a pension. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision on the claim.
  Mr. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claimant was not in the workhouse, and that his wife was in the hospital?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The case, as I am told, is that the wife was an ordinary inmate of the workhouse, and, as the hon. Member knows, the disqualification of the wife attaches to the husband.
  Mr. CREAN: Will the case be reconsidered on the facts I mention?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If it can be shown she was not an ordinary inmate but only in the hospital for a short time, which is a well-known exception, the case ought certainly to be reconsidered.

  Untenanted Land, Queen's County.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners had received resolutions from the tenants of uneconomic holdings adjoining the untenanted land of Turfarney, in the Queen's County, on the estate of the late Arthur J. Owen, also a letter from the parish priest, the Very Reverend Canon Brennan, requesting them to communicate with the vendors with a view of purchasing the farm mentioned for division amongst the holders of uneconomic farms in the locality; whether the Commissioners were aware that the vendors, in order to deprive the small holders of their rights under the Act of 1903, had sold the farm to an 11 months' man, representing it to be a tenanted holding, although it was in the occupation of the late owner and let for grazing up to his death a few years ago; and could he say whether the Estates Commissioners were prepared to sanction an advance in this case; and, if so, for what amount?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the resolution and letter referred to. The lands in question are situate on the estate of William Dobson and James S. S. Mowbray, trustees of Elizabeth Owen, deceased, and an agreement for the purchase of 141 acres thereof signed by Arthur J. Owen has been lodged. The estate cannot be dealt with by the Commissioners for a considerable time.

  O'Brien Estate, North Longford.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary if he would state the present position as regards the sale of the O'Brien estate at Corglass and Cornakelly, in North Longford; and when the tenants might expect to have their vesting orders issued to them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners from the Land Judge under Section 7 of the Irish Land Act of 1903. The Commissioners cannot at present say when the holdings will be vested in the tenants.

  Douglas Estate, Longford.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that 49 tenants on the Douglas estate, at Bawn Kilnashee, Cloonmacart, and Cloonaugh, had signed a protest and forwarded the same to the Estates Commissioners against the completion of the sale of the estate until an inquiry was made into the

  2283
  allotment of the bog by the landlord; in what order of priority this sale stood, and would the Estates Commissioners direct an inspection of the estate before passing this sale?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in the case of this estate were not lodged until 26th October, 1906, and it cannot, therefore, be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners for a considerable time. When it is reached in its turn an inspector will in the ordinary course visit the estate.

  Davoren Estate, Longford.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any further progress had been made in the purchase arrangements for the estate of the late R. Davoren, at Killasonna, county Longford; and, if not, what was the cause of the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner's title under Section 17 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, has not yet been cleared. Until this is done the Commissioners cannot issue their proposal to purchase.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale in this case has been under negotiation for over two years; and will he ask the Estates Commissioners to push the matter forward?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate that desire, but the difficulty is to show who is the person entitled to sell. As soon as that has been disposed of, the matter will be proceeded with.

  Lisawarriff Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether, in the case of a farm of land purchased under the Land Act, 1903, from which Bryan Cormack, of Lisawarriff, was evicted, and which the present tenant was willing to have restored to his representative, the transfer would be sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot trace any application for reinstatement from an evicted tenant giving the name and address quoted in the question.

  Monedarragh Lands, County Longford.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the offer of Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., to sell the lands of Monedarragh, county Long-
  2284
  ford, for distribution amongst the tenants adjoining who live on uneconomic holdings had yet been accepted by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, when that consummation would be reached?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to a question asked by him on 4th May last, the proceedings for the sale of tins estate were only instituted in November, 1907. The Estates Commissioners will deal with the estate in order of priority, but they cannot yet say definitely when its turn will come.
  Mr. FARRELL: This has been going on for nearly two years. A lot of people are complaining of delay.
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no need to point that out to me; I am only too painfully aware of the fact.

  Extra Police, Lorrha, North Tipperary.
  Mr. HOGANasked the Chief Secretary if an extra force of police had been drafted into the village of Lorrha, North Tipperary; and, if so, would he state the cause?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that two constables were sent to this village early in the month to help the local police in patrolling, in order to prevent a cattle-drive, which was expected. There was no cattle-drive, and the two constables were sent back to their stations on the 21st inst.

  Golby Estate, Ballinahulla, County Kerry.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. William Golby was paid his purchase money on 7th November, 1907, for his estate at Ballinahulla, county Kerry; whether the Land Commission only paid the Treasury 3 per cent, since that date, but had charged the tenants 3½ per cent, to 1st May, 1909; and whether, if this was so, he could state to what fund the profit made on the transaction went?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was sold to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the purchase money was paid on 7th November, 1907. The holdings were vested in the tenants, with two exceptions, on 1st May last. Between those dates the Land Commission paid 3¼ per cent, to the Trea-

  2285
  sury on the advance, and the tenants paid 3½ per cent, interest to the Land Commission. The explanation of this difference of ¼ per cent, and the purposes to which it is devoted are fully stated in my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Kildare on 30th November last, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
  Mr. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain into what fund the difference of 5s. has gone?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estates purchased often include a considerable extent of untenanted land, which has to be held by the Commissioners for distribution for some time after the vendor has been paid the agreed price. This involves expenses of management and the payment of local rates and taxes. The ¼ per cent, is required for these payments, and also for the working balance to meet the claims of the National Debt Commissioners. The Treasury does not get anything out of it at all.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Does an auditor of the Government or anybody else know what this working balance is, and how it is applied?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. There is really no secret in the matter whatever.
  Mr. MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that there is no untenanted land on this estate, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that the tenants should be refunded the money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are expenses of management, local rates and taxes, and matters of that kind, which absorb the small difference between the two percentages.

  Indian Deportations (Reconsideration of Cases).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government had yet received any Report as to whether the case of the nine gentlemen who were arrested and deported in December, 1908, under Regulation III. of the Act of 1818, had been reconsidered; and, if so, could he make any statement on the matter to the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State has not received any Report from the Government of India. My hon. Friend, if he has the words of the
  2286
  Regulation in his mind, is aware that the Reports on 1st January and 1st July are confined to conduct, health, and comfort, and the Regulation does not direct that they go beyond these three matters. Of course, there is no reason whatever why the Government of India should not consider the policy of the cases at any rate when they may think fit. The Section of the Regulation states: "Every officer in whose custody any State prisoner may be placed shall on 1st January and 1st July of each year submit a Report to the Governor-General-in-Council, through the Secretary to Government in the Political Department, on the conduct, health, and comfort of such State prisoner, in order that the Governor-General-in-Council may determine whether the Orders for his detention shall continue in force or shall be modified." That, I submit, has reference only to the conduct and the health of the prisoner, and has no reference whatsoever to the reasons for which he is being detained.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not put the point he has now mentioned? I simply said that these gentlemen were arrested under a certain Act. The point of my question is that on two occasions in this House the representative of the India Office has declared that these cases would be reviewed every six months.
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I amplified my reply, as I thought, for the convenience of the hon. Member. It is quite true that he did not ask for the information I have given. I thought I made it clear that every six months a report had to be made as to the health and comfort of the prisoner. If the hon. Member pressed the point too closely it would be impossible for the Government of India to consider the condition of these prisoners in any other month than those specified in the Regulation.
  Mr. O'GRADY: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that on two occasions in this House the representative of the India Office has declared that the whole case of the deportees should be reconsidered every six months, with a view to recommendations being made by the Government of India for their release?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State constantly has the cases of the deportees in mind, and I have not the. slightest doubt, if I represent my Noble

  2287
  Friend aright, that he will release these prisoners the moment he and the Indian Government consider it to be consistent with the public interest to do so.
  Mr. O'GRADY: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that promises have been made in this House on two occasions that the whole case of these deportees should come up at specific periods of the year with a view to considering whether they should be released?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I thought I made it clear to the hon. Member that these cases do come up every six months in accordance with the Regulation I have read. The question of the State reasons for the deportation of these prisoners is an entirely different matter.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Has the hon. Gentleman observed in the paragraph he read that the question of the detention or non-detention of the prisoners is a matter for the consideration of the Indian Government and the Home Government?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have only explained that the whole question of the deportees is always engaging the attention of the Secretary of State and the Indian Government. They do not need to be bound by this Regulation at all.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Are not the words perfectly clear that they are to reconsider whether the Orders for the detention of the prisoner shall or shall not remain in force; if so, by these words are not the Indian Government bound to consider whether the prisoners are to be further detained?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have already answered the question. The question of policy has already been decided by this House, and the Prime Minister recently made a very emphatic declaration upon it. It is not competent for me to argue the question of policy which has been decided upon by the Cabinet, and confirmed by this House.
  Mr. O GRADY: May I ask—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is degenerating into a Debate.

  Postal Sub-Engineers (Promotion).
  Mr. CHARLES FENWICK (for Mr. Bottomley)asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the reason for the delay in giving effect to his repeated promises to promote 63 sub-engineers who
  2288
  qualified for the position of second-class engineer at a Civil Service examination held in January last?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I regret that there has been some unavoidable delay in giving effect to the promotion of these sub-engineers. I am in communication with the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners on the subject, and the promotions will be carried out as soon as possible.
  Mr. C. FENWICK (for Mr. Bottomley)asked the Postmaster-General whether, when the new Civil Service examination for sub-engineers was being introduced, he promised that all candidates who failed to pass the first examination would have ample facilities for study afforded them before being called upon to sit for reexamination; and, if so, will he explain why the officers concerned have been recently informed that the Postmaster-General now finds that the only facilities which can be granted consist of permission being given to these officers to cease work when, and only when, they have completed their normal hours of duty, provided that longer attendance is not required by the exigencies of the service?
  Mr. BUXTON: I regret that it has frequently been found necessary to call upon sub-engineers to perform overtime. In the case, however, of those who failed at the first examination in January, I will see that their hours of work are, as far as possible, restricted to eight a day, and that they are given whatever facilities for study can be arranged.

  Belfast Mail Drivers
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are 11 mail drivers in Belfast employed as follows: Two men work 93 hours each for 21s. 6d., 4 men work 86, 84½, 84, and 79¾ hours for 21s. 6d., 4 other men work 86½, 76½, 61½, and 57 hours for 20s. each, and 1 man works 19 hours for 12s.; whether he is aware that these men's uniform consists of coat, vest, and cap only, whereas the ordinary postmen receive two full suits, overcoat, waterproof cape, and boots per year; whether he is aware that recent inquiry in Belfast respecting this matter consisted in calling the contractor's foreman and accepting his statement, without approaching the persons employed in any way; whether he is aware that on 20th July he informed the House that the hours were 60 and the wages 21s. 6d. and

  2289
  uniform; and whether he will take the necessary steps to enforce that statement, and add to the uniform trousers, boots, top-coat, and waterproof cape, and thus make the uniform complete?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am having inquiry made in the matter.

  Royal Mail Contractors (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in connection with the complaint as to the non-observance of the Fair Wage Clause by Messrs. Charles Webster, Limited, Royal mail contractors, as regards the farriers in their employ, a fireman at the firm's depot at Imperial-street, Bromley, E., whose wages have been increased from 33s. to 38s., is still receiving 4s. below the district rate, which is 42s. per week, and that at the firm's Whitechapel depot a fireman is paid 37s. 6d. per week, the district rate being 42s., and a doorman is paid 33s., the district rate being 36s.; whether he is aware that all the farriers in the employ of the firm are worked 60 hours per week, although the maximum number of hours recognised in the trade is 54; and will.he say what action he proposes to take in these cases?
  Mr. BUXTON: I recently informed Mr. Webster that it had come to my notice that they were not paying the recognised rate to farriers employed on Post Office contract, and they undertook to pay the recognised rate, namely, 7s. a day for firemen and 6s. a day for doormen. As regards, however, the firemen and doormen employed at the contractors' Bromley and Whitechapel depots, I understand they do not perform any Post Office work, with the exception of one man at Bromley, who sometimes performs work incidental to the mail contract. I propose to make further inquiry respecting this man's duty and wages. I am already in communication with the Board of Trade in regard to what is the usual number of hours worked per day by farriers in London.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to inflict any penalty upon the firm for not having paid the proper wages in connection with their contract?
  Mr. BUXTON: I drew the firm's attention to the matter, and the farriers have had their wages raised. If they are not
  2290
  paid the matter can be further inquired into.

  Clondra, County Longford (Delivery of Letters).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office authorities decline to deliver letters addressed to Clondra, county Longford, the ancient name and present name of the village, and insist instead that no letters not addressed as to Richmond Harbour will be delivered; and will he direct that the ancient Irish name of this village will be recognised in future by the postal authorities?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have called for a report; and, on its receipt, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Lady Telegraphist (Muscular Disease of the Arm).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the case of a lady telegraphist who has contracted muscular disease of the arm in consequence of her occupation, he will consider the advisability of arranging for her transfer to some other department requiring less manual effort instead of being removed from the service?
  Mr. BUXTON: If, when such a case arises, the officer in question desires to make any representation to me on the subject, I will, of course, gladly consider it.
  Mr. FARRELL: If I forward the right hon. Gentleman particulars of the case; will it receive his attention?
  Mr. BUXTON: I shall be very glad to look into it.

  Trunk Telephone Service (Dublin and Sligo).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether any steps have recently been taken to link up the towns between Dublin and Sligo on the grand trunk telephone, as promised years ago by the late Mr. Hanbury and subsequently by the right hon. Member for Worcester when Postmaster-General?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am in correspondence with the Treasury as to the acceptance of a local guarantee for the extension of the trunk telephone system to Sligo. I am not aware of any pledge on the subject having been given as suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be better to take the line viâ Belfast instead of Dublin?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot answer off-hand. But we will carry out the other as soon as possible.

  Royal Navy (Foreign Super- "Invincibles").
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON (for Mr. Middlemore)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cruiser which is to be built as an answer to the foreign super-"Invincibles" is to be of a design which will merely enable it to outrun capture by the foreign vessels, or whether it will be itself equipped with such speed and armament as will enable it both to outrun and to capture the enemy's vessels?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is premature, as yet, to give details of the design of this vessel.

  Submarine Construction.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim have a monopoly in submarine construction, or does the Admiralty consider designs and suggestions put forward by other firms?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

  Home Fleet Bases.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the bases of the First and Second Divisions of the Home Fleet respectively?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: These divisions usually cruise in the North Sea or English Channel; they have no fixed base in the ordinary sense of the term, but their usual anchorages will be the Forth and Portland.

  Royal Marines (Tunic).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say under what circumstances the ordinary serge tunic worn by men of the Royal Marines when engaged in land operations would be replaced by khaki?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The ordinary serge tunic would be replaced by khaki when-
  2292
  ever, in the opinion of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the circumstances of the case appeared to warrant such a course.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the khaki tunics will be carried on board ship, or will the ship have to go to some naval base to get them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can reply is whatever is found necessary in the circumstances of the case will be done.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If a landing party is suddenly necessary how are they going to get this khaki clothing unless it is carried on board ship?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no doubt due provision will be made.

  Lower Commissioned Ranks of Fleet.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state whether any steps have been taken to relieve the stagnation which threatens the lower commissioned ranks of the Fleet?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Steps are being taken to deal with the block in promotion that will shortly commence, and the decision arrived at will be communicated to the Fleet at an early date.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyer "Afridi."
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state if it has been decided to accept the torpedo boat destroyer "Afridi"; and whether her contract speed of 33 knots has been attained?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has not yet been decided to accept the "Afridi." The decision regarding the final acceptance of the vessel will be given as soon as the whole of the work included in the contract has been completed. In so far as speed is concerned, it has been decided, in accordance with the terms of the contract, to accept her as having a sea speed of 32¾ knots.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken since February to decide whether the speed is correct or not?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot. Will the hon. Member put the question down?

  Naval Officers' Wives (Travelling Allowances).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that when troops are moved from England to India or to the Cape, the travelling expenses of officers' wives are paid by the Government, he will state whether, when the base of a fleet is shifted, the same allowance is made to the wives of naval officers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Regulations do not provide for the payment of any allowance to the wives of naval officers in the circumstances stated.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I inquire why the families of Naval officers are treated worse than the families of Army officers, and even Revenue officers, who get an allowance when moved from one station to another?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into the matter.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: May I ask if provision is made for the wives of private soldiers?

  Rosyth Dockyard (Provision for Workmen).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the lack of any provision for prompt medical attendance for the men who may meet with accidents during the construction of the new base at Rosyth; whether the terms of the contract contained any stipulation for the provision of such medical requirements being supplied; and, if not, what action, if any, he proposes to take to make good the omission?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A clause is embodied in the contract making the contractors responsible for all personal injuries arising out of or in connection with the execution of the works. It is understood that the contractors have appointed a surgeon at Inverkeithing, who also acts as the Admiralty surgeon, for surgical attendance on their workmen.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that some of the men who have met with accidents have had to be carted 4½ miles to the place the hon. Gentleman mentioned; and would it not be advisable to have some medical assistance nearer than that?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Inverkeithing is three miles away, not 4½. I will look into
  2294
  the matter more closely, and see that proper provision is made.
  Mr. J. WARD: I should certainly like the hon. Gentleman to do so.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the lack of proper house accommodation for the workmen now collecting together at Rosyth for the construction of the new naval base; and whether the Board of Admiralty are taking steps to deal with this subject without further delay?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no lack of accommodation for the workmen at present employed at Rosyth. It is probable that accommodation required for the additional men who will be employed in the near future will be provided by private enterprise. As regards the last part of the question, the Admiralty provided in the contract for handing over to the contractors a plot of land (about 6 acres) for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon for the workmen, if they desire to do so.
  Mr. J. WARD: Are we to understand that as a matter of fact the Admiralty have made no provision whatever for housing the men, and that they are relying entirely upon private rack-renters to institute the necessary accommodation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the contract all we have done is to set aside this plot of land for the purpose of the contractor building the houses. But he must submit his plans and designs to the Admiralty. Under the contract he is not compelled to use the land for that purpose, but he cannot use it for any other purpose.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I take it for granted that you have made no provision for compelling the contractor to house the men who will be employed upon the works for the next seven or eight years?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, under the terms of the contract, I think that is the case.

  H.M.S, "Hannibal."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord whether he can give any information as to the stranding of His Majesty's ship "Hannibal" and the resulting damage?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: His Majesty's ship "Hannibal," when on passage from Babbacombe Bay to Plymouth on 19th

  2295
  August, struck some submerged object between 600 and 700 yards off the Ore Stone, Tor Bay. She will not be docked until Saturday or Monday next, so that the resulting damage cannot be definitely stated at present.

  Naval Manłuvres (Published Papers).
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked whether any Orders have been issued for the withdrawal from circulation of any published Papers' relating to naval manœuvres?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Every year orders are issued for the destruction of confidential reports that are considered to have become obsolete, but apart from such orders, no special directions of the nature indicated in this question have been given.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has an order been given for destruction in the case of published papers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Except the general instruction in regard to confidential reports that have become obsolete, no order has been given in connection with this particular matter.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some information as to what he means by confidential reports?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should have thought the description was quite sufficient.

  Rhondda and Swansea and Great Western Railway Companies.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has communicated with the Rhondda and Swansea Bay and Great Western Railway Companies, asking if they would supply a copy of the working agreement into which they had entered; and, if so, will he say what has been the result of such application?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I have not asked the railway companies for a copy of the agreement, which they are under no obligation to supply, but I called their attention to the hon. Member's previous questions on this subject, and was informed by them that they saw no reason for the publication of the agreement.
  Mr. WARDLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek for legislative powers to compel them to publish these things?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to make any statement upon that point.

  Railway Working Hours.
  Mr. WARDLEasked whether the statement in the recent White Paper issued on railway hours, namely, that questions relating to the hours of labour of any class of employé engaged in the manipulation of traffic may now be dealt with by the conciliation boards set up under the agreement of 6th November,1907, and, failing settlement by such boards, may be referred to arbitration, is to be taken as having reference to cases in which excessive hours are worked and as superseding the proceedings under The Railway Hours Act, 1893?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The statement in question does not imply, and was not meant to imply, that the procedure under the Act of 1893 has been in any way superseded or affected by the establishment of conciliation boards. I trust, however, that the mutual settlement of questions relating to general hours of labour will tend to reduce the number of cases in which it is necessary to have recourse to the Act.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the growing practice of calling men on duty on the Midland and other railways after nine hours' rest only, thus causing them to work regularly seven or eight shifts in one week; and whether, in view of the prejudicial effect this practice has upon the health of the men, he will take any action with the companies thereon?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has not previously been called to this matter, but I have communicated with the Midland Railway Company, who inform me that they have not made any alteration in their arrangements for calling men on duty, and that the practice alluded to is not a growing one on their line.

  Wireless Telegraphy (Passenger Steamers).
  Mr. SEDDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the national concern for news of the ss. "Waratah," he can promise an inquiry into the various systems of wireless telegraphy with a view to making an installation compulsory on all vessels carrying passengers, and at British and Colonial ports?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of the installation of wireless telegraphy apparatus on passenger ships has been, and will continue to be, very carefully watched by the Board of Trade, but I do no think any useful purpose would be served by a special inquiry at the present moment.
  Mr. SEDDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the sympathy of the Government with any inquiry into these various systems, if it was only on behalf of the greater security of human life? Is he aware that two of the large steam shipping companies who have subsidies from the Government have not this installation upon their steamers carrying large numbers of passengers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The installation is desirable, but I do not think the time has come when action of a general or compulsory character could be taken, and I do not think this is the best opportunity in the interests of a more general adoption of the installation for an inquiry.

  Deaths from Suicide.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any statistics exist of the number of deaths from suicide; whether he can give the figures for each of the last five years; whether the statistics are classified according to the manner of death; and, if so, can he give particulars?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The number of verdicts of suicide returned by coroners' juries in each of the five years,1903 to 1907, is as follows:—

  1903

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,480

  1904

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,327

  1905

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,515

  1906

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,434

  1907

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,477

  The figures for 1908 are not yet available. The Returns made to the Home Office do not disclose the manner of death, but the information is furnished by the Registrar-General in his Annual Report (see Report for 1907, page 438).

  Larceny by Young Girl (Sentence).
  Mr. FENWICK (for Mr. Bottomley)asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five years' detention in a reformatory recently passed by Mr. Rose, the stipendiary at the Tower Bridge police court, upon a girl 14 years of age for stealing the sum of £3 10s. from a coffee-shop in which she was
  2298
  employed; whether there had been any previous conviction against the girl; and, if not, whether he proposes to advise a mitigation of the sentence?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry into this case, and am not prepared to interfere with the order of the court. There had been no previous conviction against the girl, but it is clear, in view of her character and history, that it is in her interest that she should remain in the reformatory school, where she will receive the careful training which is called for in her case.

  Hops Bill.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Government Bill relating to hops is now practically uncontroversial, and is of importance to the hop-growing districts, he will proceed with it so that it may have an opportunity of becoming law this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am afraid that the Bill in question cannot be regarded as of a non-controversial character, and I cannot hold out any hope of its being proceeded with this Session.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate in what quarter of the House the opposition to the Bill arises?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Captain CLIVE: Will the Bill be allowed to remain upon the Paper in case it should turn out to be non-controversial?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I rather think the Order has been discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

  Piece Workers in Shipbuilding Yards.
  Mr. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet learnt the result of the negotiations between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Boilermakers' Society with regard to the question of supplying particulars to piece-workers in shipbuilding yards; and whether he will now issue a draft Order applying the provisions of Section 116 of the Factory and Workshop Act without delay?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am informed that the negotiations referred to have not resulted in any arrangement as to the supply of particulars being agreed upon between

  2299
  the parties, and I accordingly propose to issue, without further delay, a draft Order applying Section 116, with modifications, to this industry.

  Newport Dock Disaster.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he has received the verdict and riders of the jury in the inquest held at Newport into the causes of the dock disaster in that town; and what action he proposes to take to carry out the wishes of the jury?
  Mr. JOHN WARDalso asked whether he has received the Report of Mr. Squires, C.E., who acted as assessor in the Newport Dock inquest; and, if so, does he propose to issue such Report in some official form?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I have received from the coroner a copy of the verdict and the riders appended thereto. Mr. Squire, who was appointed by me to represent the Home Office at the inquest, has not as yet, however, submitted his Report on the causes and circumstances of the accident; and until I have been able to consider the Report I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  New Pit, Maltby (Fatal Accident)
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident that has recently occurred on the New Pit, Maltby, near Doncaster; whether any inquest has yet been held upon the occurrence; if so, with what result; if the inspector made any report upon the accident; and, if so, the nature of such report?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand the question to refer to the fatal accident which happened last Thursday at the Maltby Mam Sinking Pit. An inquest has not yet been held, as the body of the man who lost his life has not yet been recovered. I have, however, received a preliminary report from the inspector, from which it appears that a rope by which pipes were being drawn out of the shaft slipped through the clamps by which it was held, and the tackle falling into the shaft, swept with it one of the men who was helping to receive the pipes at the pit top. The cause of the accident is not at present clear, but investigation is, of course, proceeding.
  Mr. J. WARD: Did the inspector in his report enumerate the number of fatal accidents that have already occurred to the men engaged in this one pit?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means a very substantial number?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; but as my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to it I will look into it.

  Electricity in Mines.
  Mr. JOHN WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has noted the prominence given by Professor Redmayne, Chief Inspector of Mines, and Mr. R. D. Bain, Inspector of Mines in Durham, in their Report on the West Stanley explosion, to the dangers arising from the use of electricity in mines, and to the statement in the Report that, on the asssumption that the explosion did originate in the Busty seam, they were of the opinion that electricity was a more likely first cause than any of the alternatives already discussed; whether he is aware that all the evidence given at the inquest by mining experts and other witnesses went to show that the explosion originated in the Busty seam; and whether, having regard to this evidence as to the Busty seam and the statement of the inspectors making the Report as to electricity being the most probable cause, he will arrange a commission of inquiry into the danger involved in the use of electricity in mining operations?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, I have had under my consideration the Report of the chief inspector and district inspector on the West Stanley disaster and other reports which have reached me from time to time in regard to the use of electricity in mines and the working of the special rules. Since the previous inquiry five years ago much further experience on the subject has been obtained; new points have arisen, and the special rules, the working of which has been carefully watched by my Department, have shown themselves in need of amendment on a number of points. I propose, therefore, to appoint a small expert Committee to revise the rules in the light of the experience which has now been gained of their working.
  Mr. JOHN WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in face of the terrible explo-

  2301
  sion at the West Stanley mine, and as his reporters have discarded every other alternative as to the cause of the explosion, inquire into the danger of the use of electrical machinery in mines?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes, Sir.

  Neidpath Castle (Closing of Paths).
  Mr. BARNES (for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked whether the Scottish Office has had any communication from the Peebles Town Council regarding the closing of paths in the grounds of Neidpath Castle by Lord Wemyss; whether the Scottish Office has any powers to protect the public in the enjoyment of these paths; and, if so, whether it proposes to put them into operation?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): No communication from the Peebles Town Council dealing with this matter has been received at the Scottish Office, nor has the Secretary for Scotland any power to interpose in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this action was prompted by the fact that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have permitted fishing in the Tweed?
  Mr. DEWAR: I have no information on the point.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Bristol.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the recently imposed annual clothing fee of £5 by the Governors of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Bristol, excludes the children of poor parents from entering, he is prepared to suggest to the Governors the advisability of retaining a proportion of free places for clever children of poor parents?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I will ask the Governors for their observations on the hon. Member's suggestion, and will communicate the result to him.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what evidence of age, in the case of an application for an old age pension, will satisfy the Local Government Board, where neither
  2302
  birth certificate, marriage certificate, nor entry in the Census Return for 1841 or 1851, is forthcoming; and whether the sworn declaration of the applicant and the testimony of two reliable witnesses would be sufficient?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): In the absence of a certificate of birth, baptism, or marriage, or of an entry in the Census Returns, the Local Government Board are prepared to consider any evidence that may be submitted to them; but they cannot undertake to lay down any general rule as to what evidence they could regard as sufficient to establish the age of persons claiming pensions.

  Superannuation Bill (Regulations).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the Secretary to the Treasury state when it is intended to lay the Regulations under the Superannuation Bill upon the Table of the House?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury): The Regulations under Section 3 of the Bill cannot be finally made or laid on the Table for the information of hon. Members until the measure has become law. The draft Regulations now before the House have, as indicated in answer of 17th August, been modified.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds that a copy of the modified Regulations is not available and has not been issued, will he make representations to the Treasury on, the subject?
  Captain NORTON: Yes, I will do so.

  Deferred Annuities.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of deferred annuities operating to replace stock on 31st December, 1908; the amount of deferred annuities operating to replace cash on 31st December, 1908; and the cash balance at the General Post Office on 31st December, 1908?
  Captain NORTON: There were no deferred annuities operating to replace either stock or cash on 31st December, 1908. The cash balance at the General Post Office (including the balance to the credit of the Postmaster-General's account at the Bank of England) at the close of business on 31st December, 1908, was £875,214 10s. 1d.

  Sheep Dipping (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPS: Will the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) state on what authority county councils can compel all persons owning sheep in Ireland to cause them to be dipped at least once a year; what are the penalties for not doing so; and who are the officials that are bound to see these penalties enforced?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Diseases of Animals Act, 1903, confers power to make orders for the dipping of sheep. Orders of this kind are now in force in Ireland requiring two dippings in the year within certain prescribed periods. The councils of counties and county boroughs are the local authorities for the enforcement of these orders. They can appoint inspectors to see to such enforcement. The police also assist in the matter. If breaches of the orders occur it is open to the local authorities either to prosecute on their own behalf or to request the police to do so. At the discretion of the court offenders may, on conviction, be fined any amount not exceeding £20, or where the offence has been committed in respect to more than four animals, not exceeding £5 for each animal.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the changing of dates that are fixed at present, which most agriculturists find unsatisfactory?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I shall be glad to consider that point.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is it open to private owners to do their own dipping within a specified time?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I think so.

  Irish Exports and Imports (Tables).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can state when the publication of the tables of Irish Exports and Imports may be expected?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Report with Tables of Irish Exports and Imports will be forwarded for presentation to Parliament in the course of a few days.

  Slaughtering By-Products.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the prices of hides and other by-products from slaughtering have for some time past shown a considerable increase; whether he is aware that the American firms shipping live cattle to this country for slaughter no longer dispose of the hides and by-products to local buyers in this country, but re-ship them to the United States and whether, in view of the effects upon British trade arising there from, the Board of Agriculture propose to take any, and, if so, what, action?
  Captain NORTON: We have no official returns of the prices of hides and the other articles to which my hon. Friend refers, but we understand that it is the case that they are generally high at the present time. We have no information as to the extent to which the hides of imported American cattle are reshipped to the United States, and we have no power to intervene in the matter.

  FINANCE BILL.

    DEATH DUTIES (IRISH TENANTS' INTERESTS).
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state in how many cases during the past three financial years have tenants' interests in Ireland been valued for the purposes of the Death Duties; at what sum was the value assessed; and what was the gross Poor Law valuation of the holdings so assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot give the figures now, but I will let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to have the information I ask for ready before the discussion on the Death Duties takes place?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I will do my very best, because I quite understand how important it is that this information should be given before the discussion on the Death Duties takes place.

    SPIRIT DUTIES.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering the imposition of the new Spirit Duties and their effect upon Ireland, he took into account not only the total amount

    2305
    of increased taxation which Ireland would have to bear, but also the injurious effect on the manufacturers of whisky for which that country has been famous for more than a century; and whether, having regard to the fact that Irish distillers export largely to Great Britain, and that the Irish industry will be hit by the reduced consumption in both countries, he will reconsider his proposed duty and differentiate in favour of whisky retained in bond and allowed to mature for a certain period, and by so doing assist the output of high-class spirits for which Ireland has won a reputation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In proposing an addition of 3s. 9d. a gallon to the spirit duty, I was fully aware, as I stated in my Budget speech, that the increase in duty would have some effect in diminishing consumption. As the hon. Member knows, the proposal to graduate the Spirit Duty according to age is one on which the opinion of the trade is widely divided. I have received full statements of their views from both the advocates and the opponents of the proposal, and am still in communication with them.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The bulk of Irish, as well as of Scotch, distillers are in favour of a graduation of the duties according to age.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a serious difference of opinion between the malt and grain distillers.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the estimated yield of the Spirit Duty alone in Ireland is in the ratio of 1 to 12 as compared to the combined yield of the Spirit Duty and the Licence Duty in Great Britain; and whether, having regard to the estimate that the produce from Ireland would be about one in 20 as compared to Great Britain, he will exempt Ireland from the operations of the Licence Duties?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid that I am unable to follow the hon. Member's calculations. I regret, however, that I could not agree to exempt Ireland from the operation of the proposed new Licence Duties.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual amount of new Spirit Duty England, Ireland, and Scotland will have to pay, respectively, calculated on the latest Returns which show the consumption of spirits per head of the respective popu-
    2306
    lations; whether he will state what ratio Ireland's contribution will be to that of Great Britain; and what ratio Ireland's share so calculated will be to the combined yield of the Spirit Duty and Licence Duty in Great Britain?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no later information as to the proportionate consumption of spirits in England, Scotland and Ireland than is contained in the figures of the net receipt of revenue as adjusted to show the true contribution of each country, which are given in the Financial Relations Returns for the financial year 1908–9 (House of Commons Paper No. 208 of 1909). On the basis of these Returns the respective contributions of the three Kingdoms to the estimated additional revenue to be derived from the increase of the Spirit Duty would be: England and Wales, £1,146,000; Ireland, £167,000; Scotland, £287,000. The ratio of the Irish contribution to that of Great Britain would be about one to 8.6, and the ratio of the Irish contribution to the increased Spirit Duties to the estimated contribution of Great Britain to the increased Spirit Duties and increased Licence Duties combined would be about one to 23.5.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a question this year he gave the consumption of spirits per head of the population in the three countries, showing that Ireland would be paying more than her fair share, and giving the amount contributed by Ireland as compared with the spirit and licence Duties in Great Britain as 1 in 12. Will he under these circumstances consider the advisability of exempting Ireland from the Licence Duties?
    Mr. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the reply he has given with the Votes?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. WATT: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given not indicate that Scotland is suffering an in-justice?

    APPLICATION OF INCREMENT VALUE DUTY TO SCOTLAND.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the resumption of the Finance Bill Debates, it is proposed to proceed with Clause 28, or whether its postponement will be proposed by the Government?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It may be necessary to postpone Clause 28 in the event of Amendments being made in Clause 27, which may require that corresponding alterations in respect of Scotland should be made in Clause 28.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If Clause 28 is not going to be postponed, will the right hon. Gentleman state when it is intended to put down the Government Amendments to it?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am assuming that there will be Amendments to Clause 27; and, if so, there must be corresponding Amendments to Clause 28.

    UNWORKED MINERALS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Section 16 of the Finance Bill, as amended, the value of land comprising unworked minerals will include the value of such minerals and whether, in cases where Undeveloped Land Duty is payable, it will be payable upon the whole value of such land, including the minerals not separately valued?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The consideration of the provision for the separate valuation of unworked minerals having an independent value was postponed by general assent till the new mineral clauses come under discussion. Undeveloped Land Duty will only be payable under Clause 10 (4) of the Finance Bill on the value of the land, excluding minerals.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will machinery be set up to separate the value of the minerals from the value of the land?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope to give notice of my Amendments on that point in the course of a few days.

    LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is prepared to lay upon the table the Amendments which we understand he proposes to introduce to the Licensing Clauses of the Finance Bill; and, in asking the Question, may I remind him that the Government have given notice of their intention to proceed with the Bill on Wednesday next, and respectfully suggest that the Amendments ought to be put on the Paper forthwith?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should say they will be put in, at any rate, at the very latest to-morrow.

  New Army Howitzer.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War when it is expected that the first delivery of the new howitzers will be made to the Regular Army?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): It is hoped that delivery will commence before the end of the financial year.

  Territorial Reserve (Enrolment).
  Mr. GRETTONasked the right hon. Gentleman when it is intended to commence enrolling soldiers on the Territorial Reserve; and when he estimates that the full number of the Territorial Reserve will be attained?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that much additional work will be required from the staffs of Territorial units in order to carry out and maintain the scheme for a Territorial Reserve; and if he proposes to make any provision for the increased clerical work which will be required, as the existing permanent staffs are already working at high pressure, and in many cases cannot adequately carry on the drills, musketry, correspondence, and keep the arms, equipment, and records of the Territorial Force?
  Mr. HALDANE: I will reply to this and the next question at the same time. No enrolment in the reserve will take place during the current financial year. As I have already explained to the House, until replies to the circular letter have been received from the county associations, and duly considered, it will not be possible to make any definite statements on the subject.

  Territorial Force (Rifles).
  Mr. GRETTONasked what is the estimated cost of converting the breechblocks of the rifles now in possession of the Territorial Forces per rifle; what is the cost of a new barrel for an existing rifle; what is the total estimated cost of converting the whole of the Territorial rifles; and what portion of the cost will be defrayed during the present financial year?
  Mr. HALDANE: The average cost for the whole conversion of a rifle, including alteration of breech-block, body and sights, is 17s. 5d. The cost of a new barrel is 15s. 3d. The total cost of converting the

  2309
  rifles required by the Territorial Force is £280,000, of which it is expected over £100,000 will be spent this year.

  Lancashire Hussars (Training Allowance).
  Mr. J. SEDDONasked the Secretary for War whether he can state the reason why the men in the Lancashire Hussars have not received a settlement for their training, which finished on 5th July; and when the owners of horses lent on hire will be paid for the use of their horses?
  Mr. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the Question, no complaint from the regiment has reached the War Office, but I will have enquiry made into the matter. As regards the second part of the Question, the payment for the hire of horses is entirely a matter for the county association.
  Mr. SEDDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of these troopers have not got substantial bank balances, and that the money they expect for their training is generally required to recoup their loss of wages, and will he use his good offices to accelerate a settlement so that they can get the money owing to them?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have said that no complaint from the regiment has reached the War Office, but I am making inquiries.

  Balloon Establishment, Aldershot.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether a reorganisation of the Balloon Establishment at Aldershot is in contemplation and, if so, whether he can make any statement regarding it?
  Mr. HALDANE: A reorganisation of the Balloon Establishment is in contemplation, but I am not able at present to make any statement regarding it.

  Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill.
  Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to circulate with the Development and Road Funds Bill a Memorandum explanatory of its provisions?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already arranged for the preparation of a Memorandum such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, and will cause it to be circulated to hon. Members with the text of the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the Bill will require another Resolution in Ways and Means before it can be introduced to the House? According to the title it will be a Money Bill solely; and it is therefore a Bill which ought to be founded upon a Resolution of Ways and Means?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It will certainly require a Money Resolution before it is proceeded with.

MILITARY AND NAVAL DEFENCE. CONCLUSIONS OF IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1909.
Mr. WALTER LONG: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the Conference on Military and Naval Defence, and whether the report of the proceedings of that Conference will be submitted to the House?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting this Question, and I must ask the indulgence of the House if my statement in reply exceeds the limits of an ordinary answer.
The Conference, which has just concluded its labours, was convened under the terms of Resolution 1 of the Conference of 1907. In the invitation sent by His Majesty's Government at the end of April to the Governments of the Dominions, it was stated that the object of the Conference would be to discuss the general question of Naval and Military Defence of the Empire, with special reference to recent proposals from New Zealand and Australia, and to the Resolution passed on 29th March by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada. It was further stated that the Conference would be of a purely consultative character, and that it would be held in private. It follows that all Resolutions come to and proposals approved by the Conference which has now been held, must be taken, so far as the delegates of the Dominions are concerned, to be ad referendum, and of no binding force unless and until submitted to their various Parliaments.
I should add, in special reference to the delegates from South Africa, that they did not feel themselves in a position, in regard to either naval or military defence, to submit or to approve positive proposals until the Union of South Africa was an

2311
accomplished fact. With this preface I will briefly summarise the main conclusions of the Conference in regard, first to Military, and next to Naval Defence.

MILITARY AND NAVAL DEFENCE. CONCLUSIONS OF IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1909.

  MILITARY DEFENCE.
  After the main Conference at the Foreign Office, a Military Conference took place at the War Office, and resulted in an agreement on the fundamental principles set out in Papers which had been prepared by the General Staff for consideration by the Delegates. The substance of these Papers (which will be included among the Papers to be published) was a recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of the Government of each Dominion over the military forces raised within it, these forces should be standardised, the formation of units, the arrangements for transport, the patterns of weapons, etc., being as far as possible assimilated to those which have recently been worked out for the British Army. Thus, while the Dominion troops would in each case be raised for the defence of the Dominion concerned, it would be made readily practicable in case of need for that Dominion to mobilise and use them for the defence of the Empire as a whole.
  The Military Conference, then entrusted to a Sub-Conference, consisting of military experts at headquarters and from the various Dominions, and presided over by Sir W. Nicholson, acting for the first time in the capacity of Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the duty of working out the detailed application of these principles.
  I may point out here that the creation early this year of an Imperial General Staff, thus brought into active working, is a result of the discussions and resolutions of the Conference of 1907. Complete agreement was reached by the members of the Sub-Conference, and their conclusions were finally approved by the Main Conference and by the Committee of Imperial Defence, which sat for the purpose under the presidency of the Prime Minister. The result is a plan for so organising the forces of the Crown wherever they are that, while preserving the complete autonomy of each Dominion, should the Dominions desire to assist in the defence of the Empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous Imperial Army.

  NAVAL DEFENCE.
  Naval defence was discussed at meetings of the Conference held at the Foreign Office on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th August. The Admiralty Memorandum, which had been circulated to the Dominion representatives, formed the basis of the preliminary conferences.
  The alternative methods which might be adopted by Dominion Governments in co-operating in Imperial Naval Defence were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundation of fleets of their own. It was recognised that in building up a fleet a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size, in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service; the personnel should be trained and disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal Navy, in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and the Dominion Services; and with the same object, the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform.
  A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in Far Eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a Pacific fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies, Australia and China seas, each comprising, with some variations, a large armoured cruiser of the new "Indomitable" type, three second-class cruisers of the "Bristol" type, six destroyers of the River class, and three submarines of "C" class.
  The generous offer, first of New Zealand, and then of the Commonwealth Government, to contribute to Imperial naval defence by the gift each of a battleship was accepted with the substitution of cruisers of the new "Indomitable" type for battleships—these two ships to be maintained, one on the China and one on the Australian station.
  Separate meetings took place at the Admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective Governments.
  As regards Australia, the suggested arrangement is that with some temporary assistance from Imperial funds, the Commonwealth Government should provide and maintain the Australian unit of the Pacific Fleet.
  The contribution of the New Zealand Government would be applied towards the maintenance of the China unit, of which some of the smaller vessels would have New Zealand waters as their headquarters. The New Zealand armoured cruiser would be stationed in China waters.
  As regards Canada, it was considered that her double seaboard rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed, according to the amount of money that might be available, that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the "Bristol" class and destroyers of an improved River class—a part to be stationed on the Atlantic seaboard and a part on the Pacific.
  In accordance with an arrangement already made, the Canadian Government would undertake the maintenance of the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, and it was a part of the arrangement proposed with the Australian representatives that the Commonwealth Government should eventually undertake the maintenance of the dockyard at Sydney.
  Papers containing all the material documents will be laid before Parliament in due course, and, it is hoped, before the conclusion of the Session.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.
Bill to authorise the making of advances for the purpose of promoting the economic development of the United Kingdom.— [Presented by Mr. Lloyd-George.]
Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to submit that this Bill cannot be presented until a Money Resolution has been submitted. The Order of the House is that no Bill dealing with money matters can be introduced until a Money Resolution has passed through Committee of Ways and Means and been reported to the House. Where a Bill deals chiefly with other things it can be introduced and proceeded with until the Money Clause is reached. But where the Bill deals solely or chiefly with money matters it cannot be introduced until the Money Resolution has been presented and reported. The title of the Bill is the Development and Road Improvement Bill; and, according to the notice on the Paper, its object is to authorise the making of advances for the purpose of promoting the economic develop-
2314
ment of the United Kingdom. I, therefore, venture to say that this is a Money Bill, and it cannot be introduced unless founded on a Resolution in Ways and Means.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill, I understand, has been examined by the Public Bill Office, and it is a Bill of a character which can be introduced in this way, although it will require at some later stage a Money Resolution. But that Resolution is not required at this juncture. The proper title of the Bill is not that which appears on the Notice Paper. It is a "Bill to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom and the improvement of the roads therein."
Sir F. BANBURY: May I suggest this Bill cannot be introduced to-day, seeing that the title of it is different to that which appears on the Paper, and it is a title of which nobody knows anything except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman must withdraw this Bill and put the proper title on the Paper.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: With regard to the suggestion that this Bill has been examined by the Public Bill Office, may I ask if you have arrived at a conclusion yourself on your responsibility as Deputy-Speaker, or are we entirely dependent on officials who, however able, may not have that constitutional view which it is necessary to take?
Mr. WALTER LONG: May I respect fully submit a very serious question which is raised by the announcement which you have just made. On the Paper notice is given of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask leave to introduce Bill which is described in particular terms. You, Sir, have just announced that the Bill is improperly described, and that it should be described in totally different terms. I ask whether a notice announcing the intention of a Member or Minister to introduce a Bill under the rules and forms of the House in particular terms holds good for a Bill which ought to be described in totally different terms?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question I have to decide is whether the notice of this Bill is substantially different from that handed in by the right hon. Gentleman, which was a "Bill to authorise the making of advances for the purpose of promoting the economic development of the United Kingdom." The title now handed in is,

2315
"To promote the economic development of the United Kingdom and the improvement of the roads therein." In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, I have to say that this Bill has gone through the usual course. I confess I have not seen the Bill itself, but it is usual for these Bills to be examined by the Public Bill Office, and this one has been so examined on behalf of Mr. Speaker in the usual way. The matter is one within my discretion, and having looked into it in such time as I have had I have come to the conclusion that the notice of the original Bill does really cover the amended notice handed in, and therefore I shall allow it to be introduced.
Bill read the first time. (To be read the second time upon Monday next, 30th August.)

IRISH LAND BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[7th Allotted Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

IRISH LAND BILL.
  Part IV.—COMPULSORY PURCHASE.

    Clause 58.—(Compulsory Purchase.)
    (1) The Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land—

    (a) in respect of which a final offer has been sent by them and has not been accepted in manner provided by this Act; or

    (b) in respect of which they have received a requisition under this Act from the Congested Districts Board

    shall publish in the "Dublin Gazette" a notice containing particulars of the final offer of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board as the case may be and stating that the Estates Commissioners intend to purchase the estate or untenanted land described in the final offer at the price named in such offer, unless within the prescribed time an application is made under this Part of this Act to the Judicial Commissioner by any person interested in the estate or untenanted land.
    (2) A copy of the final offer and of the aforesaid notice shall as soon as possible be served in the prescribed manner by the Estates Commissioners upon all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the estate or untenanted land.
    (3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with
    2316
    the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply by way of objection to the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land.
    (4) The Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise the powers conferred on the Land Commission by Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section forty-eight of the Act of 1881, and his decision on any question other than one of law shall be final.
    (5) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act on any question of law and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
    (6) Subject to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, the price named in the final offer or fixed under this Part of this Act as the case may be shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall within the prescribed time be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be, by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase-money into the Bank.
    (7) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Section shall be at the discretion of that Commissioner, who may if he thinks fit order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have to rule out of Order the Amendments to leave out Part IV.; also that to leave out line 8 ["Compulsory Purchase"] standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. W. Moore).
    Mr. W. MOORE: Suppose line 8 is not altered in any way, would a subsequent

    2317
    Amendment to leave it out be in order, seeing there will still be the heading "Compulsory purchase"?
    The CHAIRMAN: The heading does not affect me in any way in my consideration of points of Order. I now call on the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale).
    Mr. MOORE,Mr. MOORE, in the absence of the hon. Member, moved the omission of Sub-section (1). I may point out that up to the present the Committee have had no opportunity whatsoever of discussing what may be described as the subject-matter of this Bill—that part relating to compulsory purchase. This is raised by the Sub-section I am proposing to omit. Let me deal with the problem as it affects the Bill. In the first place it is very important, and I shall be glad to have some information from the Chief Secretary as to how this Clause will operate. It affects all land in Ireland except that specified in a later clause—namely, land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a demesne, garden, pleasure ground, or home farm. It is, apparently, not restricted to agricultural land, but it is the whole of the land of Ireland which is affected, with the exceptions which I have mentioned. I think it is only right there should be an opportunity of considering this Clause in that light. This House did pass an amending Land Act for the purposes of the evicted tenants, and that was the first time that compulsory powers were made part of the Irish Land Code.
    4.0 P.M
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that your discretion is not in Order on this point, as you are not entitled on this Clause to raise the principle of compulsory purchase, but only the question of procedure. This is a procedure clause, and we have passed the principle of compulsion, and therefore I submit it is only the question of procedure which can be discussed, and that the hon. Member is limited to it.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: May I submit to you, Sir, on that point of Order, that the same question arose and has been put to you before, and you have been good enough to decide on other parts of the Bill, and have laid down from the first that when we are acting under Closure by compartments it is obvious that there must be some wider latitude given to our discussion than under ordinary circumstances. On this particular point of compulsion
    2318
    there has been no discussion, and I submit to you whether it would not be in order, in discussing the machinery of compulsion, for us also to discuss compulsion itself. Is it not essential that the two things should be discussed together?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I submit that the argument of the right 'hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that we ought to take up the time which has been allotted to us quo ad machinery by discussing the question of principle, is not in Order.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not intend to discuss the question of principle. I recognise the decision of the Committee on previous clauses, but I am discussing the effect of the machinery which has been devised under this Clause. I intend to discuss the hardship which that machinery would involve and its unfitness from the nature and the kind of property it would affect. I do not intend to discuss the advisability or the extent of compulsion, although I very much object to it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I point out that the only question here is whether the Estates Commissioners shall publish in the "Dublin Gazette" the notices containing particulars of the offer of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be.
    Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: On the point of Order, Sir. I submit to you that we have not only to deal with the machinery of compulsion in this Clause, but we have in the very first line of the Clause to decide whether that machinery may be applied. That is a matter of very vital importance, which can be discussed without discussing the principle of compulsion, but which cannot be discussed without bearing in mind that compulsion is to be applied.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the first Section of this particular Clause does raise in a satisfactory way the question of compulsion, because it applies to the action of the Estates Commissioners in regard to notices which they' are to publish. There is another section of this same Clause—Sub-section (6)—which, I think, does raise the question of compulsion. As to whether compulsion is already in the Bill, I have had a good deal of difficulty in making up my mind whether it is in the Bill or not. So far as I can see in Clause 39, Sub-section (4), it states that the Estates Commissioners may, in certain circumstances, "if they think fit, proceed to

    2319
    acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in the manner provided by Part IV. of this Act." Then, of course, in Clause 57, which deals with the action of the Congested Districts Board, it states in Sub-section (4) that "the Congested Districts Board may, if they think fit, send to the Estates Commissioners a requisition calling upon the Estates Commissioners to take steps to acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in manner provided by Part IV. of this Act." Therefore, to some extent, I think we have settled the question of compulsion. The hon. and learned Member, who is going to move the omission of this Section, I understand is only going to discuss machinery. I must hear what he has to say, and decide whether he is in Order or not.
    Mr. MOORE: I think I understand your ruling, Sir, and I shall endeavour not to transgress it, and I may draw attention to the fact that, in acquiescing in your ruling, the Committee will remember that they have passed this principle of compulsion in the earlier portion of the Bill without a single word of discussion. I hope that will not be lost sight of by Ministers, I do not care of which party, when they come to consider what is the effect of guillotine Resolutions. This Bill would be worthless without compulsion, and it has been discussed up to the present without a single word being said about it or its merits, but of course I am not going into that, as this is limited to machinery, and hon. Members below the Gangway seem to be delighted that it is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] When hon. Members below the Gangway address the House, I think, there is never an interruption from these Benches, but as soon as an Ulster Member gets up there are running commentaries made by hon. Members, which are consistent with good manners but are inconsistent with fair play. We are restricted to the machinery provisions of this Clause, but I may point out that it applies to every acre of land in Ireland, except that which is subsequently excepted, such as demesnes, home farms, or pleasure grounds. I think it is important to consider that when you are considering your machinery, because a great deal of the discussion as to what machinery is requisite will depend upon the scope for which it is to be used. The land in Ireland outside these restrictions is necessarily tenanted or untenanted, though the Estates Commissioners can call anything they like an estate for the purpose of rein-
    2320
    stating an evicted tenant. They can call two or three holdings an estate for that purpose, and therefore nothing turns upon the word "estate" because that is what the Commissioners choose to make it. But all land is tenanted or untenanted, and the question I wish to ask of the Chief Secretary is this: Is land which has already been bought up under the Purchase Acts and which is the subject of a purchase agreement—of course, I mean untenanted land—is it untenanted land within the meaning of this Clause?
    I hope the Chief Secretary will throw some light upon that, because it affects the interests of purchasers all over Ireland. There is a very general impression, perhaps owing to the position which the right hon. Gentleman took up, on the Evicted Tenants Act, that land which is subject to a purchase instalment, once it has been bought out, can never be acquired compulsorily, although as a matter of course it is untenanted land. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware, on this point, of the evidence which was given before the Dublin Commission, where a leading—democrat is hardly the word—but I will call him a leader of popular opinion in the West of Ireland, was very loud indeed in his insistence on having what he called "the ranches" broken up. One member of the Commission said to him, "Have you got any considerable amount of land yourself?" At the time the point was raised there was not enough land to go round, and this Gentleman admitted that he had a farm of 300 acres and another farm of 400 acres, or 700 acres altogether, but he snapped his fingers in the face of the Commissioners, and said, "You cannot take my land, because it is the subject of a purchase instalment." I think it is most important that we should have a declaration from the Government as to whether it is intended that untenanted land in the hands of tenant purchasers, who are the owners of the fee, is to be acquired under this Act or whether it will be exempted.
    This is the second time that we have had machinery brought into a Bill for acquiring land compulsorily for some of the purposes of the Land Acts, and I do think that the Committee are entitled, and it would be of the greatest advantage for them, to compare the difference between the machinery now advocated and the machinery which was adopted by the House, for the purpose of these Land Acts, under the Act of 1907 for restoring evicted tenants. The Act of 1907, for which the corresponding machinery was devised, was described in

    2321
    this House as specially framed to meet a special case. The right hon. Gentleman, in this House, expressly declared that its provisions were not to be taken as a precedent. That was said again and again by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by Lord Crewe, who was in charge of the Bill in another place. The Government pledged themselves that those provisions for taking land compulsorily were not to be looked upon as a precedent for future legislation. In defiance, or, it may be, in forgetfulness, of the speeches which were made upon the Evicted Tenants Bill and the machinery which was put into it, when we look at this Bill we find that there have been very considerable changes in that machinery, and that every change is a change to the disadvantage of the owner from whom the land is to be taken. The Government have cut off one notice to him and one inquiry before the Estates Commissioners. They have deprived him of two of his rights of appeal, and I can say from my professional experience that the one thing that at present the Estates Commissioners are most anxious to avoid is to come before the Court of King's Bench. They will settle any matter rather than be haled up on a certiorari or a mandamus. Under the Evicted Tenants Act, when these compulsory powers were given, there was to be an appeal to a King's Bench judge, either in Dublin, where a rota was to be fixed, or to a King's Bench judge as a going judge of Assizes. That was not arrived at hastily. It was the result of a considerable compromise and negotiation between the two Houses over that Bill which was not to create a precedent. The reason was, as Lord Crewe explained, that it was undesirable that there should be an appeal from the Land Commission, who took the land, to the Land Commission who were paying the price, because, as was frankly admitted there, although the Chief Secretary always denied it here, it was really making them judges in their own cause.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must discuss this matter one way or the other. It is surely agreed that the question of compulsion is already in the Bill, and we cannot discuss it now. I think it would be very much better in regard to this matter not to discuss the whole of this Section on the omission of Sub-section (1), but deal with the matters seriatim as they arise.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: My submission was that the only point of the Section is—shall a notice in the "Dublin Gazette" be published and what shall it contain.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Whether or not the question of compulsion has been decided, two questions have not been decided: one, the machinery by which compulsion is to be exercised, and the other as to where compulsion should be applied. That is a very important point and I trust you will not exclude discussion on it.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The opening words of the section are, "The Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land." Therefore we are dealing with machinery which it is proposed to put in operation when it is intended to purchase compulsorily an estate or untenanted land. Surely it is vital and relevant to that discussion to consider and discuss the extent and nature of the land which forms the subject matter of the notice.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Motion is to omit Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) in this case does not raise, as Subsection (1) often does, a wide point of general principle. It is very restricted in its application, and as to the question of what kind of land is to be included in this, if it can be raised on an Amendment Which is in Order I do not see that it can be raised here.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Your objection will be entirely met if, instead of leaving out the Section, we leave out the words "estate or untenanted land," but that would debar me from bringing forward a matter which cannot be discussed except in view of where this machinery applies. Estate and untenanted land are not loose verbiage. They are terms of art, which have a meaning under the Act of 1903, which is profoundly modified under this Bill. It is impossible to discuss this measure unless we consider what it is to which we are applying it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Surely if that is the question it can be raised on an Amendment to leave out the words "or untenanted land."
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I wish to invite the attention of the Committee to the word "estate," as well as to the words "untenanted land." There are points of great substance, raising very far-reaching consequences, in this proposal to apply compulsion to an estate and to untenanted land, as the meaning of those words is modified by this Bill. The House ought

    2323
    not to propose to apply this machinery of compulsion to land covered by these two phrases without understanding what it is that these phrases cover.
    Mr. MOORE: If I withdrew my Amendment, would a discussion of the whole machinery be permissible on the question that the Clause stand part?
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, the whole Clause can be discussed there. I stopped the hon. and learned Gentleman from discussing later sections which did not seem to arise on Sub-section (1). With regard to the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), if the points which he desired to raise can be raised on an Amendment to this Section, let them be so raised; if not, and they can be properly raised on this Motion, let them be raised on this Motion.
    Mr. MOORE: I should much prefer to say what I have to say about the machinery when the whole Clause is put to the House, and I understand that will be permissible.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That will involve that this Amendment must be negatived, for I would be no party to allowing it to be withdrawn. Then the result would be that we should have wasted three-quarters of an hour because the hon. Gentleman has not been able to say what he wants to say. The place to say what you want to say is the right place. This is the wrong place. There is nothing whatever in the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham). The word "untenanted" is a mere adjective in that case, and I will read it as if it did not exist. "The Estates Commissioners, in any case where they propose to acquire land, shall publish in the 'Dublin Gazette' a notice containing particulars of the final offer unless within the prescribed time an application is made under this part of the Act to the Judicial Commissioner by any person interested in the land." Then when you go to the Judicial Commissioner Clause 59 provides that the untenanted land to be sold is to be of a particular kind, and then, "If on any such application the Judicial Commissioner is satisfied that the estate or untenanted land includes land to which this Section applies, and that such land is not the main portion of the estate or untenanted land, he may exclude such land from the purchase." So far as machinery is concerned the only point before the
    2324
    Chair, and the only point which can be discussed, is whether a notice ought to be inserted in the "Dublin Gazette" advising all parties concerned whose land is going to be taken compulsorily, that they are to get so much money for it, and that if they want to maintain their land as garden ground, demesne ground, and so on, they have a right of access to the Judicial Commissioner, and it does not matter whether the land is untenanted land, demesne, or any other land.
    Mr. MOORE: I think I had better not move my Amendment on the understanding that we are allowed to discuss the whole machinery when the whole Clause comes to be put.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The gist of the point of Order raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) is that, having accepted compulsion as a principle without discussion, we are now to accept the application of compulsion to any land in Ireland. That is a subject of immense moment. There are complicated provisions in the Act of 1903 limiting the intervention of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board; there are many provisions in this Bill limiting them which we do not understand, and there is a new clause by the Chief Secretary bearing upon the scope of the operation of compulsion. If a question of that magnitude is to be dismissed, proceedings are reduced to the last degree of futility. I wish, therefore, to move to leave out the words "an estate" in order that the Committee should know from the Government what they mean. I want to ask the Government to what lands in Ireland they mean to apply these compulsory powers?
    Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order. You rule that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) was not in its right place, but surely it will have to come in before any Amendment of the Clause could be moved? It is in order to save his right that I raise the point now.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and learned Member asks where that Amendment should come in. I said it was not in the right place here. I think it should be a proviso at the end of the Section. "Provided that this Section shall not apply until after the voluntary sales of estates under the Land Act of 1903 have been settled for."
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Hon. Members will be ill-advised if they believe that this matter, although technical, is merely a technical matter. The phrase "an estate" is a term which occurs in the Irish Land Act of 1903. It does not mean the property of a particular owner who happens to be possessed of what is called an estate. The only definition of an estate is that given in the Act of 1903. There "an estate" is defined to be any land, to put it vaguely, which the Estates Commissioners may declare fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act. Is that what the words "an estate" mean here? Are the Commissioners to select any land in any part of Ireland and say, "This is an estate, and therefore in any proposal we make for the purchase of that land, be it a field of 4,000 acres, an orchard, or moor land, it is an estate for the purpose of this compulsory purchase." That is a point upon which we are entitled to hear the view of the Government. What is the scope and purport of the words "an estate" I meant to deal also with the question of untenanted land, but I will deal with one thing at a time. I invite the Government to inform the Committee as fully and clearly as they can what they mean by "an estate" for the purpose of the compulsory provisions of this Bill? There is no new definition in the Bill, and the definition in the Act of 1903 has not proved a very simple matter. It has given rise to a great deal of difficulty, and there has been at least one important law suit based on the definition of the words "an estate" The words occur in Clause 98 of the Act of 1903, which has no meaning at all apart from the other provisions in that Act. The words will have no meaning apart from the new provisions in this Bill, although in law "an estate" is any land which the Commissioners may say is fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purpose of the Act of 1903. The Clause in the 1903 Act will be amended, but it will not be repealed by this Bill. What we call estates fall into two categories. There are estates of the ordinary character, where sales take place under Clause 3 of the Act of 1903. In that case the landlord sells the property which he possesses. Then there is the second category of estates, which fall under Clause 6 of the Act of 1903, where the Estates Commissioners purchase the estates. I am going to leave the first out of account, because the second is obviously the far more relevant to that which we have now to con-
    2326
    sider. We have to consider the case where the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate, and I submit to the Government that the words "an estate," as they occur here, are governed by the words in the Act of 1903, which are not specifically repealed. We ought to come a little nearer the definition. We should have it clearly in our mind, in order to ascertain what kind of compulsion is to be applied in regard to an estate so defined. This Bill does modify the words "an estate," as contemplated in Clause 6 of the Act of 1903. That clause contemplates the purchase of estates by the Estates Commissioners with the consent of the owner. The consent of the owner is now eliminated. I am not going to criticise that. It is a question of policy in which the Government may be right or wrong. But there are other provisions in Clause 6 of the Act of 1903 which define the manner in which an estate is to be purchased by the Estates Commissioners. Under that Clause, if the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate they have to certify that it is desirable to purchase it in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it. That is not repealed by this Bill. I wish to know whether under the Section we are now considering the compulsory powers which are to be used by the Estates Commissioners are or are not to have regard to the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon the estate? Is it still obligatory upon the Estates Commissioners to certify to the Lord Lieutenant that it is desirable to purchase the estate in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it? I would point out also that, under Sub-section (5) of Clause 6 of the Act of 1903, which is not repealed, an estate which they do certify as desirable for purchase and resale in view of the wants and circumstances of the people upon it, must fulfil certain conditions. These conditions are modified. It used to be that not less than one-half should consist of holdings not exceeding £5 in rateable value. Now it is to be £10.
    The ATORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): That applies to "congested estates"
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I was just coming to that point. I invite the Committee to follow this rather closely. I want to know whether the Section as it stands really bears the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy)?

    2327
    Does it mean that without repealing those clauses in the Act of 1903 you can go and buy an estate without having regard to the wants and circumstances of the tenants upon it, and without limiting the loss which may accrue to the taxpayer in the purchase and sale of the estate? We are entitled to know that. I gathered from the Attorney-General's observation that, in his opinion, the Section now before the Committee is so wide as to give the go-by to all those limitations. Well, but does it? The Attorney-General said that the provision to which I was referring applied to "congested estates." There are two clauses in this Bill which refer to congested estates. The important Clause 21 really defines what a congested estate is. Is all that surplusage and meaningless? The Committee is entitled to know whether, if we pass this Section, compulsory powers may be applied to estates which are not congested, and may be applied also to estates without any regard to the amount of loss which is to accrue in the purchase and resale. If that is the policy of the Government, why do they leave the Clause of the Act of 1903 unrepealed? It is proposed to amend it. Why do they bring in the important Clause 21 dealing with congested estates, and why do they impose the restrictions stated in Section (2) of Clause 56? It is clear that the question as to whether an estate is congested or not has been present to the Government. We want to know whether they are going to give compulsory powers of purchase, irrespective of the wants and circumstances of the tenants on an estate which hitherto we have had more particularly in view. Are they going to ignore the definition of a congested estate as amended by themselves? Are they going to ignore in these purchases the wants and circumstances of the tenants who are situated on the most unfortunate estates of Ireland which require first the assistance of this House? That is my first question. My second question is this. In respect to congested estates under the law as it now stands, a loss on resale might be incurred within the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, but that loss was limited by Clause 44 of the Act of 1903 to 10 per cent. In the Schedule of this Bill you repeal Clause 44. I wish to know whether the Estates Commissioners, buying wherever they choose, may incur any loss, however great that loss may be? The Government are giving the go-by to all the conditions which were carefully imported into the Act of 1903 to
    2328
    protect the interests of the tenants of Ireland, whose lot is most unfortunate, and they are giving a roving commission that purchase is to be indulged in at a loss to the taxpayer, however great, and without consideration of the wants and circumstances of the tenants, however small.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'an estate' stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When the author of the Act of 1903 asks the indulgence of the Committee to state his views on the question of Irish Land Purchase, no person would deny him that right, although he was expressing abracadabra. Let me ask the Committee what would be the effect of the Motion he has just made? This Section provides that when land is to be taken compulsorily, notice shall be given in the "Dublin Gazette," and the actual effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that if the land should consist of "an estate" the owner of the land should get no notice. Therefore what he has moved is contrary to all the principles that when land is being taken compulsorily in a certain case, the owner of the land shall get notice of the fact that the land is to be taken. The grievance of the right hon. Gentleman is the grievance of the Closure, the grievance of the guillotine, the grievance of the Act of Union, the grievance created by Lord Castlereagh 105 years ago; but it will not be remedied by moving an Amendment the only effect of which is to exclude; the man who is entitled to notice from getting any notice. If I were to go into this matter I could tell the right hon. Gentleman of a more startling effect in connection with this Section. You can not only take an estate or untenanted land, but land which has been bought under the Ashbourne Act, and the question arises whether a man who has bought under that Act is going to get notice if it is decided to acquire the land compulsorily. After all, we must assume that every Gentleman has knowledge of the effect of the prior clauses we have passed. We have passed prior clauses dealing with compulsion, and, having passed them, we come to purely machinery clauses, and this Clause is no more than if we said this: "The Land Commission shall give notice in the prescribed manner to the persons whose land is being compulsorily acquired." It assumes that the land is being compulsorily taken, and the only thing you are doing with your so-called Victim is to let him know whether he gets notice by registered

    2329
    letter or by notice in the "Dublin Gazette," or through a bailiff, or in any other way. This Clause is all purely machinery. The other clauses we have passed are the marrow of the matter, and, having passed these, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has wept over the wrong grave.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not understand why the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) is so anxious to prevent discussion on this Section. Even if his technicalities—which I intend in a moment to show are wrong—were right, one would have thought in a grave, important question of this kind, vitally affecting as it does the interests of so many persons in his constituency and the interests of the people, that he would have been the last person to have attempted to prevent legitimate discussion. His suggestion is that because under Clause 39 you have empowered the Estates Commissioners to acquire by compulsion an estate, therefore they would be able to do that without the power contained in this portion of the Bill. That, I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman, is a ludicrous contention. If you give power of compulsory purchase and do not provide the machinery your Bill would be inoperative, and this portion of the Bill is as essential in order to enable the Estates Commissioners to exercise their compulsory powers as is the section already passed conferring those powers upon them. But there is one most important consideration that I wish to press upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in connection with these words "an estate." Of course, he knows as a lawyer that you can have an estate in the popular sense. An estate in the popular sense is the entire land that the individual owns. That is what we commonly understand—an estate held under the one title. A man may have several estates; but what we mean when we speak of the landlord's estate is the land in a particular place held under one particular title. If that is the meaning of it under this Clause, many hardships and many cases of injustice one has contemplated would not arise; but it is not the meaning of it, or at any rate, whether it is or not, would have ultimately to form the subject of some very costly litigation in the case of some unfortunate owner or some unfortunate tenant. Therefore, I think it is essential that there should be a definition or otherwise that this difficulty
    2330
    should be cleared up at this stage, because, as I venture to prophesy, if that is not done, we will have a repetition, only on a larger scale, of the litigation that was caused by the ambiguity as to this expression already under the Act of 1903.
    On the other hand, so far as I can pronounce an opinion upon it, I think an estate in this Clause means an estate as defined in the Act of 1903, and that seems to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, if one may judge from his assent. If that is the meaning of it, let me point out to him that nothing can be more unfair or more unjust than a provision of that kind, because that means that the Estates Commissioners in any part of Ireland may walk in and acquire not the man's estate, but any portion of it, small or great, that they may choose to pick out for their own purposes, leaving on his hands the rest of it. Conceive for a moment what that means. A man has a piece of property, some of it good, some of it middling, and other portions perhaps bad; some parts suitable for tillage, some parts suitable for tenants, and other parts unsuitable, perhaps waste or wild. Are they going to take from the unfortunate landowner by compulsion the only portion of an estate that is fit for cultivation, and put that in a ring fence and define it to be an estate and leave upon his hands the worthless portion that may be of very little value for agricultural purposes? What condition is he going to be left in? Let any hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite realise for a moment what that would be if it were applied to his own case. Suppose he has property—some 400 or 500 acres in a ring fence—everybody knows that in ordinary land those 400 or 500 acres are almost certain to contain a small portion, greater or less, unfit for or, at any rate, not worth cultivating as a practical farmer. But, nevertheless, this portion has to be kept up, and sometimes, as we know, it can be worked cheaply, because it is worked in conjunction with the major portion which is profitable. If the State is going to come in and take away that man's property, surely it ought to acquire the whole of it. On what possible principle of justice or fair play should you empower the State to walk in and say, "We will take your good acres and leave you the worthless portion of the estate"? The thing could not be, and would not be, tolerated in any civilised and fair-minded community, but if that is to be the definition of an estate under this Clause, then I say

    2331
    it must of necessity have that operation and effect, and surely we are entitled to have some explanation upon this point from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have said many hard things about him, but I cannot believe yet that his ideas of fair play and justice with regard to owners of property in Ireland have reached such a level that he proposes under this Bill to enable an outside body, a public body, to walk in upon the estate of any landowner and say, "You have got 1,000 acres here. Six hundred of them are quite capable of being worked and tilled at a profit by agriculturists; the rest is worthless for that purpose. We will take the 600 acres, we will declare that to be an estate, and we will buy it by compulsion, leaving upon your hands the remaining 400 acres," which in his position would be utterly useless for any purpose. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, if that is going to be the effect of this Clause, that the sooner it is amended the better, and that there should be words for the purpose of these compulsory Clauses defining an estate to be the entire of the land held by the owner under the same title. I can conceive cases even in that instance where there would be very great hardship and injustice; but the adoption of this suggestion would certainly get rid of the injustice, that otherwise would be palpable, of compelling an owner to part by compulsion with that portion of the estate which can be profitably managed, and leaving on his hands the unprofitable and useless portion. I think that is a point, in addition to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover, which is worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. JOHN DILLON: I have not the slightest desire to prevent the fullest possible discussion upon the principle of compulsion in this Clause; on the contrary, I think it extremely desirable that we should have an opportunity of discussing fully the principle of compulsion under the Clause when the Clause comes to be put from the Chair. I am quite sure that the Chairman will allow that.
    Mr. MOORE: I was stopped.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Member was stopped when discussing it on the omission of Sub-section (1), but so far as we are concerned, we are extremely anxious that there should be a full discussion, and we trust that we may be able to
    2332
    secure it. With regard to the speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, may I say that there was no point whatever in it. He seemed to me to have got inextricably muddled up in his head the question of a congested estate and an ordinary estate. There is no connection whatever between the two matters in relation to this particular Clause. The meaning of the Clause is of course quite clear. It proposes to give machinery to carry out compulsion as regards all estates, and what put it into the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that it is governed by the definition of congested estate in Section 6 of the Act of 1903, I cannot conceive. It is not governed by that definition of congested estate unless the estate is defined to be congested, and the provisions dealing with the definitions of congestion have been somewhat modified and somewhat enlarged. But subject to that modification those words remain just as they were in the Act of 1903, as I understand it; and I do not think that the liability of the State to loss on the sale of estates purchased by the Estates Commissioners is qualified by this Clause at all, or by this Act, except in so far as the definition of congested estate is extended by any previous clause that has been already passed. The point raised by the right hon. Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell) is a very different point. His contention is that this Clause would give power to the Estates Commissioners to go to the landlord and say, "We will pick the eyes out of the estate," as used to be done in the States of Texas and Colorado by the ranchers, "and we will leave all the worthless land on your hands." It is an extreme assumption that the Estates Commissioners would ever dream of doing that.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is what they want.
    Mr. DILLON: That is a very extreme assumption. Speaking as a layman, I am not qualified to give an expression of opinion on that matter, but so far as we are concerned we have not the slightest atom of objection, if there be substance in the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member, to having it remedied. It is perfectly easy to do that. There are two ways of remedying it. One would be the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member. The other would be, in my opinion, a much simpler remedy. It would be to

    2333
    give a right to the landlord, in case he so desired, to require the Estates Commissioners to purchase the whole of his estate. If such an Amendment as that were made by the Government, or any Member of the House, it would meet with no objection and no opposition from us. Our desire is to see all the land of Ireland sold. There was no point whatever in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and he was labouring under a misconception, although he appears to be a very great expert on the interpretation of the Act of 1903; but all I can say is that, so far as we are concerned, we are exceedingly anxious to have a discussion on the general principle of compulsory sale under this Clause.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The hon. Gentleman has criticised my statement, and I must be allowed to reply. I find very great substance in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with every word he says. He put forward the case of the landlords, who are protected in part by this Clause; but there is no protection in it of the interests of the tenants on congested estates. In the case of congested estates a certain number of conditions have to be fulfilled; a certificate has to be issued, and only a certain amount of loss can be incurred. Under this Clause, to which I take exception, on no other estate are there any conditions to be fulfilled, nor are there any limitations as to loss; and there is a direct incentive to the Estates Commission and to the Congested Districts Board to purchase estates favourably situated rather than those which are not favourably situated. That is a point of substance to which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) might well direct his attention. From the point of view of this congestion, it is a mistake to leave unrepealed all those limitations which make it difficult to cure congestion.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There are 23 Amendments standing in the names of Members of the Unionist party, and if we have 23 Divisions we will never get to any discussion of the Clause; and, more than that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) expressly disclaimed the idea that they would withdraw any of the Amendments; on the contrary, he said they would fight all the Amendments, and, therefore, it will be impossible to get to a discussion of the principle. I would respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General for Ireland that if
    2334
    effect were given to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover this Government would be spoken of as that abominable Radical Government who passed a clause providing that a man's estate might be sold without any notice being given to him at all.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Whatever hon. Members below the Gangway may say, I have put two clear questions to the Government, and I am entitled to an answer.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): Very pertinent questions have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. If he reads the Clause he will find what the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said is perfectly correct, namely, that the only effect of the Amendments being carried will be to deprive the owner of notice of the sale of his estate.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I really cannot sit under that imputation. It is entirely owing to the ruling of the Chair that I moved the omission of those words in order to get an answer from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that I want to leave out these words.
    Mr. CHERRY: The right hon. Gentleman has moved to leave them out, and I was only pointing out, as had already been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that the effect of carrying the Amendment would be that notice would not be given to the owner of an estate when it was to be sold, and that would be the only effect.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Then let us discuss "The Dublin Gazette" and nothing else.
    Mr. CHERRY: I really must protest against these interruptions. I do not trouble the Committee unnecessarily, and I think I ought to be allowed to answer the questions which have been put to me without these repeated interruptions. What is the scope and purpose of the words "an estate," contained in the 58th Clause of the Bill. I think that question can be answered by referring to the 63rd Clause, which provides that Parts I., II., and IV. of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts and may be cited with those Acts. So that it is perfectly clear that the words "an estate" occurring in the 58th Clause in the Bill have the same meaning as they have in the Acts of

    2335
    1881, 1885, 1891 and 1903. The meaning of the words is the same as in earlier Acts, namely, "Such land as the Commissioners desire to purchase." When you come to the Act of 1903 the meaning of the words "an estate" is slightly extended, because it applies not only to land required by the Commissioners, but to land sold by the landlords directly to the tenant. Previous to the Act of 1903 the word "estate" was a term of art; it was not used with reference to the sale of land by a landlord directly to his tenant; it was only used in the case of the purchase of land by the Estates Commissioners. Therefore, in dealing with that case, it was necessary to make the definition more complete, and, as we know, the definition was that an estate should mean whatever land the Estates Commissioners decided should be acquired. That was a definition, however, which caused a great deal of trouble and litigation. I really think that we ought not to blame the authors of the Act of 1903 for that. It was a very difficult thing indeed to define the word "estate" in any way that would not cause great difficulty. In my view, rightly or wrongly, the words "an estate" have the same meaning in this Clause as they have in the Act of 1903.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The Chief Secretary told me the opposite.
    Mr. CHERRY: I did not hear him.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: This is quite a technical point, and I am sure the House wants a satisfactory explanation. The Chief Secretary nodded assent to me when I construed the words "an estate" as meaning such part of the land as was defined by the Estates Commissioners to be fit to be acquired under the Act of 1903. The right hon. Gentleman nodded assent to that.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Very well, I accept that, but now his colleague the Attorney-General has pointed out that it is entirely wrong.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, no.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General will bear me out—I want to have the matter cleared up—when I say that his reply was that the same meaning was running through all the Land Purchase Acts up to the Act of 1903 in regard to the general expression "an estate," and that under the Act of 1903 that had been narrowed
    2336
    down or extended, whichever way you like to put it, by giving the Estates Commissioners power to define what is meant by an estate. My right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the University of Dublin asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite what he suggested was meant by the words "an estate," and he replied that the same meaning attached to them as they bear in all the Land Purchase Acts. Therefore it cannot be the same as an estate to be defined by the Estates Commissioners. That is exactly what I was told or led to believe. I do not for one moment wish to pin the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to it, because it is a secondary matter, and probably has not been looked at by the right hon. Gentleman, who may be at liberty to change his view; but he most frankly gave me to understand, by nodding acquiescence, that the meaning of the words "an estate," in the Section now under discussion, is the same as an estate defined by the Commissioners to be an estate. I only intervened because I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General disagreed with his colleague.
    Mr. CHERRY: If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the favour to listen instead of interrupting me with a long speech, he would have understood what I was putting forward. He has entirely misrepresented me in what I said, as my right hon. Friend near me, and as Members on the opposite benches will agree. I said the words "an estate" had the same meaning in all the Land Purchase Acts, and that the definition in the Act of 1903 is only referred to because the direct sale between landlord and tenant was for the first time brought under the words "an estate." Those words under the Act of 1903 mean that "an estate" is whatever the Commissioners may regard as an estate, and, if they are purchasing, of course they themselves will define what they consider to be an estate. That meaning is the same in all cases, and is applied where there is a direct sale between landlord and tenant as defined under the Act of 1903. If the Commissioners are dealing with an estate, then those words must mean whatever land the Commissioners chose to buy, and they will not buy what they do not like. When dealing with a direct sale between landlord and tenant the land must mean whatever land the Commissioners declare to be an estate. I see no ambiguity whatever about the words "an estate" in this

    2337
    Clause, and I think no lawyer would see.any difficulty about them. Suppose the landlord holds under one conveyance a congested estate in Connemara, and a large tract of land in the county of Meath, and suppose the Estates Commissioners desired, in order to relieve that congestion, to purchase the land in Connemara: Would it be a reasonable thing or a proper thing that they should not be able to do that without also purchasing the land in the county of Meath? The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin has described this Clause as most unfair and unjust, and as one which would not be tolerated in any civilised community. Every clause in this Bill that has ever been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the discussions we have had in the last few months have been described by him in exactly similar terms. It was the worst clause ever suggested by the ingenuity of man, even the ingenuity of the devil; it could not be tolerated for one moment. He exhausted all his superlatives, and now we have still more superlatives as regards this Clause. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that compulsory powers are at present exercised all over the United Kingdom. If a railway company wishes to construct a line it has not to take all the land of the landowner, but such portion as it wants cutting through the estate. Yet we do not hear that this compulsory power is a thing which could not be tolerated in any civilised country. Take the case of the Labourers Act in Ireland. It has been in force for a great number of years. A scheme can be framed for the provision of labourers' cottages and land can be compulsorily acquired for that purpose. The Estates Commissioners are not fools. I know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) about the Estates Commissioners. He has given it to us again and again. The Estates Commissioners are public officials, discharging public duties, and is it likely that they will be so unreasonable as to say, "We will not take all your land; we will only take that bit"?
    Mr. CAMPBELL: They do it every day, and are bound to do it.
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners discharge their statutory duties cast upon them, and I am quite sure discharge them fairly and impartially. Where lands are separated, and, geographically, in different counties, they will not, of
    2338
    course, buy one portion because they have bought the other, but if lands all lie within, a ring fence, I can scarcely believe that any public official, buying for the purposes of this Act, would be so unreasonable as to go and say: "You must give this farm and that farm and the other, because they are good, and you must keep the others that are bad." When they came to fix the price before the Judicial Commissioner, I think he would have something to say on conduct of this kind, if they were so unreasonable. We are not to discuss this merely upon the assumption that the Estates Commissioners will do everything unreasonable, or seek to annoy the landlords. On the contrary, they have been seeking in every way to oblige the landlords of Ireland, and, I believe, taking all the landlords, there are not 10 amongst them who will say a bad word of the Estates Commissioners. I have talked myself to landlords again and again. Did the hon. and learned Member who laughs find them very unreasonable when he was selling his estate? Has he any complaint to make? [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty-one years' purchase."] I do hot know what price he got, but is there any landowner who has a complaint to make? We have complaints from lawyers sitting on the benches opposite, but have we any complaints from the landlords themselves? I have not heard any complaint from a single landlord in Ireland. Any landlord who has ever dealt with them has been fairly well satisfied with the way he has been treated. If this is so very unreasonable, may I ask why no Amendment has been put down? The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said he would have no objection to some provision which would require the Estates Commissioners, if they took portions of lands, that they should take the remainder. I think that ought to be confined to land in continuity. If a landlord has two estates, one in Antrim and. the other in Kerry, I do not think the Estates Commissioners should be compelled to buy both estates. I think it will be a reasonable thing—an exceedingly reasonable thing—that all the land within a ring fence should be so treated. No Amendment of the kind has been suggested, although it is a long time since this Bill passed the second reading. We heard about Committees to consider the question of Amendments; we read of their meetings, but why is there no Amendment on the Paper? Although I have been in

    2339
    contact with the Bill since its introduction, no single soul has ever mentioned this point, and I never heard of it until I heard of it from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham). I know the Amendment was moved not for the bonâ fide object of having it carried, but to provide discussion.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I am sure he does not wish to be offensive when he says the Amendment was not moved bonâ fide. Does he deny that I moved it in order to elicit information? It is a very ordinary course in this House, and one which the Government has usually allowed.
    Mr. CHERRY: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I only meant that he did not bonâ fide wish to strike out the words "an estate." He moved that Amendment, as he himself said, to give him the opportunity of discussing other questions. I have
    endeavoured to say that "estate" has the same meaning in this as in the previous Acts, and the scope of purchase by compulsory power is precisely the same as the scope of purchase of the Act of 1903, that the Estates Commissioners may put in force compulsory power in every case in which an estate could be sold either directly to the tenant or to themselves under the Act of 1903. There are two other questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to congested estates, and asked whether the Government were prepared to ignore the definition of congested
    estates appearing in the previous Acts. The answer to that is the Bill is to be read as one with the previous Acts, except so far as this Bill amends the previous Acts. The definition of congested estates will remain. One of our clauses amends the definition of congested estates in the earlier Act, and suggests another independent definition. Thus there will be two definitions side by side of congested estates if this Bill becomes law; one is the old definition as amended by this Bill, and the other the new definition introduced by this Bill. Then there was another question as to the loss on resale of the estate, and he referred to Clause 6 of the Act of 1903. I think there was a misapprehension about this section. Section 6 deals with the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of any estate which they may require for themselves. As a general rule, what happens is, if the tenants are anxious to buy and the landlord is willing to sell they simply go to the Estates Commissioners and ask
    them
    2340
    to make an offer. The fourth section of Clause 6 provides: "In the case of a congested estate as
    denned by this Section, if the Land Commission, with the consent of the owner, certify to the Lord-Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon, the Land Commission may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and in such case the condition in this Section as to resale without prospect of loss may be relaxed to such extent as the Lord Lieutenant may determine." The right hon. Gentleman asks me will that apply if this Bill passes, and my answer is "Yes." May I remind him that the congested estates will not as a general rule be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, for this simple reason, that congested estates are mostly in the portions of Ireland that would be under the Congested Districts Board, and the question would arise as regards the Congested Boards and not the Estates Commissioners. The remarks I make may not be applicable to purchase by the Congested Districts Board; I am not quite sure as to what the provisions are as regards that. As to the question whether this provision as to loss on resale would apply, my answer is "No." The reason is a very simple one. The Land Commission, acting under Clause 6, are dealing with voluntary vendors up to the present, and they know before they take any steps the exact price they will have to pay, and they can, at all events, conjecture what price they can secure from the tenant. Therefore they can calculate to a nicety the amount of the loss which they will sustain by the purchasing of an estate, the improving of it, and the resetting of it. If they proceed according to their compulsory powers they can only make a final offer, and if that final offer is not accepted the price will be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and may be a great deal higher than they were willing to give. So that, under compulsory powers, they have not got the same control over the amount of the loss as they have under the voluntary sale. For that reason we leave out in the Bill any reference as to provisions as to loss. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is an objection to the Clause. Possibly it is, but it is one of the difficulties one has to meet when you introduce compulsory powers. We use it as well as we can. We quite appreciate the difficulty, we considered it most carefully, and we decided the best thing to do was to omit this reference to

    2341
    10 per cent. loss. If the loss is larger than is anticipated the only thing may be that unfortunately the Land Commission may be hampered from want of funds, and may be prevented from dealing with as many estates as they would wish. But you cannot nave compulsory powers without being prepared to pay, and the amount of money that is to be paid can only be ascertained when the transaction is completed. Until you know your price you cannot have the slightest idea as to what the cost and expenses will be. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite I daresay would say that that is an argument against compulsion. It is an argument which lies on the surface, and it applies to all cases of compulsion, because whether it be untenanted land or land for labourers' cottages, or land required by railway companies you will always have expenses, and you must be prepared to meet the expense. I think I have dealt with all the points, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in anything I said I did not in the least mean to be discourteous. What I meant was that this Amendment was not moved for the purpose of having it carried, but with the object of ascertaining the opinion of the Government.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am afraid I shall find it very difficult in any view of the particular Amendment which we are discussing to become hysterical over this point. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) that what we are really discussing at the present moment is the "Dublin Gazette." Although I have been now some years absent from Ireland I take a great interest in the "Dublin Gazette," and I think a discussion on the "Dublin Gazette" would tend greatly to elucidate the different points of this Bill, but although we are en the "Dublin Gazette," we are trying to discuss something that really is more important I suppose than this, and that is compulsory purchase. The reason of it is that it simply means that the Government purposely put down the compulsory purchase principle as the last Clause, and have fixed the guillotine in order that we may not have any opportunity of discussing it The hon. Member for East Mayo, who is usually quite honest, thinks that under the circumstances we ought to have as much latitude as we can get on any form of Amendment.
    Mr. CHERRY: I raised no objection to the discussion, I was only anxious I should keep myself in order.
    Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman commenced the first portion of his speech by pointing out that the whole of this was out of order, and what is more, he charged my right hon. Friend with not putting forward this Amendment as a real Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said, "Here you are with this grievance, and yet you have not put down an Amendment." What is the good of our putting down Amendments? How do we know whether we will ever get to them? Since this Bill came on in Committee we have been allowed to discuss five Amendments, and we are now on the 58th Clause.
    Mr. CHERRY: Five Amendments in five days.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: And then the right hon. Gentleman says, with all the enthusiasm which he has for assistance in framing his Bills and for giving judicial consideration to the, points put forward, why have we not put down Amendments, in order that he may guillotine them.
    Mr. BIRRELL: We could meet them.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: The object of this Bill is not to have Amendments, but to have the guillotine.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: When you give us an hour and a half to discuss five or six clauses, as you did last night, and then do not allow us even to reach them, because the Divisions on the previous compartment have not been completed, what is the good of chiding us for not having put down an Amendment?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh!
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: The Attorney-General told us, as I understand, that this word "estate" is to have what he called the vague meaning which it has in the Act of 1903. He is perfectly satisfied in this Bill with what he calls that vague meaning. He told us that it had caused a good deal of litigation, and he is going to perpetuate it in this Bill. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory way of legislating in relation to a cumbrous procedure of this kind where you are setting up compulsory purchase. I submit to the Chief Secretary that it would be far better to define what is meant by an estate in relation to compulsory purchase, apart from the Act of 1903. In that Act you were dealing with an

    2343
    entirely different state of affairs, namely, voluntary sale and voluntary purchase, where none of the objections now raised to the term "estate" could possibly arise. The point referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) could not arise under the Act of 1903. The Attorney-General seems to think that it would be a very improper thing for the Estates Commissioners to go to a man and say, "We would like to take some of your good land." Why should it be? I think it would be a very proper thing to buy good land and not bad land, if you could, and it seems to me that it would be more easy to dispose of good land to tenants and people in the neighbourhood. This point is one which requires to be dealt with. The Attorney-General also said that this was a thing that was being done every day in England, Scotland, and Ireland. I do not think he can have said that with much consideration, because he knows very well that it is not the case. He quoted the case of railways. Does he think that that is really an analogous case? Every inch of land taken under a railway Act is denned by Parliament after full investigation by Committees of both Houses of its effect on other portions of the land; and under the Lands Clauses Act, when you proceed to take a piece of land severed from other land, compensation has to be paid for the very severance. The Attorney-General always says the first thing which comes to his mind, whether it bears upon the subject or not. He further stated that operations under the Labourers Acts afforded an analogous case. I forget for the moment how much land can be taken for a labourer's cottage.
    Mr. CHERRY: One acre for each labourer.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: With an appeal in every case to the Privy Council.
    Mr. CHERRY: Not now. That was in the good old days.
    Sir E. CARSON: With an appeal to the county court judge in respect of an acre of land. The right hon. Gentleman compares that with taking a whole estate as may be laid down by the Land Commissioners. Is the Chief Secretary prepared to meet the point which has been raised? It is no use our putting down an Amendment. Is he prepared to move an Amendment providing that where the
    2344
    Land Commission say that they are going compulsorily to take land, it shall not be left to their discretion to say how much they shall take, without any voice being given to the owner? Is he prepared to give us such an undertaking, or is he going to leave the Clause as it stands now, with this "vague" definition, as the Attorney-General describes it, which might and would lead to very disastrous results to owners of land where portions of an estate are taken and other portions left.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman, I thought, came to business at the end of his speech, and I wish we could pursue that method throughout the whole of our discussions.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: You might give us the chance.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Chance! I remember the speech of the hon. Member yesterday, and I ask anybody who heard it what relevance it had to the matter under discussion? The right hon. Gentleman asks whether or not we will take into consideration the point raised by his colleague (Mr. Campbell), so as to avoid possible injustice in the exercise by the Estates Commissioners of their discretion under the Act of 1903 to declare what portions of an estate are an estate within the meaning of that Act. I am quite willing to consider that question. The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the good of putting down Amendments? I am no advocate of the guillotine by compartments; but everybody who knows anything about this Bill is perfectly well aware that we could have never got it through at all without some kind of guillotine. If a complete Session had been given for its discussion, the eloquence and powers of hon. Gentlemen opposite would have exhausted the whole of the time. There is one small advantage in putting down Amendments, and that is that they call the attention of the draftsman, or whoever is responsible, to oversights which may have been made, and that is the reason why my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cherry) referred to the fact that no Amendment had been put down on this point. If it can be done, and I have no doubt it can be in some way, but the words would require to be thought out, I am quite prepared by the Report stage to put down an Amendment to secure that the Estates Commissioners shall not arbitrarily pick out the best portions of an estate contrary to the owner's wishes. I agree that there is no wrong in

    2345
    the Commissioners wishing to get the best land; but, on the other hand, it is only reasonable that the owner should be able to intimate to the Estates Commissioners that they are taking the parts of the estate which are to him as the apple of his eye and leaving the parts of small pecuniary value. I will undertake to meet that point. If an Amendment dealing with it had been placed on the Paper, my attention would have been called to it, and I should at once have said that it was a a matter requiring consideration. I hope we may now proceed to the discussion of the rest of the Clause in the spirit in which the latter part of the discussion has been conducted.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman informed us that he was no advocate of guillotine by compartments, and yet he is responsible for an example of guillotine by compartments to which no other guillotine that we have ever used has any resemblance whatever.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The Coercion Act.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The guillotine system under which we are working to-day has no parallel in the history of Parliament.
    Mr. T. HEALY: Yes, it has; there are two parallels.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: Not only is the total time given absolutely inadequate, as everybody admits—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): Order, order.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I submit, Sir, that there have been three speeches made on this subject already, and it would not be fair to preclude me from answering what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He claims credit for having given us sufficient time to discuss this Bill. I say that so far as the total time allowed is concerned it is absolutely inadequate; and that the way in which the schedule is drawn up—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The time allotted has been allotted by the action of the House itself, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to criticise it now.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am quite aware that in theory it is the case, but in practice it is done by the right hon. Gentleman. This question of compulsion, which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Healy) blames us for not having discussed, and which, to-
    2346
    gether with the question of the Congested Districts Board, is the most important point in the Bill, was carefully put by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the Clauses down for discussion, and now he tries to blame us for not picking out the particular parts of the Bill that he wants to have discussed. He wishes us to acquiesce in one of the most unjust actions ever taken by a large majority towards a small minority. When the Chief Secretary tells me that the speech that I delivered yesterday was irrelevant from beginning to end, I do not say anything except that that is exactly in keeping with the whole of the Chief Secretary's actions, and of the whole of his words in this House. I have great pleasure in leaving the Chief Secretary to himself for the moment, and going back to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I shall be able probably to discuss this question with them with somewhat less heat than in my discussion with the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Mayo, who is in a mood of sweet reasonableness to-day, says that he thought the suggestion of my hon. Friend was an eminently reasonable one, but he said there was no necessity for it, as the Estates Commissioners would, in every case where they could, take all the land they could get. The hon. Member has apparently forgotten the discussion we had the day before yesterday on Clause 35. The case we are dealing with to-day is a different one, and the tenacity with which the Government refuses to allow this to be struck out justifies us in assuming that in cases of compulsory sale that the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission, having compulsory powers, and consequently being in a much stronger position, will, unless some Amendment is made to the Act, only deal with the best parts of the land. I can only say further that the ease with which the suggestion of my right hon. Friend has been agreed to by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General suggests to me that they feel the powers which the Estates Commissioners will have of getting these lands compulsorily at a very low price, are so great, and the difference between the price of land compulsorily or voluntarily acquired is such that some such provision is needed. Whether that is so or not, it is a step in the right direction.
    We are to have some modifications of the Clause, because it is clearly only fair that if a man has one portion of his land

    2347
    taken from him compulsorily that that part lying immediately or reasonably near it should also be acquired. Although my colleagues and myself have no reason to thank the Government for anything in this Bill, yet for the sake of pure Parliamentary form I thank the Government for the concessions which they propose in this respect. I would like to know when we may expect to see the proposals of the Government? Do they propose to put down an Amendment at the Report stage? If so, will they take care that that Amendment is put down at such a part of the Bill that we may have some reasonable expectation of reaching it? Every important part of the Bill up to the present, with the exception of the Congested Districts Clauses, has been put in such a position that there was no possibility whatever of getting near it. The hon. Member for North Louth chided us upon our action this afternoon in not getting on to what he called the important part of the Clause. I must remind him that he and hon. Members below the Gangway voted for the guillotine Resolution of this Bill, and surely, therefore, he does not expect us to fall in with the Government in their views as to how this matter should be discussed? That would be ridiculous. I desire to say that with regard to this particular Clause that we resent very greatly being unable to discuss at any length the principle of compulsion. The Government put that Clause in such a position that it was impossible to get at it. It was placed at the end of a number of other important matters which would, under ordinary circumstances, have taken up more than the time allotted. Take Clause 39, which contains the compulsory purchase provisions. It is entitled "Procedure of the Estates Commissioners on the failure of Negotiations for Purchase." I would ask any Member of the Committee if he saw that, and did not read the rest, whether he would have the slightest conception that the meaning of it was compulsory purchase pure and simple? The Government have done everything in their power to keep us from discussing this, and hon. Members below the Gangway have no right in the world to object to our discussing this Bill in whatever way we like. It is a Bill they want; the finest before the House; and it would possibly not have troubled them if they had got it without any discussion. In any case, we claim a right within the Rules of the House to discuss the Bill in any way we choose.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to make a few remarks upon the guillotine from the French Revolution downwards. I propose, in the first place, to refer to the case of the late Mr. W. H. Smith in connection with the Parnell Commission.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not in order on this Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then, Sir, may I ask what is the question before the House?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is to leave out the words "an estate or," and the discussion is with reference to leaving out those words.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I end my song as I began, and I respectfully say that the only question that is relevant to this Amendment is the question as to whether the owner of an estate shall get a notice by an advertisement in the "Dublin Gazette." I say that no other topic can, except by an extraordinary perversion of the Rules of Order, be introduced. In fact, I do not think there is any assembly in Ireland, Scotland, England or Wales that would tolerate the discussion that has gone on for the last couple of hours. The question is whether these words ought to be in the Bill. There is the whole case. The Land Commission buys land. They have put a notice in the 'Gazette" of what land they are going to buy and the price they are giving for that land. Here we are, after two hours, in which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College, the junior Member for Trinity College, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and many others in the Archipelago have been discussing every question except the question before the House. All I can say, Mr. Caldwell, is that my class of mind is wholly unable to grasp the condition of affairs in which every possible topic can be discussed except the topic which is before the Chair.
    Mr. MOORE: I want to make one or two remarks which I feel may be very much to the point after what the Chief Secretary has said. I think the Committee are under a definite obligation to the hon. Member who brought out that, as this line is drafted, it would lead possibly to the danger of severance. That is what it amounts to—without compensation. I think the Chief Secretary dealt very fairly with the House, although I entirely differ from his remarks about my colleague. The Chief Secretary dealt fairly with the House

    2349
    in saying that he would consider between now and the Report stage whether this can be avoided. This Section does for the first time give powers of severance. Would the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration when he is carrying out his undertaking?
    Mr. BIRRELL: What clause?
    Mr. MOORE: Sub-section (4) of Clause 59.
    Mr. BIRRELL: All right, I will consider it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. MOORE: It is exactly contained in terms there what he wants to avoid. I agree that primâ facie the word "estate"—definition of an estate—would be construed by any court as under the Act of 1903. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General knows well that he must construe these things by the context, and when you come to look at this particular line with which the Amendment deals I think there is a great difficulty in holding that it must necessarily mean an estate as defined by the Act of 1903. The words are "an estate or untenanted land." Therefore, it seems to me that any court would say that an estate can only deal with tenanted land, and that untenanted land is not an estate within the meaning of what goes before—although you may have an estate which is entirely untenanted. It seems to me that in the distinction between an estate, which may thus be untenanted land or tenanted land, that there will be a serious difficulty when you come to this particular line. To make it clear between now and the Report stage, I think the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General will have to put "tenanted estate"—to make a logical sequence the word "tenanted" will have to be put before "estate," otherwise the line is incapable of being properly construed. I think the drafting is a little careless. People must buy, but the whole Clause is drafted as if people must sell, and not buy at all. It seems to me as if the difficulty I mentioned as to tenanted and untenanted land with regard to the meaning of an estate will have to be guarded against between this and the Report stage.
    Mr. CHERRY: I ought to have mentioned that this definition of an estate in the Act of 1903 is merely copied from an earlier Act so far back as 1881. There it is stated: "An estate means any land which the Land Commission may by order
    2350
    declare fit to be purchased as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act." This definition has been in operation for over 30 years, and I think it has done very well.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Everybody knows that the definition of an estate was a definition adopted in the Act of 1903, but the purposes of that Act were very different from the purposes of the Act of 1881. The whole purpose was that money might be advanced on an estate not only for the purpose of purchase and sale, but for the purpose of curing congestion. That makes the definition a different one, and brings us into hard contact with the problem of congestion in Ireland. I shall not ask the Committee to divide under this Amendment. These are words which require a good deal of consideration. The Chief Secretary has stated that he will consider words between now and the Report stage and the propriety of protecting the landlords. I ask him also to consider the propriety of protecting the tenants whose wants need immediate attention. I gather from the Government that they consider that the definition of an estate was often wide in character. I anticipate that that is admitted, and that if it stood unchanged you would be differentiating in favour of the non-congested estate and against the interests of the congested estate. In the case of the congested estate, you take into consideration what the wants and wishes of the people are, and you have a money limit. Here you have an estate, and you need not take into consideration the wants and circumstances of the people, and you have no money limit. I think the Chief Secretary ought to put some words in that the Estates Commissioners should take the wants and circumstances of the tenants into account as well as the wants and circumstances of others. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MOORE Mr. MOORE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or untenanted" ["the Estates Commissioners in any case where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land."]
    I move this Amendment just for the same reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover moved his Amendment in regard to an estate. I do not think anyone would say that the discussion we have had was any waste of time. I think the Chief Secretary will

    2351
    admit that there is a great deal in it, and I think you will find on consideration that there is a great deal to be said on this question of untenanted land. Of course, I presume we shall not be allowed to discuss the policy, but these three words "of untenanted land" mean an extra expenditure of something like £18,000,000, because the £100,000,000 originally voted under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was to buy out the tenanted land, and this untenanted land means an extra expenditure of £18,000,000. From that point of view, of course, nothing could be more important. The land we have been considering in the last Amendment was tenanted land. This is untenanted land, and, under the land purchase scheme, as soon as a tenant has bought his holding he becomes the owner in fee of untenanted land. The tenant purchaser is the owner of untenanted land, and, therefore, he would come within this Section. Under the Evicted Tenants Act he is expressly exempt, and I ask the Attorney-General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland: Is it the intention of the Government to make the compulsory purchase Clauses of this Bill apply to the tenant purchaser? I did ask the Chief Secretary that question shortly after the introduction of the Bill. He gave me an answer saying it was not the Government's policy, but it seems to me—and I say this without any offence, for perhaps I did not make myself quite clear to him—that at the time he did not apprehend the point that the tenant purchaser would be the owner of untenanted land. Supposing it is not intended to make him subject to these compulsory powers, why is he not exempted? This is a very large class of people. If the tenant purchaser is subject to the compulsory clauses, £50,000,000 worth of land now bought out, and £50,000,000 more waiting in the balance, will be affected by it. If you went into a real congested area it might, in view of the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners, be a good thing to take 300 or 400 acres of land from a man who was bought out. But that man bought cut under State credit, and I think it would be a very unfair and a very unfortunate policy if the Government were to take these people's land compulsorily. If that is not the intention of the Government I ask them to say so in plain words, and to put words into the Bill which will safeguard the purchasing tenant by saying that land subject to the repayment of ad-
    2352
    vances under the Land Purchase Act shall be exempt. I beg to move.
    Mr. CHERRY: The hon. Member has put an important question, and I will give him an answer at once. It is not the intention of the Government that land purchased under the Land Purchase Acts should be purchased under this Clause, but I really do not think it is necessary to have any exclusion clause, and for this reason. Land is only purchased by the Estates Commissioners under these compulsory powers for the purpose of reselling it under the Land Purchase Acts, and if land is to be resold under the Land Purchase Act to tenants or other persons entitled to buy, it is sold subject to an annuity. Under the Act of 1891 it is provided that no parcel of land could at the same time be subject to two annuities. An advance is made in reference to a farm, and until the whole of that advance is paid no further advance can be made for any portion of that land.
    Mr. MOORE: If that is so why was it necessary to exclude this land under the Evicted Tenants Act?
    Mr. CHERRY: There are a great many things in the Evicted Tenants Act to satisfy Gentlemen in another place. I rather think that this was one of the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."]
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: Hon. Members below the Gangway pressed strongly this omission.
    Mr. CHERRY: We are not now dealing with the Evicted Tenants Act. I really forget what were the facts in connection with that provision; but, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member knows there is a provision in the Act of 1891 which provides that if a farmer has got tenants, and, having bought under the Purchase Act, he cannot sell to his sub-tenants. It was to meet that kind of difficulty that a clause was introduced into the Act of 1903 to enable the Land Commission to make a record themselves of these transactions. Land cannot be subject to two annuities—
    Mr. MOORE: But suppose the first annuity is paid off?
    Mr. CHERRY: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am coming to that very point. They buy from the Land Commission and they must pay their annuities to the Land Commission. If the Estates

    2353
    Commissioners bought a parcel of land on which an advance is paid, they would have to pay off the annuities, and that would be a most unprofitable undertaking. If the Estates Commissioners were the sort of people they are said to be by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would probably do that. The Estates Commissioners will not do that for the sake of getting a small parcel of land. Such a thing was never intended by this Section, and therefore it will not be necessary to deal with the particular case the hon. Member suggests. We use the words untenanted land in exactly the same way as they are used in the Act of 1903. There was a discrimination made in that Act which, I confess, I never could clearly understand between tenanted and untenanted land. There was a special Clause (Clause 8) dealing with that, and but for that Clause it would be far more easy for a bit of untenanted land to be sold like any other land than it is now, but the Clause was considered to be necessary by better lawyers than I am, and that being in the Act of 1903 we repeated it and followed it in this Bill. The policy of the Government in this Bill is to follow the Act of 1903, and the object of this Clause is to enable to be done compulsorily what the landlord could do voluntarily under the Act of 1903. There is no definition of untenanted land in the Act of 1903, and there has been a great deal of expense incurred in consequence. We would like, if we could really do it, to introduce the definition. We are considering whether it would be possible to introduce a definition of untenanted land, but it is a matter of very great difficulty. Strictly speaking, in law no land is really untenanted. We are in favour, so far as it is possible, if we can, to evolve definition of untenanted land that may be satisfactory.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: A distinction between untenanted land and other land is, I admit, one not very easy to draw, but it is rather financial than legal in its character, and the reason we advocate it separately is that in the case of tenanted land you presume a purchaser at once, but in the case of untenanted land you presume no purchaser until all arrangements are made, and the Treasury felt it necessary to place a separate financial limit upon that portion of the Bill (Clause 9) dealing with untenanted land, in which no immediate purchasers were presumed. In any definition of untenanted land it will be, I think, necessary to keep in mind the financial bearing as well as any other. That, of
    2354
    course, brings one to the purpose for which it is bought, and we cannot ignore the fact, that in the new Clause the Chief Secretary has put down the purpose for which untenanted land may be bought is extended, and the object for which untenanted land was bought under Section 8 of the Act of 1903 are not binding any longer. I urge upon the Chief Secretary that great danger will arise if he allows an express direction to the Estates Commissioners that they are to consider the interests of other persons than tenants without giving an express direction to the Estates Commissions that they are to have advances to the tenants in their mind. If we had an opportunity of discussing the new Clause I would urge that the whole tenor of our Debates have been, whatever view you take of landless men, that the "congests" should not be sacrificed to the landless men. This Bill as it stands is a suggestion in that direction, and it is against the interests of the congests. I hope, therefore, that the Chief Secretary will alter it.
    Mr. DILLON: I was glad to hear the Attorney-General state the policy of the Government on the question of untenanted land. Undoubtedly the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) has raised a very important question, and while I am glad to hear the answer of the Attorney-General, I think the question is not yet quite satisfactorily settled. I fully recognise that it would not be possible to-acquire compulsorily any untenanted land which was simply land subject to an annuity, but I do not clearly gather whether it might not be possible to acquire compulsorily land which had passed under the Land Purchase Acts of which the annuity was discharged.
    Mr. CHERRY: That is so, if the advance is paid off.
    Mr. DILLON: There is a great difference of opinion on this question. The Royal Commission reported unanimously, I think, in favour of giving power to the Estates Commissioners to purchase compulsorily certain classes of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts in certain quantities. I am aware that on this point there is in many quarters a great difference of opinion, and there is a difference of opinion even amongst my own colleagues. The Commissioners strongly reported in favour of it. Many of those familiar with the West of Ireland are very strongly in favour of it. I understand that

    2355
    in the Clause as it stands it would be competent for the Commissioners to acquire compulsorily land which had been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. I am entirely opposed to any such policy. I recognise the evils, and I know that men have succeeded by various devices in acquiring many farms and getting large sums of public money advanced upon them which this House never contemplated, and, while I should be glad to prevent these evasions of the law, I strongly hold that there should be some finality in this matter. Once the land has passed under the Purchase Acts there should be no more interference, and Ireland should be restored to comparative freedom in these matters in dealing with the land, with such wholesome restrictions as are in the interests of the community. Although cases have been brought under my own notice in favour of depriving large graziers of land in these Western districts, I maintain, if you once get it into the minds of the people in Ireland that you are going to break up this settlement, the moment it has been effected I do not know where you are going to be carried. A man pays a rental of £100 a year, and why should you stop there? Why not come down to £50, £20, or £10 a year? I have been told that I have advocated that Ireland should be sliced up into farms of uniform size. I may say that I have never advocated that; in fact, I have been almost all my life strongly opposed to it. I am in favour of small farms, but I would like to see an admixture of farms. So far as I am concerned I am strongly against interfering with the present settlement, and if you tear it up in this way the thing will become interminable, and there will be no limit to what you are called upon to do. I urge upon the Government that the proper way to deal with this matter is to put into this Bill a definition of untenanted land. This question as to what is untenanted land has been the subject of decisions in the Irish Courts, and it has become a regular Chinese puzzle. An owner of land, if he comes up for the purpose of selling his land, it is held by the courts to be tenanted land; but when it is going to be taken compulsorily for evicted tenants it is held to be untenanted land, and under other circumstances it is said to be untenanted land. When his land is to be taken away for the purpose of the evicted tenants he is the tenant, but when he comes to sell he is the landlord, and can sell under the Land Pur-
    2356
    chase Acts and get an advance. The court has actually held that the same man is one day a landlord and another day a tenant, and that for one purpose his land is tenanted land and for another purpose untenanted land. Therefore the Government ought to define clearly untenanted land, and the Clause ought to lay down that no land shall be held to be untenanted land which has passed under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. BIRRELL: So far as I am concerned my views have never varied on this matter. I know there was a report issued which recommended that we should be at liberty to take the land required to relieve congestion which had already passed under the Land Purchase Acts, subject to an annuity. That was a recommendation I would not make myself responsible for, and it forms no part of any scheme of land reform for which I have been responsible. No doubt a case could be made out for this course in the West of Ireland; for, it might be said, if you must have the land for the relief of congestion, why not take it from persons who have bought it under the Act of 1903, just the same as from persons who have bought it under the system of free sale. But everybody must agree that so long as this settlement is in course of operation, we ought to arrange that the person who buys his land under the Purchase Acts should feel himself free from having it taken away from him to be applied to the same object for which he had been allowed to buy it. We may take it as the settled policy of the Government not to interfere with or take away compulsorily land which has been bought under the Land Purchase Acts. So far as the legal difficulties are concerned, so long as the annuity is still payable, the legal difficulties are such that the thing really cannot be done. As to the second matter, I have no objection if it can be done to insert a definition of untenanted land. I think, for the purpose of compulsion, we ought to have a clear definition of our own. It would be a good thing if a definition can be arranged which will not interfere with the definition of an estate under the existing Land Act. But compulsion being a thing by itself it is sure to be interpreted with great strictness by extremists of all parties who are on the alert to look after their own interests. After taking legal advice, if it can be shown that it would be possible in this compulsory part of the Bill to have a definition of an estate and also a

    2357
    definition of untenanted land, I shall be willing to propose it. I think there is a general agreement as to what we mean, and we will try our best, and I shall be glad to have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. James Campbell). I believe we shall be able to arrive at something which will hold water and prevent the flood-gates of litigation from being opened too widely. Having regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover and others, I will do my best to see whether we cannot hit upon a definition both of "estate" and "untenanted land" for the purposes of compulsory purchase.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to express my satisfaction with the decision which has been announced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I rise to call attention to the fact that the matter is not quite exhausted when you have taken the case of the tenant who has already bought his farm. The matter is complicated by the exclusions which are contained in the next Section, which give colour to the suggestion that you might take by compulsion a farm which had been bought over. Under that Section you are prohibited from buying on the home farm but not in regard to other farms. As the Attorney-General for Ireland knows, home farm may have a technical meaning in Ireland which does not bear the construction, which a non-lawyer might bring to bear upon it, as being a farm on which you are not living as distinguished from a residential farm. The hon. Member for East Mayo has alluded to another case which will also arise, namely, the case of an ordinary farmer who holds his land under a fee-farm grant. Such a man may be an ordinary tenant farmer who has never had occasion to go into the Land Court, his rent being so low that there was no necessity for it. It would be perfectly competent for the Estates Commissioners to expropriate him compulsorily under this Act. I quite agree there have been some decisions, I will not call them contradictory, but which it is a little difficult to explain, of the Land Commission on this point. It appears, at any rate to me, that there is some danger that the owner of such a farm as I have indicated will be expropriated under this Act unless he is protected by some definition. I confess I think it would be almost impossible to arrive at a definition without unduly tying the hands of the Estates Commissioners on
    2358
    the one hand or giving them too wide a scope on the other, and I would limit their power by adding words to the next clause, so as to obviate the necessity of attempting any definition.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I entirely agree with the suggestion which has fallen from the hon. Member for Cork, and I would strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this matter by exclusion instead of by definition. With that view before me, I had already handed in a manuscript Amendment which would have given the power of exclusion in the subsequent clause by adding at the end of Section 5 the words, "Or if subject to a purchase annuity under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act." That would be a simple method of doing it so far as the question of land purchase annuity farms are concerned. Of course, there is the alternative method to be found in the Evicted Tenants Act of]907, Clause 1, Sub-section (4), which ran as follows: "No land can be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Act. "I think I may fairly claim for my colleagues and myself that, notwithstanding the efforts made below the Gangway to stifle this discussion, it has been very useful, and has shown we have hit upon an actual blot in connection with this Bill. I do not think we get rid of that blot by the use of these words without any limitation or restriction. I fear I may excite the wrath of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and have a tirade addressed to me suggesting I am attacking this and other bodies, but may I call the Chief Secretary's attention to this: The very same difficulty with regard to what the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) describes as the picking out of the eyes of the land, applies to untenanted land as well as to an estate. When I referred to that, it was at once said I was making a charge against the efficiency and the integrity of the Estates Commissioners, but the Chief Secretary pointed out that the Estates Commissioners would be acting not unfairly if, in the discharge of their duties, they were in the case I put to say to the landowner "Discard these unprofitable bits." Of course, there could be no grievance in that under the Act of 1903, because, if they took that course, the landowner would say: "I will not deal with you. If you are only going to take the good bits I will have nothing to do with you." Here, however, we are dealing by compulsion, and that alters the position.

    2359
    While, you have it the interest of the Land Commission to acquire only the good parts you have it the interests of the landowners to get rid of the whole thing if parts be taken. The Chief Secretary met this with great fairness and consideration. He is going to consider it with regard to an estate between this and the Report stage. I hope he will also consider it with regard to untenanted land, because the owner of an estate may be without a single tenant, and it may be just as much an estate whether there are tenants on it or not. These words, however, seem to suggest that you cannot have an estate unless there are tenants on it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me his assurance that in his contemplated proposal with regard to an estate he will bear in mind that he will have on the same lines to deal with untenanted land.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON: I want to call attention to the use of the words "home farm. "I am quite certain the Attorney-General will direct the Chief Secretary's mind to the narrow definition which has been given of a home farm. It would not apply to the case my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) has put. We have known cases of a man owning the land in fee who has no tenants at all, and is himself an ordinary farmer, although perhaps on a large scale.
    Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: I should like to ask whether all land purchased under the various Land Acts are to be exempt from the compulsory purchase? If that is to be the intention of the Government, the new body which it is proposed to set up will find itself very seriously handicapped in the discharge of the functions with which it is proposed to invest them. Has the right hon. Gentleman gone into the figures given in the final Report of the Royal Commission on congestion? It is there made perfectly clear that, if you were to-morrow to acquire every single acre of untenanted land in the nine congested counties you would still be short of relieving congestion by land of the annual value of £140,000, and, if you are not going to lay unholy hands on land already purchased under the Land Acts, and are not going to file down holdings of over £100 valuation, you are going to increase that shortage of land by an annual value of £98,000. Is that very encouraging to the body you are going to ask to deal with congestion? Does it give us any assurance that this is really to be the last word
    2360
    on the land question? We were told that the Act of 1903 was to be the final word on the land question, but it was not more than 18 months or two years before we were disillusionised.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Gentleman any wider than any other hon. Gentleman who has spoken, including the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy)?
    Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: I am very sorry, and I apologise if I have been out of order. It is not a new or a novel suggestion that holdings of over £100 valuation should be filed down to that figure. It is already in one of the Land Acts dealing with a very similar case, that of crofters in the Highlands of Scotland. If you look up the Acts, you will find the Congested Districts Board of Scotland has the power, if they want to exercise it, to file down lands of over £100 valuation for the purpose of increasing the holdings of the crofters in the Highlands. I do not know that geography makes any modification in a moral law. It is all very well to say you are not going to interfere with existing contracts by which men have bought under the Land Purchase Acts, but it is as morally right, as defensible, and as just to acquire compulsorily from large farmers lands they have purchased with the aid of the State and with the money of the State as it is to acquire compulsorily lands held in fee by landlords. I see no difference between land purchased with the aid of the State and land held in fee by landlords. The Congested Districts Board will be. handicapped from the very beginning, and I do not envy the Gentlemen upon whom you are imposing this task. I believe, with a shortage of land of the annual value of £140,000 you are making that task hopeless and impossible from the beginning. When we are told this is going to be the last word on the Irish Land Question, there ought to be some courage shown, and it ought to be reflected in this Bill. We were disillusioned in 1903. I hope it will not be the case in 1909, but I am convinced that the last word on this land question will not be said if the timidity which is reflected in this Bill is not corrected before the discussions are over. I trust the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage will show no unwillingness to give power to the new Board to

    2361
    acquire land wherever it is needed for the purpose of putting an end to the evil of which we all complain, but in regard to which we all show so much timidity in trying to determine it.
    Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGH: The hon. Gentleman who last spoke seems to anticipate the failure of this Act, because he fears that there is not sufficient land to go round to meet the immense number of congests and others who require it. I think the fear of that need not prevent him becoming a member of the proposed Board, because the ultimate deficiency is not likely to be realised in his lifetime. With the addition of the untenanted land proposed to be brought into this scheme of the land purchase, there must be something like £150,000,000 worth of property to be compulsorily acquired in Ireland, and, according to the estimate of the Chief Secretary, only about £77,000,000 up to the present has been bought. That leaves At least £70,000,000 worth of land to be acquired under this Bill should it ever, unfortunately, become law. The amount of money available for many years to come is not likely to exceed one million sterling per annum in order to carry out compulsory purchase, and, at that rate, no one here is likely to live to the period when there will not be land enough to go round. Perhaps these facts will mitigate the apprehensions of the hon. Member for North Mayo and induce him to give his services to this Board.
    Mr. MOORE: I only moved the Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Government, and I do not propose to trouble the Committee to divide. With the leave of the House I will withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in order is that of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, to leave out Sub-section (3).Does he wish to move it?
    Mr. MOORE: Yes; this now brings us to the question of machinery, which is very vital, because it provides the way in which the compensation to be paid to the purchaser is to be ascertained. I cannot help thinking, in regard to the whole machinery of this Clause, that it is most useful and illuminating to compare the procedure here with the procedure of the Government two years ago, under practically similar circumstances, in the
    2362
    Evicted Tenants Act. We were told that that Act was intended to meet an emergency, and the Government devised machinery to which objections were raised. Eventually a compromise was arrived at. That, however, now seems to have been lost sight of altogether, and we have come back to the same old clause. It was urged again and again that the proposal was in effect to leave the purchasers to fix the prices themselves. That was always strenuously denied by the Chief Secretary and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but when the Bill went to another place, those who represented the Government there frankly admitted it was the fact that the Bill was open to the unpleasant suggestion that the purchasers were being made judges in their own case, and, consequently, an elaborate system of appeal was introduced. I do not, however, think that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioners was looked upon as very satisfactory. Justice Wylie is the head of the Land Commission, but I do not know what is to be gained by leaving matters to him. He is not able to view the land. He necessarily depends upon assessors, and in all the appeals which come before him, when there is a conflict of evidence, he does what everybody else would do, and sends down a skilled valuer, upon whose report —and in this I am not suggesting anything derogatory to the learned judge— the ultimate decision is practically based. I do not see how that can be very satisfactory. It might be satisfactory if the proceedings were in the nature of an arbitration where the party was selling voluntarily. But here you are taking a man's land away from him by force, and the standard of compensation is not to be the value of the land at all, but it is to be the amount which the tenants are willing to offer for it. If you put into this Bill a provision that the price to be paid is only that which the tenants are willing to pay you may rely upon it that no tenant will offer more than six, seven, or eight years' purchase, and, if the compulsory powers are put in force, the landlord will not get anything like adequate compensation. I do not know how the matter will work out, so far as the bonus is concerned, but as soon as you make the machinery compulsory and leave the price to be regulated not by the valuers but by what the tenants are willing to give you immediately expose the vendor to the greatest

    2363
    unfairness. I think the Chief Secretary has himself admitted the necessity of being very circumspect in regard to the machinery in compulsory matters—more circumspect than is necessary in the case of voluntary sales. Of course, in the latter case, if the proceedings come to a stage which does not meet with the approval of the vendor he can at once withdraw. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that under this provision of the Bill it is the tenants themselves who really will fix the purchase price, because they are to be allowed to say what they are willing to give, and I do not think that that is calculated to secure public confidence in this policy. There seems to be considerable feeling that the Land Commission itself should assess the price. Why should it not be left to arbitration? Under the Act of 1887 there was arbitration. This, I take it, is a Bill to amend the Act of 1903, and surely, if the experience of nine years has disclosed defects in that Act we are not going to be tied down to its provisions. I may remind the Attorney-General that there was no compulsion in the Act of 1903. I do not think the Land Commission itself would offer any objection to arbitration in this matter. That would be very much better than leaving it to be dealt with in the haphazard manner now suggested. It would be much better to go back to the simple arbitration system which was provided for under the Act of 1887. I should like to see this Clause taken out of the Bill altogether, for then the Government might bring forward another measure by which, without casting any reflection on the learned judge, they would secure a more impartial system of arriving at a fair price for the land to be taken.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think this is an Amendment which has been moved without any reason. Does the hon. Gentleman say that he is dissatisfied with the system of appeal from the Estates Commissioners, whom he detests, to another tribunal, and does he, as a lawyer, say that he prefers a tribunal of laymen to Mr. Justice Wylie? After all, he is a lawyer, and has practised in the courts, and I must remind him that Mr. Justice Wylie has given as high as 27½ years' purchase. Now the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is this, and let the Committee understand it: That you are to go down into the country and get Jack, Tom,
    2364
    Bill, and Harry on the. tenant's side, and George, Reginald, and Augustus on the landlord's side, and you are to put them, together, and I suppose then they will have in turn to appoint an umpire. And who would it be? I suppose an Ulster Member of Parliament. And that is the tribunal, which is to be substituted for the one within the purview of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee (hat one of the best things the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) did was that he abolished the system of arbitration. I have sat as an arbitrator; I have been harangued as an arbitrator, and you go out of the room, where you have hearer two or three people, and the people who have been haranguing you, are with or against you in the next case. Is that to be compared with the system of a judge who is removed from all these squabbles? And, after all, a judge against whom the hon. Member for North Armagh cannot say a word.
    Mr. MOORE: I have nothing to say against him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: You could not.
    Mr. MOORE: I might try.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is nothing to be said against him. But the point I wish to call attention to is, that here you have the Tory party, who occupied us ree hours last night in going round and round until our heads swam, to-day withdrawing two of their Amendments because may were so absurd you could not vote for them, and now their proposal is to substitute some rustic and unlearned tribunal for a tribunal created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover himself.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not surprised that we have had this Amendment, because, as I know, no more subtle question can be raised before anybody's mind than now you are to determine the value of an estate. All this Commission has got to do is to fix the price, and how is that to be done? All sorts of methods have been suggested for the purpose. In this country lawyers have grown rich, solicitors have grown rich, surveyors have grown rich under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I do not suppose any Act was ever passed which has put such enormous sums of money into the pockets of the professional classes. I remember the old toast which they used to give at the Surveyors Institution: "The Lands Clauses Act, and no Amendment." That

    2365
    Act has depleted the pockets of tens of thousands of respectable ratepayers and citizens. In the case of the jury, I never could understand the system. They seemed to think, rightly or wrongly, that railway companies, waterworks companies, and gas companies, and all that sort of undertaking were nuisances that ought to be taxed as much as possible, so as to make the profit of the people who invested in them for many years the lowest possible profit; and they were always anxious to give the landlord the highest possible price, and having given him the highest possible price, they clapped on 10 per cent., in order to satisfy the English citizen for having his land taken away from him. And then, on top of that, all the costs from the payment of the barristers down to the messenger boy—all the costs of these people—were piled upon the head of the public body who asked for the land. That is a plan which is not applicable to Ireland. The Irish jurors probably would not take the same view.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Oh, they would in regard to the tenant's interest.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I daresay that is so: and that is right; but nobody suggests that we should have transferred to Ireland the full benefit of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Then the hon. Member referred to arbitration, and I have been told that there are Irish arbitrations; but we have heard little about them just now. But about English arbitrations, I do know fairly well what happens, having been engaged many times, both as arbitrator and as counsel, and in long arbitration proceedings. I am told that in Ireland, and I am not surprised to hear it, that arbitrations are abominations in regard to the expenses that they cast upon the parties. Anybody who has been an arbitrator knows how an arbitration is conducted. You very seldom get two counsel there together at the same time, as one is in another room.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is in this country.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. and I daresay it is so in Ireland. But there everybody agrees that the cost of arbitration is enormous. It is not a court in the strict sense, and the worthy arbitrator consults the convenience of counsel, and counsel consult each other, and the cost is thrown upon the costs of the day. The time hangs on and the costs mount up. Therefore, whether on account of the expense of arbitration
    2366
    or the jurors' social position, and for various other good and excellent reasons, we cannot have arbitration. What are we to do? Everybody agrees that we want a tribunal. I quite agree that judges are faulty and have defects of temper, like everybody else; but, at the same time, it is a great thing to have somebody who, by his habit of mind and position, is perfectly certain, unless his own prejudices are violently excited, to take the very best and most rational view of the transaction. I think that for a person to preside over the fixing of the price you could not have a better man than a judge, and you could not have a better man than Mr. Justice Wylie.
    Everybody agrees that he is as good a man as you can have, and there is nothing to complain of in regard to him. That is most wonderful, and everybody agrees also that he is capable of giving high prices. The hon. Gentleman says, however, there is not a word to be said against him, but he is connected with the Land Commission, and that is supposed to infect him with some kind of disease which will render him for some reason or another—I do not know why—unfit, and, it is said, it will make him a judge in his own case. Anybody who knows Mr. Justice Wylie knows that he is not the sort of man who ii likely to be affected by such violent partisanship. Even if anybody is a judge of the Land Commission, why should he want to cheapen the price of land? Why should he want to cheapen the price of land simply because he is head of the Land Commission? And how can he disregard his obligation to be fair between man and man simply because he holds that position? He is just like any other judge of the High Court, and he is not in the least likely to depart from his duty as a judge in fixing value because he is the head of that Department. Then, however, the hon. Member says that he has to employ assessors. Of course he has. If he were the Lord High Chancellor and the-Archbishop of Canterbury and everybody else rolled into one, if he had to fix the-price of a piece of land he would have to rely upon the advice of assessors and inspectors and others, who would tell him what the piece of land was like, what it used to fetch, what it was worth, what its possibilities were, what its unearned increment would be, and what would be its value stripped of everything. He cannot go into all those points by himself. He must have his mind informed. There-

    2367
    fore he is provided with assessors. I want to know what other tribunal do you suggest? You will not have a jury. You cannot have arbitrators. Everybody agrees that it should be a judge with a mind informed by proper processes; and, although other people may have their schemes—I do not want them, or invite them to tell me what they are at this late hour—I am convinced of two things, that in this matter the Government have done their very best to provide a perfectly impartial tribunal, and I am perfectly satisfied, if it is set in operation, after ten years there will not be a man who would be able to come forward and say that the man who fixed the price had disregarded evidence or treated him in any way unfairly.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I have given the question of the determination of the price every possible consideration, and I am bound to say that I have come to the same conclusion as the Chief Secretary. I do not think we can altogether put aside the suggestion that a member of the purchasing body should not be the judge, not that I think it will in any way, in the case of Mr. Justice Wylie, operate unfairly. I do not think it will. I have had the honour of his acquaintance for a great many years, and I think both landlords and tenants will be safe in his hands to do what is right; but it is contrary to our ideas of natural justice that the head of this same Department, which is made under this Bill the purchasing authority, should, under the Act, be the man who will fix the price. At the same time, I cannot see any different solution, and I think it will work all right, and I do not wish for one moment to oppose it. As regards arbitration, the account which the right hon. Gentleman gave of it in this country made my mouth water, because I did not recognise that it was applicable to Ireland; but it has so many objections to it that I could not think of putting it before the right hon. Gentleman. But, at the risk of incurring the interference of the Chairman, may I just make one suggestion to him. Amendments with regard to the cost of the proceedings have been ruled out of order, but I would ask him to consider, on the Report stage, whether he would not say that the price shall include a certain percentage, which should be fixed and limited, and which should cover the costs which the owner is to pay. In every piece of legislation I know of where land has been
    2368
    compulsorily acquired, the State has at least indemnified the owner, and you do not give the man what he is entitled to if you merely give him the value of his land, leaving the man himself to pay all the costs he may have to incur in getting that price. Therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is not fair and reasonable and right that in the case of this compulsory acquisition the person whose property is taken should be indemnified. I do not want him to make anything out of it, but I want that he should be able to put the price in his pocket and keep it without reduction. He has not got what he is entitled to if he does not get that, and he will not get it if he has to bear the cost himself. I know there is this difficulty about it, that any such provision might open the door to unnecessary and wasteful expenditure, and I would fix a maximum, and I would not even give him that in every case. But I would leave the amount to be awarded by the Judicial Commissioner, not to exceed a certain percentage. The Judicial Commissioner is to have the assistance of two specially qualified legal assessors. The hon. Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Annan Bryce) is no doubt already in possession of the names. He certainly gave us very valuaable lights as to the name of these two gentlemen who are to get these highly paid posts in connection with the Congested Districts Board. But I ask the hon. and learned Member not to persist in the Amendment, because I think, on the whole, the Chief Secretary has adopted, under very difficult conditions, perhaps the best possible tribunal available to him, and certainly I myself cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute.
    Question, "That the words '(3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CLANCY (for Mr. Dillon)Mr. CLANCY (for Mr. Dillon) moved, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words, "but no percentage on the purchase money shall be payable under Section 48 of the Act of 1903 or any Amendment amending that Section, nor shall any additional allowance be made to the purchase money in respect of the purchase being compulsory."
    The Bill of 1908 proposed that no bonus should be given in the case of compulsory

    2369
    sale, and the words proposed to be added by this Amendment are practically taken from the Bill of 1908. They are omitted from this Bill, and I do not understand why they are omitted. The original idea of the bonus was an inducement to the landlords to sell voluntarily, and we are all agreed that a bonus for that purpose was a useful thing, and, as a matter of fact, the Irish Nationalist party have asked for a bigger bonus than ever has been agreed to by any British Government. That is a perfectly intelligible policy whenever the sale is voluntary, but to say that a man is to get a bonus also when he is compelled to sell seems to me to be the height of absurdity. I should like the Chief Secretary to say why he has changed his mind upon the subject. There has been a good deal of discussion on the question whether a landlord selling or being bought out would get enough money for his estate. Personally I believe he would get more than the value, no matter what tribunal decides it, and it is inconceivable to me, knowing all the tribunals in Ireland, that when he is being compulsorily bought out he should not get enough, and more than enough. The result of this, of course, is that a landlord will never sell voluntarily. He will get the highest possible price when he is being compulsorily bought out, but if there is a check upon his avarice, in the shape of the deprivation of the bonus, he might be induced to sell voluntarily. But when he is told not only that he will get the highest possible price when he is being compulsorily bought out, but that he will also get a bonus for refusing to sell voluntarily, no man in his senses will sell voluntarily. If the right hon. Gentleman has contemplated this contingency, it will be interesting to hear the explanation of his change of mind. That was not his mind last year. I do not think he can refuse to accept these words consistently with the principles I have heard him express. Generally speaking, I admit that the practice of valuers and arbitrators has been to give an additional 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, but up to a recent period there was absolutely no authority in the law for giving any such additional price. But, fortunately for the landlord, the Courts in Ireland, including the Court of Appeal, have decided in a well-known case that a sum may be added in respect to compulsory purchase. Here, again, it seems to me, to be the height of absurdity to allow anything of the kind in this case. There is no
    2370
    doubt that when the purchase is compulsory the tribunal would give the landlord as much as he is entitled to, and, as we believe, more. There has never been known a case in which a sufficient sum was not awarded. In addition to that, if you give him, not only a bonus, but 10 per cent, in addition to what he ought to get, you are giving him a double bonus, which was not contemplated by any supporter of the Land Purchase Acts. I would remind the Chief Secretary that in the Labourers Act of 1906, one of the proposals made by his predecessor in office, Mr. Bryce, was to deprive the landlord of any sum in respect of his purchase being compulsory. The House of Lords struck out that provision.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish, Sir, to raise a question of privilege. I wish to ask your ruling on this question. I find the "Westminster Gazette" publishes details of the scheme of the Memorandum of the Development Grant, and it is stated that this Memorandum has been circulated to Members. I have been to the Vote Office, and am informed that the Memorandum is not procurable. The question I wish to raise is whether it is not a breach of Privilege for a paper to have given to it a Memorandum dealing with an important matter in this House when the Memorandum has been withheld from Members of Parliament? I bring the matter forward now because the Standing Orders say that any question of privilege must be raised immediately it becomes known to any Member who desires to raise it.
The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Baronet on the question of Order, the case which he has raised—which is a case, I understand, of information having been given to a paper before it is given to Members of this House—is not one which so obviously concerns the privileges of the House that I should feel myself justified in suspending the work of the Committee and sending for Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, I think I am justified in adding that I do not think the hon. Baronet would be in any way prejudiced in calling the attention of Mr. Speaker to the matter, if he so desires, either to-night or to-morrow. I think he would not be prejudiced in that by my refusal now to suspend the work of the Committee.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged for your ruling. I will call the attention of Mr. Speaker to the matter this evening.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Mr. CLANCY (resuming): The Bill of 1908 contained a provision that no additional sum should be given in respect of the purchase being compulsory. The House of Lords cut out that provision, and I remember very well when the Bill came back to this House the Speaker, of his own Motion, took note of the fact, and declared that it was a violation of the privileges of the Commons, and accordingly that Amendment of the House of Lords was struck out without any Division in this House. The result was that in the case of the Labourers Act of 1906 there is an actual provision at the present time forbidding any sum being given to a landlord by way of compensation in respect of the purchase being compulsory. I wish to know why it is that an Irish landlord who is compelled to sell, and who is going to get the highest possible price and a bonus, should also get 10 per cent, in respect of being compelled to sell.
Mr. DILLON: This is a very important Amendment, and I shall be able in a very few words to show the Government the absolute necessity for it. Nobody who is interested in this question dreams of making this Bill or any other Bill substitute a system of compulsory purchase for voluntary purchase. On the contrary, all of us who understand the working of these Acts in Ireland look to the compulsory machinery as one which will rarely be put in force, and which will only be put in force in special and exceptional circumstances. To show the way I am convinced it will work if this Amendment is accepted, and if the Clauses are properly drawn, I point to the example of the evicted tenants. The process of reinstating the evicted tenants under the Act of 1903 was an absolutely dead failure. When the Estates Commissioners approached the various landlords on whose estates the evicted farms existed they were met by an almost unanimous refusal to allow the Commissioners even to send inspectors on the land, and the result was that the Act was a dead failure. But at the very moment the compulsory Act was passed what happened? A vastly greater number have been reinstated voluntarily because the compulsory powers exist. The
2372
moment the Act was passed those landlords who had absolutely refused to give inspectors permission to go upon their lard immediately consented, and many hundreds of evicted tenants were voluntarily reinstated who never would have been reinstated but for the existence, of the compulsory powers. It is in that way that we look to these compulsory powers working in Ireland. If the Clauses are properly drawn, they will, in my opinion, make the voluntary system work smoothly. I am convinced that the compulsory powers need not be put in force in perhaps more than a couple of dozen cases when dealing with some of the wild landlords like Lord Clanricarde, and the result will be that the whole of the rest of the land of the country will be sold under the voluntary system. The real danger to be guarded against is that the Government may not draw the compulsory clauses in such a shape that they will have the desired effect without being enforced. What the Government should take care of is not to produce a condition of affairs under which the landlords would prefer compulsory sale if offered too good terms. What is it they propose to offer the. landlords? First of all they are to get cash and next they are to get priority. These are two great privileges. If you compel a man to sell his property you must pay him cash and you must pay him promptly. In addition to these two great privileges, you give the landlords the bonus, and if you allow any ambiguity as to whether they are to get an extra price in respect of compulsion, then I say you are driving the landlords to resort to compulsion and to refuse to sell voluntarily because they will do better under compulsion. Therefore, I would point out to the Chief Secretary, in the interests of keeping up the system of voluntary sales, that this Amendment is absolutely necessary.
The effect of the Amendment will be this. In the first place it guards against any risk of doubt in the mind of the Land Court or the Estates Commissioners as to whether they should give an extra price in respect of compulsion—that is to say, a higher price than they now give when they buy for voluntary purchase. I do not think there is a Member of the House who will question the justice of giving only the same price under the compulsory Clause as is paid for a voluntary purchase. Next comes the question of the bonus. In the Bill of November, 1908, there was a proposal to give the bonus under com-

2373
pulsory sales. I frankly admit that when I first began to think over the question I thought that the bonus should be given under compulsory sale, but when I studied the question and listened to the proposal as to priority I thought that if you give the bonus you run the risk of stopping ordinary sales. After all what logical argument is there in favour of giving the bonus under compulsory sale? The bonus was an alternative to compulsion. In they ear 1902 the whole of the Nationalist Party of Ireland demanded compulsion. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover came forward and refused compulsion. The Government of the day absolutely gave a blank refusal. Then the proposal was made that it might be possible for the Government to give an inducement to the landlords to sell in the shape of a bonus. Nobody ever dreamt of giving an inducement and at the same time applying compulsion. If you apply compulsion there is no need for an inducement. If a landlord puts us to the trouble and expense of applying compulsion in order to get a fair price, he should not get the bonus. The terms which he gets under present circumstances are very great advantages indeed, and therefore I do say that this Amendment is very important. It is extremely necessary, if these Clauses are to work well. It has been said frequently in the course of the Debates, and mainly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover—why apply compulsion when there is more land offered voluntarily than you are able to deal with, and particularly in the congested districts? It is a very plausible argument, but I think there is a conclusive answer. I will tell you the reason. Under the voluntary system the money has largely gone to the wrong places, and the very estates which area source of trouble, and which are Keeping the country in hot water, are not to sell. Enormous quantities of land have been offered, but these are largely estates which have given no trouble and which do not materially relieve the strain in Ireland. But those estates which have been a source of disorder, trouble and confusion are held back from sale. They are in the hands of unreasonable landlords, and may go on so for years. The main purpose of this House in passing the Land Acts and providing large sums of money and public credit is defeated, because of the obstinacy or stupidity of certain landlords, who declare openly that they will not sell at
2374
any price. Compulsion is necessary, because in many cases the money has gone in the wrong direction, and because in the plague spots where land purchase is most needed the Government has been unable to carry out voluntary purchase. Is it not reasonable that the Legislature, having put the whole credit of the State in this matter and given grants of public money to carry out what is really a social revolution, should rescue the tenants of Ireland from the position in which they are placed by landlords who will not sell? We know the position the landlords were in when this Act commenced. They could not sell an acre of land. The market in land in Ireland was totally stopped, and no landlord could get 10 years' purchase, is it unreasonable that the State should ask permission to insist that it shall not be in the power of any individual man to throw himself athwart the policy of the country and this House and keep the country in a state of hot water and disturbance? Everybody recognises that the whole of the land of Ireland has to be sold, and the only question is how it shall be sold in the best way. I do say that it would be most dangerous and imprudent and calculated to deny a fair chance of working well if the Government so drew these Clauses as to run the somewhat serious risk of substituting a compulsory process for the voluntary process which has been in operation and which has worked well in the case of the Evicted Tenants Act, the weapon of compulsion being in reserve in order to make the voluntary system work smoothly.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I note with interest that the hon. Member for East Mayo says that in certain circumstances, at any rate, the compulsory system will not work well alongside, the voluntary system. I am disposed to agree with him. I think whatever the terms are, a compulsory system is likely to kill a voluntary system, particularly when, as now, your compulsory system is quite universal and undefined. Potentially it may act anywhere over the whole of Ireland. That throws a sort of shadow of potential compulsion over every single acre of land in Ireland in respect of which voluntary agreements have not yet been arrived at. If that is the case, I believe that that shadow of potential compulsion, added, as it is, to the disabilities also noticed by the hon. Member in respect of future agreements, and embodied further in this Clause of the Bill, will be decisive in making the parties hold back

2375
until compulsion comes, and then try to get the best terms they can. The hon. Member sees that there is something in that argument, but he says that if you are to have a bonus on compulsion, compulsion will operate, and voluntary purchase will cease. So far I would agree. His remedy to check the evil which we have foreseen all along is in the case of compulsory sale to give no bonus. I do not believe for a moment that the Government will accede to that view. He draws a comparison with the case where there is no bonus under the Act of 1903. In that case the landlord was compelled to sell, because really he had no property in the estate. He was not really a free agent, so that there is no comparison between the two cases. But I should like to point out, while the hon. Member for East Mayo dwells on the danger that the giving of a bonus in the case of compulsion will ruin the voluntary purchase, and to remedy this he denies the bonus, that he may create another danger which he may think even greater. The bonus does not all go to the landlord. The whole defence of the bonus is that it makes it easier for the tenant to buy as well as for the landlord to sell.
Mr. FLAVIN: It gives the tenants no relief whatever.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I am speaking of a matter with which I was brought into practical contact. When the Congested Districts Board was buying untenanted land, admittedly the dearest kind of all land from which the landlord derives the highest interest, unless you have the bonus for such land the Board would have to pay a far higher price than in the case of tenanted land. The bonus assists the purchaser to acquire this untenanted land without paying a price which would prevent him from buying and farming it at a profit. If you deny the bonus, therefore, you will operate both on the landlord and on the tenant to enter into any kind of voluntary agreement in respect of all the land which is needed for the cure of congestion. Hon. Members from Ireland may think that that is barred by the passing of this Bill. It is not. In more than two-thirds of Ireland east of Shannon, roughly speaking, where the Estates Commissioners operate, there is no prohibition upon any sale going through as rapidly as possible, and although the prospect of future agreements is not rosy under these provisions, and although those who make them may have to wait six or eight years
2376
before they fructify, still if you deny the bonus in the case of compulsory sale, undoubtedly the tenants will sign agreements as a sort of option to prevent themselves being bought out in respect of compulsory Clauses. That is obvious in two-thirds of Ireland east of the Shannon; but it is also true, though not to the same extent, in respect of the one-third of Ireland west of the Shannon, because the ordinary direct sales from landlords to tenants are prohibited under the Bill as it stands by Clause 56, Sub-section (2), in the congested district. So where an estate is not congested—and it is mostly those estates you want to get hold of to cure congestion—there is nothing to prevent landlords and tenants in two-thirds of Ireland signing agreements to get a kind of option to prevent compulsion being applied.
Mr. DILLON: I have an Amendment down on that point.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not think that there is anything compatible between your two Amendments. You handicap voluntary sale, and then, going too far in that direction, you bring in an Amendment to handicap compulsory sale, and so on ad infinitum. If in the result it throws a shadow of compulsion all over Ireland I believe it will stop voluntary sale. You substitute a driblet of compulsory sale for a very large amount of voluntary sale. You go at the rate of a million a year for 80 years under this Clause instead of winding up the whole thing on a broad basis of goodwill in the course of 15 or 20 years. The remedy of the hon. Member is to deny the bonus m the case of compulsory sale. He will drive landlords and tenants all over Ireland into entering into an agreement which will not fructify for six or eight years, but will protect them during that interval from what they consider the curse of compulsory sale without a bonus, which will make the landlord get less while the tenant pays more.
Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree, especially after the speeches which we have just heard, that this is a question which must involve careful consideration. The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that we are dealing with purchases and sales which are accelerated, facilitated, and made more or less popular by the bonus. The bonus is an excrescence, no doubt, in the free market. It is a temptation to landlords to sell, and there is no doubt, to some extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), you cannot

2377
keep the tenant altogether out of the benefit of the bonus, because indirectly and in a smaller degree the tenant undoubtedly has to some extent shared in its benefits. We have to deal with land purchase which is based on the principle of a bonus. Now it is proposed by this Bill to have compulsory sale. We are not by our legislation using compulsion punitively, punishing people because they will not sell, finding them guilty—which,I think, in a few cases in Ireland we might succeedindoing—socially guilty, of not having sold their estates, and therefore inflicting upon them some punishment by way of distinction from people who have sold voluntarily. You are enabling the Estates Commissioners in this particular Clause, generally, and anywhere when they chose, to exercise certain rights, I agree, according to exigencies and the means at their disposal. But voluntary sale I hope will continue, and you are not necessitating their exercising any compulsory powers or setting them in operation all over the place. But you are not distinguishing in any way between one estate and another or one cause why a person does not sell from another. You are authorizing these people, whenever they choose, to give a final offer. If it is accepted it is a voluntary sale. Compulsion only arises after you have exercised your initiative. You give a final offer to the landlord. He says he will not accept it. Then you go before the Judicial Commissioners and the price is fixed. That is the general right which the Bill proposes to confer upon the Estates Commissioners. Therefore you cannot, in my judgment, draw any distinction between what is to be paid the landlord in one case and in the other, and I may point this out to the hon. Member for East Mayo, who dreads the popularity of compulsion, that if the bonus is maintained you cannot rule the bonus out You may say that no bonus is to be paid; but then you go before the tribunal to fix the price, the tribunal is bound I almost think to take into consideration what the man would have got if the thing had proceeded on the voluntary system. You cannot rule these things out of the sphere of men's minds. You cannot, simply by saying: "You are not to have a bonus calculated according to any particular schedule," prevent any assessors when they are considering what is the fair value of land in the Irish market at present, taking into consideration the fact that if the landlord
2378
had accepted the final offer he would have been entitled automatically to the bonus calculated upon the years' purchase at which the final offer worked out.
You would not, by the insertion in this Bill of a deprivation of bonus, prevent the consequences which the hon. Member fears of the bonus added to the extra cost which is supposed to attach to compulsory sale, making compulsion in certain conditions, and in certain places, rather more popular than he desires it to be. But compulsion on a large scale, as the hon. Member pointed out, is practically impossible. Nor is it desired. If the circumstances are such as to make it most actively desired in particular places and in certain localities, it is for that rather than for any other purpose that we propose to introduce these compulsory powers. But if you put it in that way in the first place, I do not see how you can justly distinguish between the two cases of landlords who have agreed to a price and landlords who have not agreed to the price, or why you should punish the latter unless you were to limit your compulsory powers to those cases where you thought that the landlord really was an enemy of the social state by refusing to sell his estate. If it were limited in that way, and the necessities of the locality were of such a kind, or the conduct of the landlord of such a kind, as to justify you in expropriating him on fair terms, or your paying him the value of the estate, I can then well understand the withholding of the bonus which has been given to his more reasonable neighbour. You do not take those powers. You take general powers for the Estates Commissioners when they think fit to go to a place and make a final offer, and, if it is refused, to go to the Court to determine what the man must accept, and if you go to the court, you will find that in fixing the value the judge will take into consideration what the man would have got if there had been a voluntary sale and the bonus was paid. The bonus, rightly or wrongly, has now become a part of the reward which goes to the landlords themselves. I hope the result contemplated by the hon. Member for Mayo will not arise by compulsion.
After all, this is compulsion, and if you ride that horse you must run the risks that attach to that particular mount. But I do not think myself that the fears he anticipates are likely to be realised to any very large extent, because, for many a long day to come the cash at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners will be so small as

2379
to render it most unlikely that they will put into operation these compulsory powers. These compulsory powers under this Act, therefore, I regard as an addition to, ancillary to, and a corollary to this Bill. And as regards the suggested addition to the pries for compulsory purchase. There is nothing to compel Mr. Justice Wylie to give that additional 10 per cent, as an additional price for compulsory sale.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. CLANCY: Probably the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my statement that this point has been expressly decided by Mr. Justice Meredith in the Court of Appeal that in the case of an estate under certain conditions something may be added in respect of compulsory purchase.
Mr. BIRRELL: I was not quite aware how that stands, but I certainly think that it should be made perfectly clear that no such rule should be applicable in the case of compulsory sales under the provisions of this Clause. It is an unreasonble rule, it is a rule which has gone by the board in England. [An Hon. Member: "No."] Yes, I think it has; perhaps not in the minds of a jury, or people of that sort, or in the minds of a certain class of valuers; but, at all events, we have always protested against that rule as one of the utmost unreason, because the obligation is to find the value of an estate—what a man could get for it, what is a fair price for it—and to take and clap on 10 per cent, as a solatium for an imaginary wrong done to him by the acquisition of his land for some other purpose, is a thing I have never been able to understand. I am perfectly willing to make that plain, that is to say, that a man who gets a bonus for a number of years' purchase on the price of the land will not get the 10 per cent, in addition. I think Members may rely upon it that the landlord will not get his bonus twice over in any shape, form, or way. I do think, however, having regard to the compulsory powers that will be put into the Clause, it will be impossible to deprive the owner in such circumstances of the bonus, be it small or large, which he would be entitled to under the provisions of the Bill. I am sorry for some reasons that it should be so, but my hands are tied by the fact that I find the bonus system in existence, and everybody agrees that it must be maintained so far as funds allow, or so far as funds can be obtained beyond what remains of the 12 millions which the right
2380
hon. Gentleman was successful in obtaining. I cannot go beyond that system which remains part and parcel of the Bill, and I think it is impossible to exclude persons who have to sell their land compulsorily from the bonus.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has just addressed to the Committee brings out in a clearer manner than it has ever been brought out during these discussions the very unsatisfactory position in which we shall be placed if this Bill passes in its present form. I pointed out earlier in the discussion that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to debate the application of compulsion without considering the principle of compulsion itself. That is proved to be true, especially in this particular case. Anyone who listened to the Chief Secretary will agree that it is impossible to exclude from the bonus the case of land which has to be acquired compulsorily, it may be, through no fault of the owner, and through no error of his, but because the land is wanted in the general interest, while at the same time you give the bonus to those who sell voluntarily. Does not this show that we are in a difficulty from which it is impossible to extricate ourselves, owing to the fact that the question of compulsion, the way in which it is to be exercised, the degree to which it is to be applied, and the circumstances in which it is to be applied, be all points which are shut out from discussion? I submit with some confidence that there is only one logical remedy for the difficulty in which the Committee is now confronted. The hon. Member for East Mayo, in his Amendment, made it abundantly clear to anybody who has any doubt on the point that the practical difficulties in the way of running a compulsory and a voluntary system together are insuperable. The Chief Secretary has shown in his speech that if there was anything wanting in the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Amendment to introduce a compulsory system pro tanto makes the voluntary system inoperative. The Chief Secretary has pointed out that these compulsory powers are to be exercised, not against the landowner, who has possibly a bad manager of his estate, or who possibly may have unfortunately come into collision with his tenants. In none of these conditions is compulsion to be exercised, but it is to be used where it is necessary to acquire parcels of land in order to relieve congestion. These parcels of land may belong to people

2381
who are in no way concerned or responsible for what may be the condition of things in the particular neighbourhood, and, therefore, there is no suggestion on the part of the mover of the Amendment or on the part of the hon. Member who supported it, or on the part of the Chief Secretary, that it is intended to use the powers of compulsion against owners of land as a method of punishment. It is used in the great majority of cases for the general good.
The Chief Secretary pointed out that compulsion is limited to a certain number of cases where, in certain conditions, it might be possible to exclude the bonus from the price paid. That brings us to the point with which I started earlier in the day, namely, that the real way to introduce compulsion into this Bill is that Estates Commissioners are to use it only in certain specified conditions, and where a certain state of things is found to exist. I do not know in the least what the view of the Estate Commissioners may be in regard to these new powers, but I do not envy them the task which is thrown upon them in connection with the exercise of this particular power. In any case where there is a disagreement between the landlord and the tenant in regard to the price of a property, they may go to the Estate Commissioners and ask them to interfere, but if they decline to interfere for reasons with which I need not now trouble the Committee,theymaysay—"You have got powers to take this land compulsorily in order to deal with the difficulty." I submit that having given this power, you leave created the very difficulty which it is now sought to deal with. I certainly could not possibly support an Amendment such as that moved by the hon. Member for North Dublin on behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, for the reason which the Chief Secretary has given. I think it would be abortive, it would not succeed in getting down the price, while it would be depriving the owner of his bonus. Obviously in making his bargain with his tenant, the owner, if he knows he is to be deprived of his bonus, will act accordingly, and the result will be to lay a portion of the burden on the tenants themselves. Therefore, in no way would the Amendment succeed. Apart from that it makes it perfectly clear that unless you are going to expose the whole of the unsold land of Ireland to the difficulties which will arise out of the creation of dual powers, compulsory and voluntary, you must at a later stage of the Bill reconsider your whole
2382
position with regard to the question of compulsion. I believe that is the practical way to deal with the question, and I think the Chief Secretary would do well to consider the aspect of this Section as disclosed by the debate upon it, a debate which makes it perfectly clear that it is one which cannot be met by an Amendment of this kind. It can only be met by giving a power of compulsion which will be used, as it is used under existing statutes, for specially defined purposes, or only under certain conditions which are specifically stated.
Mr. HUGH LAW: I am amazed at the answer of the Chief Secretary. I am astonished at the change of front by the Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not think it right to punish landlords, because he says it would be necessary to take their land compulsorily. He says it will practically make no difference, inasmuch as the tribunal which settles the price will take into consideration the value of the land, and will not have out of its mind the existence of the bonus. But that was not the kind of argument we had last year, when the Bill of 1908 was before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has not said one word, so far as I have heard him, to show what is the reason of his change of mind. I confess that I think in this case his second thoughts are decidedly the worse. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not think it would be right or fair to punish the landlord whose property it is necessary to acquire compulsorily. Why? I cannot for the life of me see why it is unreasonable to say to a man, "Here we offer you an opportunity of coming to terms with your tenant voluntarily. If you come to terms voluntarily the transaction will go through, and the bonus will be paid." But it may be that the offer of the tenant will be altogether unreasonable, and in that case the next step is to make a further offer, and if that is accepted they still receive the bonus. But, finally, if the offer is rejected, and no terms are made, then, inasmuch as the bonus was intended to be an inducement to voluntary sale and purchase, I cannot for the life of me see why it should be considered impossible to refuse to give the bonus where the land is acquired compulsorily, or why that which was supposed to be reasonable last year is not considered to be reasonable this year. I am absolutely at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should think to be desirable in 1909 that which they thought to

2383
be in the last degree undesirable in 1908. I have no personal ill-will to any landlord or to landlords as a whole; I have no particular objection to handing over to any Irishman, be he landlord or anybody else, a sum of money, great or small, which is contributed by the Treasury. It is not that which I feel strongly about. It seems to me that this change will check the speedy sale of land on certain estates where purchase is most necessary. We sometimes hear very often of estates which were referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo where great trouble arises, and which loom very large in the public eye. Those are not the only estates where compulsory purchase seems to offer the only hope of getting the tenants out of a miserable rut. There are estates known to me where not so much ill-will, but apathy on the part of the landlords and tenants, agents, and everybody else, seems to make it impossible we should be able to get things forward.
I know a little mountain estate in county Donegal, and a poor and miserable property it is, where the agent is non-resident, and where the landlord has not been seen in anybody's lifetime, and not only not seen, but whose identity is very uncertain. He is understood to be a reverend gentleman, and his address is given as Plymouth. I myself would be most anxious to see that estate sold, and I have more than once brought it to the attention of the Congested Districts Board. Immediately after the passing of the Act of 1903 I had a consultation with the tenants there, and I advised them to make an offer, and they accordingly did. The rents are exceptionally small; the holdings are tiny, and it is one of those where one did not really feel—I do not know whether some of my hon. Friends may not blame me for saying it—that a year or two of purchase one way or the other would be of great difference. Therefore, their offer was one which most landlords would have rejected. The next time the agent came round the tenants stated their offer, and asked that he should forward it to the landlord. From that day to this not one word has ever been heard of it, and nobody can get any word about it. We cannot approach the landlord directly, as no one knows where he is. I see no prospect now or under this Bill for a great many years. It was one thing for the agent to have transmitted that offer at his own sweet will, and it was very easy to say that the owner was away.
2384
I do not know whether the offer was ever transmitted, nor have I any means of finding out. But if after the lapse of a certain time there was the power to acquire compulsorily, one may be perfectly certain that the agent for certain remuneration would take care that the offer was transmitted in such time as would enable his owner to receive the bonus seeing that otherwise he would find himself on bad terms with the owner. There would also be a strong inducement to the landlord, at any rate, to attend to the matter. As it is, I see no inducement whatever to him or to anybody else. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked what inducement under the present scheme there is to any man to sell voluntarily. I confess in this case of the estate I have mentioned, I see none at all. No doubt there will come a time under tins provision when all claims of the more favourable localities have been attended to, when all the millions of arrears have been cleared off. There may come a time when the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board may think of a wretched little hamlet lost in the mountains, and then, no doubt, the land will be acquired compulsorily, but it will be probably after the laps of a very long time, with all the inconveniences which we all agree attach to compulsion instead of going quickly and acquiring it easily under, I think, the infinitely better proposal of the Bill of last year, as I feel absolutely confident they would.
Sir E. CARSON: I think it is a very great pity we have not had a fuller opportunity of discussing this whole question of compulsory purchase. I myself, upon the second reading, tried to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how absolutely unnecessary it was, with fifty-two millions' worth of agreements outstanding, which cannot possibly be satisfied for a considerable period, to introduce the element of compulsion into this Bill at all. Even now I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says that he is only taking limited powers of compulsion. He is taking absolute powers.
Mr. BIRRELL: Only applied in a limited number of cases.
Sir E. CARSON: That I do not understand. I do not know what that means. I do not know how anybody can prevent, once this Bill passes, any tenant in Ireland going to the Land Commission and saying, "You have got the power to bring about

2385
a sale of that farm, which I own, from the landlord to me, and I call upon you to do it." There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that. It may be the Chief Secretary thinks the Estates Commissioners will not, but then I do not think the Chief Secretary in this House will have a very happy time if ho does not. We all know perfectly well the tenants would, and I do not think anybody could blame them, human nature being what it is, put all the forces possible to work to get the Estates Commissioners to do what I think they are bound to do under the Bill as it at present stands. The truth of the matter is that it is impossible to run the two systems coterminously, a system of voluntary purchase and a system of compulsory purchase. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. The moment you pass this Clause with regard to compulsory purchase there is no such thing as voluntary sale in Ireland. You may call it voluntary because you may not call in the Commissioners, but it will not be and cannot be voluntary for this reason, that every landlord and every tenant will approach the consideration of the matter with the knowledge that there are behind them these compulsory provisions. What will the tenant say when he is bargaining with the landlord, as at present? He will say to himself, "Well, I need not be very careful about offering a fair price. I shall go to the landlord, and, if he is not prepared to take what I am prepared to give him, then I will go to the Commissioners. "Do you call that, as far as the owner is concerned, a voluntary matter at all? It is really dominated by the compulsory Clauses—necessarily dominated by them—and it will be the compulsory Clauses and not the other clauses in the Bill which will operate, if anything operates, if this Bill passes. I do think that it is a great pity where the Act of 1903 has worked so smoothly as it did, and by reason of the successful way in which it has worked, and by reason of the fact that you are not able to go on with it simply because you have not got the money, that you should be really tearing up—for that is what you are doing—the provisions of the Act of 1903, and turning the whole of this business into what will really amount to compulsory purchase of the whole of the lands of Ireland. The hon. Member who preceded me (Mr. Law) seemed to think that under these circumstances we ought not to give a bonus. I should have thought that if you gave a
2386
bonus to a man who has voluntarily fixed a price with which he is satisfied, a fortiori, you ought to give a bonus to a man whose land is taken from him compulsorily, in fixing the price for which he has had no voice, and with which price he may be discontented.
Mr. HUGH LAW: We all really desire to give voluntary purchase a chance, and it seemed to me that the proposal I was supporting would give it a very much better chance than it has now.
Sir E. CARSON: It seems to me to be only adding another element of compulsion. I think I can convince the hon. Member that there is no answer to what the Chief Secretary has said as regards giving a bonus under these circumstances. Supposing a tenant goes to his landlord and says, "Are you ready to accept a price with the bonus?" The landlord says, "I am." The tenant offers so much; the landlord says, "No, but I will sell for, say, £500 more "— to which the tenant will not agree, and calls in the Commissioners, with the result that it becomes a compulsory matter. The price may then be fixed at the very figure at which the landlord offered to sell, or at an even higher figure. Is he not to get the bonus then? That is a compulsory purchase, and surely the hon. Member does not think that it can be laid down that, although the landlord was right in the sum he asked, because the compulsory powers were put into force, therefore he should be deprived of the bonus. Such a condition of affairs would be absolutely impossible. Really the whole of this matter is of so complicated a character that, if there are to be any safeguards against unreasoning landlords, you ought to recast the whole of the provisions dealing with compulsory purchase.
I believe the Chief Secretary is quite-right in saying that these compulsory Clauses are not meant to come into force except in a very limited number of cases. At the same time, there they are, in the most general terms, applicable to every case; and I believe they will be brought into force an almost every case. Certainly, as regards every contract entered into between landlord and tenant, they will dominate the whole transaction. But, while I agree that it is most regrettable that this matter should have been introduced at all, that when introduced it should have been put down as the last of the clauses to be discussed, and, further, that it is not hedged round with proper safeguards; at the same time I agree with

2387
the conclusion to which the Chief Secretary has arrived as regards this particular Amendment. For the reasons I have stated, I cannot see how, by any process of reasoning, you can come to the conclusion that the man whom you are compelling to give up his property, and who has had no voice in fixing the price to be paid, should get worse terms than the man who is perfectly satisfied and who himself has fixed the price. To lay down any such proposition would be preposterous. It would be well for the Chief Secretary to strike out these provisions altogether, and let the Act run on on voluntary lines, and then, when the time came for any compulsion which might be necessary, fresh powers might be sought. There is not the least doubt that everybody now desires that the whole of the land should be sold. I myself wish it could all be sold tomorrow. Many peope have written to me asking whether I advise them to do this or that; and I have always said: "Get out of it as quickly as you can; the sooner the better." I have advised, in that sense, some of my own relatives, who are very slow to do it. I never liked the system; I have never made any secret of it. I do not believe that there exists in Ireland now, under existing conditions, any desire to thwart, or in any way not to facilitate, land purchase. Under these circumstances, why this compulsory element should be introduced I fail entirely to see, and I honestly express my opinion that it is an impossible system to set up alongside a voluntary system.
Mr. O'SHEE: The speech of the Chief Secretary, in refusing to accept this Amendment, will cause the most intense disappointment in Ireland. The speeches to which we have listened from the Front Opposition Bench were made chiefly for the purpose of stiffening the back of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. He made a very feeble defence of his refusal to accept the Amendment, especially considering the fact that what is now proposed from these Benches was proposed by the Government themselves in the Bill which they introduced at the end of last year. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to give any explanation of the change in the drafting of this Bill as compared with the Bill of last Session. The position in a great part of Ireland at present in regard to purchase is that all landlords who do not belong to one of three classes have already agreed to sell their
2388
estates. I am now speaking of Munster and Leinster. I have had considerable experience in four counties in the South of Ireland in the matter of land purchase, and I can state the facts with knowledge. The landlords who up to the present have not entered into agreements with their tenants for the sale of their estates may be divided into three classes. First of all, there are some absentee landlords, who are in the hands of their agents—agents, those uncertain as to the amount of compensation they may get from their principals when the estate has been sold. I think it will be important if we were proceeding voluntarily that the compensation to these agents should be placed in a more secure position than at present. That is one class—the absentee landlords in the hands of their agents. Another class of landlords are the cranks and the lunatics who have not availed themselves of the particular clause of the Act of 1903 to dispose of their estates to their own advantage. The third class—I am speaking of what I know—consists of soured middle-aged spinsters, whom nobody, even their own agents, can induce to sell their estates, no matter what price may be offered. In the county of Waterford there are only at the present time about 15 landlords left who have not entered into agreements to sell to their tenants. The compulsory Clauses of this Bill will lose nine-tenths of their value unless this Amendment or some similar proposal penalising absentee and pig-headed landlords is inserted in it. The Member for South County Dublin said he had heard of no suggestion from the proposer of this Amendment or from the hon. Member for East Mayo that the landlord who failed to sell should be punished. I am not quite sure, but I think that neither the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment nor the hon. Member for East Mayo took any other view than that the landlord who is an absentee and unreasonable should be penalised. With regard to the compulsory Clauses of this Bill—I am speaking with some experience of the working of the Land Act of 1903—I am convinced that they will lose nine-tenths of the value unless some such provision as this is inserted in the Bill. The compulsory Clauses, as the Bill now stands, will operate in cases only where a certain proportion of tenants have not entered into an agreement with the landlord. There are two such estates to which I may refer. One is the estate of Sir John Kean, in which about half have signed agreements and the other half not.

2389
Probably the reason for the non-signing by the second half is a dispute as to the game rights. It is really as to the rabbits on the estate, and that can only be settled—except it is settled beforehand—by the compulsory Clauses. The second case is a similar one, where a certain number of tenants have agreed to purchase agreements, and a certain number have not. These eases are bound to come before the Estates Commissioners in due course, and the Commissioners will be bound, in the interests of the landlord as well as the tenants, to exercise their rights. I say as regards the 15 landlords in Waterford who decline to come to any arrangement with their tenants that the proposals for compulsion will be absurd, illusory, and utterly futile, because we all know the position. That is that, were the Estates Commissioners ten times as active they could not possibly deal with the work that they have in hand. They have, too, to deal with the evicted tenants' question, which is still far from being settled. There is no immediate prospect of these latter cases being settled. They will occupy the attention of the Estates Commissioners for a considerable time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said that the attitude that the tenants would take up would be this: "Oh, we have got compulsion, and there is no reason why we should make even a reasonable offer to the landlord. We will offer him an unreasonable price, and then when he refuses that unreasonable price we will go to the Estates Commissioners and ask them to come down and put these compulsory Clauses into operation." I make the suggestion both to the right hon. Gentleman and also to the Attorney-General that they can get over that matter in this way: That you should insert a provision in the Bill to the effect that where three-fourths—I take that number because it has been mentioned in the section of the Act of 1903 where compulsion is enforced against tenants—we need it against landlords now —of the tenants make a proper formal offer to the landlord, and he refuses en grounds that are not sufficient, that when the Estates Commissioners afterwards come—it may be two, three, or four years after—and decide that the offer of the tenants was unreasonable that no penalty should apply to the landlord. If they decide that it was a reasonable offer, then the landlord should be penalised to the extent that he should be compelled to refund to the tenant the difference between
2390
the rents that he has received in the intervening periods and the 3½ per cent, interest of the purchase money which the tenant would have to pay had the reasonable offer been accepted. That will compel tenants to make a reasonable offer, because they would find when the Estates Commissioners arived at their case that they have gained no advantage, for the landlord would have got his rents in full in the meantime, and he will also get his full fair value of the estate as decided then. I say that is a suggestion which, if embodied in the compulsory provisions, would induce both landlords and tenants to be reasonable, because it is unfair that these Clauses as they stand should penalise the tenants if the landlord is unreasonable, obstinate, or a crank. You are preventing them getting an advantage that their neighbours have got over the fence under the Act of 1903, and the position of these 12 or 15 estates in the county of Waterford is this: The tenants on these estates are waiting and have been waiting in expectation of this new Act, in order that they may be put in the same position as their neighbours. I tell the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General if these compulsory clauses are not made effective, and I do not believe they are effective, or can be effective without this Amendment, you will be compelled to come to Parliament next Session, or the Session after, in order to ally the discontent and the disappointment that will have arisen in various parts of the country. You will have the same state of things as existed on the Dillon and the De Freyne estates. One of the landlords of the county of Waterford, Lord Ashtown, was often approached to sell—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The hon. Member is getting very wide of this particular Amendment under discussion. The words of that Amendment are: "But no percentage on the purchase money shall be payable under Section 48 of the Act of 1903, or any Amendment amending that Section, nor shall any additional allowance be made to the purchase money in respect of the purchase being compulsory. "The hon. Member is going very wide of that question, and he is going into detail in connection with these matters of compulsory purchase, whereas he should only incidentally refer to such questions, or refer to them in a general manner. He has introduced the name of a landlord in a specific district. That is not in order under the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. O'SHEE: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell. I should not refer to Lord Ashtown further than to say that unless you fix a penalty by declaring that the bonus shall not be paid to a landlord who has to be bought out compulsorily he will not sell to his tenants.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going into particular estates of particular landlords, and that has no bearing upon this Amendment.
Mr. O'SHEE: If you desire me not to refer to the question, I shall at once bow to your ruling; but I cannot deal with the case unless I take specific instances, because, although the Amendment raises the general question, the views of Members of Committees on the subject must be determined by the information they have with regard to cases in their own particular localities, and I cannot deal with this matter in a clear and lucid way unless I am able to refer to specific instances as showing what the present position in Ireland is to-day. This Bill is for the purpose of altering the present position of the law, and unless you penalise a landlord, such as the landlord whose name I have mentioned, in some way, there is no hope whatever that he will come to an agreement with his tenants as to the sale of an estate. Unless you apply the compulsory Clauses, there is no chance that he will ever sell. I can say in reference to that particular landlord that, as a result of six tenants waiting upon him and making him a reasonable offer to purchase on behalf of the tenants on the estate, the "hanging gale" which had been carried on for 50 years was immediately sued for in the case of every one of the men who formed the deputation. Because these men had the temerity to approach him and to ask him to sell to the tenants under the voluntary Act of 1903, they were proceeded against in this way. Instances such as that are rankling in the minds of the people all over Ireland. I could give other cases—perhaps worse than that—where landlords have penalised their tenants because they asked them to sell under the Act of 1903. Landlords such as that never will sell voluntarily. If you only hold over their heads a mere intimation that some years hence the Estates Commissioners will send down an inspector to determine what price they shall get for their estates, they will not sell, and you will not do away with the discontent and disturbance which is sure to take place under this Clause as it stands. The landlord will practically get as much
2392
as if he had sold much earlier, and you will not settle the country, and you will not put an end to friction and disturbance. I fear that the Government had really whittled away some of the proposals in their Bill of last year, and I am beginning to feel that later on at other stages of the Bill they will further whittle away these proposals. For my part, I consider that these compulsory clauses are only about one-tenth of the value they ought to be, and I say without such an Amendment as this the compulsory Clauses would hardly be worth having at all. Unless the compulsory Clauses are strengthened in this way, I am quite sure the people of Ireland would never be content with the acceptance of this Bill by their representatives.
Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I often hear the expression used that it was rather hard to knock a man down first and then kick him for falling. The subject of the hon. Member's remarks remind me somewhat of that story. A man is not only to be compulsorily deprived of his property, but he is to be penalised because compulsion was applied to him. A more extraordinary proposition I think I never heard.
Mr. O'SHEE: The hon. Member himself, in the Act of 1903, supported voluntary sales, and if voluntary sale is not carried out why not penalise a man who does not carry it out?
Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I do not see why any man should be penalised for sticking to his property until he gets the price which he thinks is reasonable to accept. I am as strongly in favour of carrying out the settlement of the land question by purchase as any man in this House. It has been carried out with wonderful success in the last few years, and it could be continued with the same success in the future. But apparently the proposal commends itself to the Committee to abolish voluntary purchase. Everyone who reads this Bill, and particularly Section (5) of Clause 39, will see that tenants can go to their landlord and make an offer of the most inadequate character, probably 15 or 16 years' purchase, for something which is worth considerably more, and then, when the negotiations break down and the Estates Commissioners are called upon to make an offer for the estate of the landlord, they have to have regard to the price that the tenants are willing to pay. If the Estates Commissioners comply with Sub-section (5) of Clause 39 they can

2393
never be any worse off, because the Commissioners are bound to take into account the sum offered by the tenants in considering the sum that they will offer. This Bill would put an end to voluntary purchase altogether in Ireland, but even taking this with Sub-section (5) of Clause 39 they can never as a compulsory Bill, why should the landlord not have the bonus? What harm is it to the tenants of Ireland, because the money does not come out of their pockets? Hon. Members below the Gangway ought to be delighted that money should come into Ireland when it does not come out of the pockets of the Irish tenants. This is the first time I have heard Irish Members object to the importation of British money into Ireland. I do not think hon. Members need object, and ask whose pockets it goes into, provided it has not to be paid by the people of Ireland. Under those circumstances, it must, be a gain to Ireland. Surely this is the first Act of Parliament, with the exception of the Evicted Tenants Act, under which anybody has been deprived compulsorily of their property without any compensation for severance and inconvenience, and they are not to be allowed to get a single penny of the costs. The landlord who is expropriated may have only a small estate. When the Estates Commissioners have satisfied themselves that this small estate suits their purpose they have nothing to do but pay the money and leave the persons legally entitled to the money to scramble for it, which is generally an expensive process under the most favourable conditions. I have investigated a number of cases of small estates, and I find that the costs in every instance average 4 per cent, of the purchase money. Therefore, in every case where the men are compulsorily expropriated they will have to pay 4 per cent, costs out of the purchase money, and if hon. Members below the Gangway have their way the landlords will get no bonus at all. The hon. Member who spoke last mentioned a number of landlords who are unwilling to sell their estates. I have not the smallest sympathy with them, but I cannot agree that people ought to be punished because they exercise the ordinary right of keeping their property until they can get an acceptable price for it. We have been told that there are only 15 landlords in the county of Waterford who have not sold their estates. Therefore the vast majority of them must have been dealing with their tenant satisfactorily, because they have
2394
sold quickly. If there are only 15 landlords out of thousands surely you cannot found an accusation against them of this kind as a class. As regards the 15 landlords, if they were all of the class which the hon. Member has particularised, I should have no sympathy with them.
9.0. P.M.
Personally I cannot speak for the county of Waterford, but I know that in my own county the larger proportion of the landlords who have not sold their estates were perfectly willing to sell, but they were not willing to wait seven or eight years for the purchase money. For the last two or three years it has been obvious that the selling of their estates was not a cash transaction. I know hundreds of estates in the West of Ireland about the selling of which there would have been no difficulty in coming to terms on the basis of the Wyndham Act, but the landlords, for reasons which everyone can understand, cannot afford to wait years to be paid the purchase money, and meanwhile go on paying interest on the mortgages and charges on their estates at a high rate of interest. I know that has occurred in many cases. IE compulsion is to be applied to these landlords under this Bill, why should they be penalised or driven to accept by the threat of compulsion worse terms than tenants were able to give during the last two or three years, and which they were perfectly willing to accept if they had been able to get the purchase money. This Bill, for the first time, deals with the question of the sale of untenanted land to the extent of £70,000,000 or £80,000,000. What claim has any tenant upon the untenanted land in the hands of a landlord? It is proposed to acquire the untenanted land for landless men who have had no land hitherto. I shall be glad to see them all supplied with suitable holdings, but why punish people who are not willing to sell the land which they are themselves using and out of the use of which they are deriving a profit very much larger than they can expect to get from any price which is likely to be paid to them by the Estates Commissioners. Before the Royal Commission the Estates Commissioners themselves said it would be impossible to buy untenanted land at its market price, and they have not been doing it. A friend of mine who was deriving £7,000 a year from his estate had to accept, under Section 6 of the Purchase Acts, a sum of £48,000. I do not know how he is going to invest that sum in order to produce anything like his pre-

2395
vious income, but if he had continued to farm his land himself and let it for 11 months grass, or for cattle grazing, he would be penalised because he had not sold it. I think the real difficulty has been hit on the head by the hon. Member who has just sat down, who said to speak of this Bill as a voluntary purchase Act was absurd. He is also perfectly well aware, any one who studies the finance of the Bill must be aware, that, as a Land Purchase Act, it would be lamentably and tediously slow. The landlords of the county of Waterford may rest perfectly easy in their minds, no compulsory purchase will come to them for years. We all know that only about £1,000,000 will be available each year. Where is the money to come from to finish up counties like Wexford and the county in which my Constituency is situated? Not one can come for years under a compulsory purchase. A million a year would be swallowed in Donegal, and the tenant farmers of Ulster and Leinster will have to wait until at least the £52,000,000 of land that is at present unpaid for has been disposed of before there will be any money available for financing this compulsory purchase. The Bill puts an end to voluntary land purchase, and substitutes a system of compulsory purchase, under which the rest of the land will not be sold for seventy-five years to come. There is nothing in the Bill to get the Treasury out of the difficulty which has been caused by the embarrassing success of the Act of 1903. You may tinker with the question and get compulsion, but you will tie up this question for half a century; and, if you expect any land to be sold by means of voluntary purchase, you will, I think, find your expectations gravely and seriously disappointed.
Mr. J. C. LARDNER: I am one of those who hold that purchase should go on at any price, so long as the tenants can face the matter from an economic standpoint. I am not in favour of selling compulsorily for the landlords and putting a premium on compulsion, and that is what this Clause does. You not only give them a priority to over two million, but you pay them in cash instead of stock, and, in addition, you give them a bonus; and if the decision in the "Leader" case stands, there is a possibility of their getting 10 per cent, for compulsion, with the further possibility of their getting an inflated price at the hands of some valuer who
2396
takes an extraordinary view of the value of land. I do not think that can be described as penalising them in any shape or form. If there is to be a bonus, let there be no compensation for compulsion, and if there is to be compensation for compulsion let there be no bonus. The bonus is to bridge the difference between the price the tenant is willing to give and the price the landlord is willing to take. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) said the bonus helped the tenants to buy as well as the landlords to sell. Does he forget that the landlord of an estate in which there are arrears of rent gets the bonus on the arrears of rent as well as on the purchase money, so that the bonus only makes it harder for the tenant to buy? This Bill, if passed, he said, would change a river of voluntary sales into a driblet of compulsory sales. I wholly disagree with him. The fault I find with the Bill is that there is too little compulsion in it. We have in my county a wealthy landlord who has made a clear profit of over £400,000 out of his estate, and every time he is approached by tenants with a view to selling, he will not talk to them in terms of tenancy. Then the hon. Members above the Gangway talk about a fair price, and say tenants will make ridiculous offers. The Clause says the Judicial Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, order the costs and expenses of any application to him to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board. With all respect, I think the landlords have much more right of confidence in the Estates Commissioners than we have. If the Estates Commissioners see that tenants are making an utterly ridiculous offer, they are not going to intervene and make a final offer, but only if they find tenants are making a fair offer; and I assume the standard of fairness which the Commissioners will adopt will be somewhere in the region of the prices between 1903 and 1908—prices which, in my opinion, were far over what ought to have been paid. The landlord all the time has seen what his neighbours are doing, and in the case I have mentioned the landlord stands alone, because he can afford to stand the racket. He does not want to sell. He knows he will make money by the sale, but he has got his agent there, and he is imbued with the old landlord spirit and is determined to hold on to the last moment. We want compulsion for a man like that, and, if he sees his neighbouring landlords getting a touch of compulsion without any bonus, it

2397
will very soon bring him to his senses. Compulsion applied properly in one or two cases will have an effect all over the country and will bring about the results I want. I could not see my way to support this Bill as a whole on the strength of the compulsory clauses, were it not for that fact. The fault I find is that the compulsion in the Bill is too small. Where landlords are unreasonable the bonus should be left in the discretion of the Court. The position is this. Not only are the cases of landlords who hold out to be taken out of order, but they are to get the bonus, to be paid in cash, and then, under the decision of the "Leader" case, they are to get 10 per cent, for compulsion. I think that is utterly ridiculous, and that consideration should be given by the Courts and by Parliament to the fact that these landlords have been holding out all these years and have been getting their rents. They have kept the tenants in a state of unrest and have not adopted the spirit of the Land Conference of 1903, which hon. Members above the Gangway are so anxious to see maintained. If this question of penalising stands in the way, I have no objection to some compensating arrangement being come to between the decision in the "Leader" case and the bonus; but, if some such arrangement is not come to, then, I say, give them no compensation for compulsion, and do away with the decision in the "Leader" case.
Mr. MOORE: In listening to the speeches delivered during the last hour, I am bound to say, and I hope Hon. Members will forgive me for saying it, that in my opinion the Committee have forgotten what the object of this Clause is. We are discussing proposals for the purchase of land. The only way, I take it, under the ordinary elementary principles with which everyone must be familiar, is that if you buy land under compulsion you must pay a fair price for it. The fair value of the land depends on what it will fetch in a free market. The value of the land should be the purchase price and anything added to it under the recognised rule of law for compulsion. Suppose it were a voluntary sale the vendor of the land would get fair value, because he could protect himself, and there is no reason why he should sell for less than that fair value. But it is different under compulsion. According to the English law it is an admitted rule that where a man is not a free vendor, and where the land has been taken from him for public purposes, or under a Bill
2398
of this House, the judges are at liberty to direct the jury to add 10 per cent, to the purchase money in order to compensate him for the fact that he is unwilling to sell. That is recognised everywhere, and there is not a tribunal in England where land is taken compulsorily where the vendor is not given this added percentage. Why should not that apply in this case? Hon. Members below the Gangway object to its application here. Why? Because they think the vendor should be penalised for the sale which, after all, he does not desire to effect. He is penalised, in fact, because he happens to be a landlord. I say that this is an absolutely vindictive Clause, and I repeat, in my opinion, where a man has his land taken from him by compulsion, it is only just that he should have 10 per cent, added to the price in respect of such compulsion. Then there is the question of the bonus. I remember a case in which a claim was made that 10 per cent. should be added for compulsory purchase and objection was taken that the vendor was not entitled to the bonus in addition to the 10 per cent. A Member of the Government, in another place, suggested that the alternative might b? a 12 per cent, bonus or an added 10 per cent, for compulsion, but that the transaction could not carry both. It may be right there should be no bonus if 10 per cent. is given, but I respectfully suggest to the Committee it is absolutely absurd that a man whose land is taken from him compulsorily should be deemed to be entitled to receive for the land no more than those who voluntarily sell. I say it is unfair to take anything less into account. The vendor should receive, at any rate, the 10 per cent, for compulsory sale. Hon. Members below the Gangway, however, appear to think that because he is an Irish landlord he ought to be penalised. I do not share that view. If you want a man's land you should pay a fair value for it, and, in my opinion, there is no reason in the world, except this wretched desire to penalise a particular class, for denying them the benefits that they would otherwise reap in the case of compulsory sale. I oppose the Amendment, and, when the time comes shall divide against it.
Mr. J. CULLINAN: The discussion on this Amendment as to whether the bonus should be given has proved very interesting. The hon. Member who has just sat down has tried to show that the Irish

2399
landlord, who is selling his land under compulsion, should get the additional 10 per cent, as well as the bonus. But he forgets that this 10 per cent, for compulsory sale is only given where the land is acquired for public purposes. The hon. Member for Antrim referred to remarks made by the hon. Member for West Waterford, and asked why should the minority be forced into selling, when they have to wait five, six, or even seven years in order to get paid. The majority of landlords in county Waterford have already sold, and it is the tenants who have suffered for many years, and will continue to suffer, by reason of the unwillingness of the minority to sell. Surely it is reasonable to ask, Do hon. Members above the Gangway imagine for one moment that, if the majority of the tenants in Ireland purchase their holdings and the landlords have got enormous prices for their land—do they imagine that the minority of tenants in Ireland are going to remain quiet and tamely to submit to any impediment that is going to be put in the way of their acquiring their holdings? What is the alternative? You have, in the county of Waterford, landlords who have resolved not to sell. You have also big landlords in the county of Tipperary, and especially round the town of Tipperary, including a gentleman of whom we have heard in the land fight, Lord Barry, and they are not going to sell. Are their tenants going to submit tamely to that state of things for very long? What is the alternative to compulsory power? The alternative of cattle-driving and of a determined agitation which will force any Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, into granting compulsory powers. There is no one in this House, whether be is a Liberal or a Tory, who believes that you are going to leave the Irish land question as it is, with three-fourths of the Irish tenant farmers, having bought the land they till, while one-fourth remain entirely unable to enjoy that privilege. What are you going to do? What is the argument behind the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway1? It is not the question of the sale of the land, but of the price they are able to get for the land and which they are going to extract from the farmers and the Treasury. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the Government are weakening the compulsory clauses in the Bill as they were originally framed. One thing is certain, and that
2400
is that in National Convention, after National Convention in Ireland, the representatives of the farmers of Ireland have demanded for the sale of the land compulsory powers to be applied, and all I can say in conclusion is this, and I say it to both the Cabinet and the Front Opposition Bench that whichever Government is in power, if the Irish land question is not settled, the Irish people will force them to settle it.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I think we are indebted to our Friend below the Gangway for the brutal frankness with which he has stated his views on this question, which was a very much more acute one a few years ago than it it to-day. I have always spoken frankly on this subject in my own Constituency, and intend to continue to do so. I will deal with one of the last remarks of the hon. Member, when he asked the question, "What is to be the end of this matter when three-fourths of the Irish tenant farmers have bought the land they till and one-fourth remains wholly unable to enjoy that privilege?" Very briefly I address myself to that question. In most of the northern counties we have found landlord and tenant both willing to avail themselves of the great boon conferred upon them under the 1903 Act. Indeed, so great has been the desire to take advantage of that Act, that I believe in my own county to-day there are not more than 12 landlords who have not shown their appreciation of the terms of the Statute and sold their estates, and, in my own Constituency, I can only recollect two estates which have not so far been sold. That being the position, the real question for the moment in the North is: How are the landlords, who have taken advantage of the Act, in reliance upon the promise of the State, to approach the question as it is presented to us in the form of this Bill? I beg very earnestly to assure the Committee that at the present moment the really acute question is the great injustice that is being done to landlord and tenant alike by the slow process of settling the tenants upon the farms. A great hardship is being inflicted upon the tenants, because so long as they go on paying interest to the Land Commission, the period to which some of them are looking forward when they will be the owners of their farms is indefinitely postponed. To-day we have this position: That there are something like 1,000,000 acres of land in the county of Londonderry which, under the scheme of the Government, will not be settled for a

2401
period of 13 years, and, on the other hand, we have one or two estates, to which I have referred, in which the tenants would naturally desire to become the owners of the land upon reasonable terms, and the landlords — so far as I have come into contact with them — are willing to take advantage of the Act. How do they at this moment look upon this question of compulsion? Both landlord and tenant agree. They say they do not require any compulsion until the State has fulfilled its bargain to the tenant farmers who have purchased under the 1903 Act. They say those are the larger class, and the larger class are entitled to have first consideration, and I beg to assure the Committee that until the State has decided to fulfil in a much more rapid manner than I have any hope of its being fulfilled by the Government, the first duty which devolves upon it of providing money for the estates already sold, the tenant farmers of the North are not to be misled by a discussion and a clause in this Bill, promising them a compulsory purchase at a date which cannot be as far as result is concerned within the next 10 years in arriving. That being the question it is evident to our Friends below the Gangway, and clearly evident to the speaker who spoke from the lower bench, that at the moment the real living question is not compulsory purchase, but paying for the land already bought, and I want to make it clear that immediately we have these estates paid for then the demand for a reasonable price being settled at which the remainder of the land is to pass to the tenant farmers cannot be successfully retarded. I believe that time will come, but it will not come till the time that voluntary purchase has failed. The real problem which is embarrassing the Government, and I think they will admit it is the wonderful success which has followed the 1903 Act. The duty of the Government is to oil the machinery of that Act, and provide the money. We know that the Land Department in Dublin is quite capable of being speeded up to double the speed which it has yet obtained—and when that is done—and we are bound, knowing the liberal view which this House has always taken as regards the tenant farmers, to believe that that appeal will not be made in vain—when that is done the classes which have not been able to avail themselves of this Act will have their position realised, and will be put upon terms, not any better, but not any worse, than the vast majority of the
2402
farmers who have by voluntary arrangements become tenant proprietors of farms in Ieland.
Mr. ROBERT AMBROSE: The idea of compulsory purchase is not a new one, but hon. Members seem to think that the landlord who is about to be compelled to sell must be placed in a better position than if a railway or improvement company came along and said he must give up his land for the purpose of making a railway or other undertaking. They say, not only must he get the 10 per cent, extra he is entitled to from the railway or canal or tram company, but he must also have a bonus. They want a geat deal of money. This idea of compulsory purchase was first brought forward in 1897, and the hon. Member above the Gangway got his title for blocking it. We had it on again in 1898 as a party Bill of ours, and under what Lord Salisbury called the strongest Government of modern times we had a very respectable result, because the Ayes were 137 and the Noes 223. Then again in 1901, under the very same Government, we had another Division on a Friday, with the result that the Ayes were 183 and the Noes 250. A great many people say if you let the Act of 1903 go on everything will set itself right. I have been a Member of the House since 1893, and I have been asking questions with regard to the sale of property in my Constituency several times every Session during that period. The Sligo property and the Palmer property almost comprise the whole county of Mayo, and no power on earth, unless you get compulsion, can make either of the landlords sell his estates. Take again the O'Donnell estate at Newport. I have been told over and over again that the cause of the delay in the sale of that property, which is the Land Judges' Court, is the proving of title; but no one in his senses can believe that it can take from 1895 till now to prove title. Without the word "compulsion" this Act would not be worth the paper it is written upon, and if I had my own free will I would tear this Bill to pieces if you get rid of the word "compulsion." I am for the Bill simply and solely because of the word "compulsion."
Mr. DENIS KILBRIDE: I have heard a good deal from hon. Members above the Gangway during the Debate about a free market for land. I should like to know when was there a free market for land in Ireland and who put an end to it? Since

2403
the days when Michael Davitt and Charles Stewart Parnell unrolled the banner of the Land League in 1879 there has never been a free market for land. Mi. Gladstone, in 1881, when Parliament passed the Land Act, put an end to what they called the free market for land. What was the condition of affairs in Ireland when there was a free market for land? We saw advertisements in the newspapers about estates to be sold, and there was always a paragraph at the end of the advertisement, and there was never any change in the style of it: "We may remark that the rents are most reasonable and that the buyer will be able to increase them considerably.' The land speculators, the John George Adairs and other men of that character, walked into the courts and bought the land, evicted the smaller tenants, consolidated the holdings, raised the Tents, and there were again advertisements for sale of what were called improved estates. The way they improved the estate in the days when there was a free market for land was to send half the population which had been living on the estate to New York and the other half to the poorhouse. The Land Act of 1881 prevented speculators from evicting the tenants without compensation and from raising the rents on their own improvements. Why did Lord Ashbourne, in the House of Lords, introduce the Ashbourne Act? It was, no doubt, with the intention of somewhat benefiting the Irish tenants, but mainly for the purpose of making a market of some kind or another for the necessitous Irish landlord, who at that time had no free market for what he wanted to sell. The noble dukes were so embarrassed, and the mortgages on their estates amounted to such an enormous sum, that their financial condition did not permit them to make any temporary abatements during the agricultural depression in the early eighties to meet the changed conditions of agriculture. There was no free market until the Ashbourne Act. There was no market at all after the passing of the Land Act of 1881 until Parliament passed the Ashbourne Act in 1885 providing £5,000,000 of money. So quickly did the necessitous landlords grab up the five millions that in 1886 Parliament increased the original five millions by another five millions, and the landlords got ten millions of public money, and they got it because before that there was no market for land. It is simply endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House of Commons to
2404
talk about a free market for land in Ireland. There is no such thing. There has not been such a thing since the Land Act of 1881.
What was the condition of affairs previous to the introduction of the Act of 1903? The whole of the money that Parliament had provided under the Ashbourne Acts had been exhausted, and further sums which had been provided by Parliament had been also exhausted. There was no public money available, or very little, for land purchase. I am one of those who always believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), because of the Irish blood in him, desired to benefit the Irish tenant as well as the Irish landlord. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear." I have never forgotten that all that is good in the right hon. Gentleman is due to the fact that he is partly a FitzGerald. He was anxious to benefit the Irish tenant, but he was no less anxious to benefit the Irish landlord. We had arrived at an impasse in regard to the sale of land in Ireland in 1902, and it was necessary that something should be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover induced Parliament at that time to give £12,000,000 to the Irish landlords. We are accustomed to hear above the Gangway the same old wail that used to run through the speeches delivered here by the late Colonel Saunderson when compulsory land purchase was talked about. A stranger in the Gallery who did not know anything about these things might have thought that to compel an Irish landlord to part with his property and to put into his pocket a large sum of money which would provide a steady income, instead of the doubtful income he was receiving, would be like tearing his heart-strings asunder.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a second reading speech, and not addressing himself to the Amendment.
Mr. KILBRIDE: I shall endeavour to observe your ruling and to come back to the Amendment. May I point out to the House that if the landlord who sells under compulsion is not alone to have the bonus, but 10 per cent, for compulsion in addition—in other words, if the landlord who is compelled to sell is to receive better treatment to the extent of 10 per cent, than the man who has voluntarily sold and taken a reasonable price, I should like to know from the average man in this House, who

2405
wishes to make the most of what he has to sell, and who is not actuated by prejudice or hatred with respect to the future prospective buyer, whether the man who sells under compulsion should receive better treatment than the man who only got the bonus in addition to the price, and who for four or five years was only in receipt of the interest? I say it is unreasonble that a skinflint who has a little of the blood of the Jew in him should get priority over his brother landlord who has none of the Jewish blood in him, and that by refusing to sell he should get 10 per cent, in addition to the bonus. Is not that the consideration which must present itself to the mind of any man who looks at this matter without sentiment, and who wants to get all the money he can for the property he has to sell. Unless the Amendment is accepted by the Government, or some similar Amendment, this Bill, instead of facilitating the free sale of land, will be a premium on the refusal of landlords to come to voluntary arrangements. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends that if you put compulsion out of this Bill, either over the whole of Ireland or over three provinces, the remainder of the Bill for a final settlement of the Irish land question will be of very little worth. This Bill will not settle the Irish land question unless it contains the principle of compulsion all round, and is not confined to the nine congested counties. It should be possible to apply it to Ulster, Munster, or Leinster, and if this House does not insist on getting compulsion in the Bill, notwithstanding what may be said in another place, my deliberate judgment is that five years will not pass until the House will be again occupied for weeks and weeks in discussing the interminable Irish land question. Although you may have done something to help to settle the Irish land question, do not deceive yourselves or flatter yourselves that without compulsion all round you have done much for the final settlement of the Question.
Mr. THOMAS SCANLAN: I rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I do so because I believe with the gentlemen who occupy those benches that by a long way the most important provision in this Bill is the provision which gives the power of compulsion. The power of compulsion was asked for for years by the Irish Party and by the Nationalists of Ireland in their Conventions and through their political organ-
2406
isation. In this Bill the Government are introducing the power of compulsion, and adopting a principle for which the people of Ireland live been clamouring for years. But what we object to, and most strenuously object to, is the condition attaching to this principle which the Government propose to incorporate in their Bill. With my colleagues on these benches, I think that the attitude of the Government in giving a greater bribe to the landlords than has been given to them in any other measure is not in accordance with the policy which might be expected to characterise a Government which is supported by such a large majority in the House of Commons and which has the support of my colleagues. Let me, as the Member for East Mayo did, draw the attention of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this measure in this House to the fact that the Amendment which is proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo is just a repetition of a Clause which was incorporated in the Government Bill of last year. The Government had then agreed to compulsion, and had then made up their minds that if it were necessary to compel certain landlords to sell their land, they should not be offered a special bribe for submitting to this kind of litigation; and what I would ask the Chief Secretary is this—in the interval of a year which has elapsed, what has happened to alter the attitude of the Government? Have the landlords proved themselves more meritorious in the eyes of the Government? Or have the tenantry of Ireland or the people of Ireland committed some crime for which the Government wish to penalise them? Because whatever has to be paid to the landlords of Ireland in their expropriation from the land as a whole, in order to compel the settlement of this question, the ratepayers of Ireland are ultimately responsible; and if there is no greater dessert on the part of the landlords now than there was a year ago, what on earth justifies the right hon. Gentleman in proposing to give to the landlords under this Bill an additional bribe for doing what they might well have done at any time between 1903 and the present moment—that is, agreeing with their tenants to sell to them their holdings on terms which would be reasonable and proper?
I notice a great inconsistency in the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). He suggested

2407
to the Government that they might very well drop entirely the principle of compulsion; but he said that he himself has been anxious all along to secure the complete transference of the land from the landlord class to the tenantry; and that he has frequently given to those of his own friends who are landlords in Ireland the advice to clear out and give the land to the tenants. I think that that is a strong argument in favour of compulsion rather than an argument in favour of the advice which he gives the Chief Secretary for Ireland to abandon the compulsory clauses, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University must recognise this, that every landlord in Ireland, and especially the stupid landlords who have refused to sell, and because of whose refusal compulsion is now necessary, have not the advice of a Sir Edward Carson, and have not been amenable to the advice of those who would give them good advice in the disposal of their land.
10.0 p.m.
At all events, compulsion is necessary, because a large number of landlords will not sell voluntarily. There is no such thing as freedom of contract, and there never has been, between Irish landlords and Irish tenant farmers. The tenant farmers have always been at the mercy of the Irish landlords, and to talk of anything like freedom of contract, in the proper meaning of the term, between landlords and tenants is like instituting a comparison with negotiations between a lion and a lamb. The landlords in Ireland have always had the lion's share, and the lion's power, and in general they have been supported, as I regret to say they are at the present time being supported, by the British Government responsible for the condition of affairs in Ireland. In order that this principle of compulsion may prove of advantage, and may effectuate the speedy transference of the land to the tenantry of Ireland, it is absolutely necessary, in my humble opinion, that there should not be added to the principle of compulsion such a bribe to the landlords as to make them wait until they are compelled, and to induce every landlord who might at the present time be anxious to deal in a reasonable way with his tenants to hold out until he is compelled under the provisions of this Act to sell his land in obedience to the State, and in that way be able to
2408
command a greater price—a price which his holding in the land does not command, and which is not obtainable in the open market. I would humbly suggest to the Chief Secretary that if he is not able to accept in terms the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo, he should so modify this Clause that such direction will be given to whatever statutory authority is to decide on the question of sale and purchase as will prevent the possibility of those landlords of Ireland, who have so far disobeyed the will of this House and of the Government of this country in holding out so long, from getting an exorbitant price for their land, and being bribed simply because they have not been reasonable and have refused to bow to the will of the Legislature.
Mr. BIRRELL: I am glad to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member who has just sat down on his being able to make his opinions felt in so clear and admirable a manner. He will be a valuable addition to the debating powers of this House during those periods when the debating powers of the House will, I hope, be fully restored. I do not rise to accept the Amendment—I have already stated why I cannot do so—but I wish it to be distinctly understood that I have no objection whatever to the insertion of words in the Bill which will make it quite plain that the landlords whose lands are acquired compulsorily shall not get both the bonus under any schedule that may be administered by the statutory authority and an additional percentage in respect of any imaginary rule whereby landlords whose lands are acquired compulsorily are to obtain an additional allowance. I wish that to be distinctly understood. I am quite willing to insert words which will make perfectly plain the basis upon which we are proceeding, that no additional allowance in respect of sale compulsorily is to be given. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has the advantage in some respects of being new to these land discussions, and he is, therefore, able to speak of this bonus as a "bribe." That is not the language which has hitherto been employed by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, and, in fact, they themselves are urging me to do the very best I can to secure as liberal terms for the bonus in future in order that the facilitation and easing of the machine may still continue. The question, ab initio, whether it is desirable to add to the value

2409
of the land, either voluntarily or by accord, something over and above that given by way of bonus, is one which I frankly admit we are not now free to discuss. Having sold half the land of Ireland under the provisions as to a bonus, it is really ridiculous now, even assuming you have doubts on the question, to consider the deletion of the bonus. We are bound to that. In this very Bill, when we come to the schedules to-morrow, it will be found that we are making ample provision for the continuance of the bonus system; therefore, it is not quite accurate to speak of the bonus as something which we wish to get rid of. So far from that being the case we are perpetuating it, and we are endeavouring to make it as liberal as the circumstances will allow. Therefore, the bonus has got the field, and the whole question is not that we are dealing with the landlord, as I have already said, by way of punishment—that is not the theory of the Bill—but that we are dealing compulsorily in the event of the landlord not accepting the price which the Land Commission feel justified in offering.
If he does not accept that price he has an opportunity of going to a Court to get it fixed, and as soon as the Court has fixed it, then the price is fixed on exactly the same footing as if they had voluntarily come to terms. Therefore compulsion is used simply where a difference exists between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners, who make an offer to the landlord as to what the price is to be. If there is a difference, and they cannot come to an agreement by negotiation it goes before the court to determine. Therefore in these cases there may be few or there may be many—I believe there will be few—the same bonus is provided under the schedule as in cases where thy came to a voluntary agreement. But I have already said myself that I cannot see any justification for the distinction, although I recognise that there is some reason in the argument that has been put forward, that it may be a rather dangerous thing to let a man whose land is being taken compulsorily to get the same advantage as a man whose land is sold voluntarily. On the other hand, the man whose land is taken compulsorily runs a risk. He has to pay extra cost, which may be occasioned by litigation before the Court. He has certain disadvantages which pertain to all cases; he takes no pleasure in employing counsel. It is no satisfaction to him to employ a lawyer to support his case, to call in valuers and the like. He really
2410
has not got a very great temptation to go into the Court, provided he can come to a rational arrangement or friendly arrangement outside the Court. To deprive him of his bonus is a thing that I do not see how we could possibly justify. But I want the Committee to understand that the owner will not get the bonus and the 10 per cent, in addition, because his land has been compulsorily acquired. So far as that part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo is concerned—though I do not think its language is perhaps the happiest possible in the world—I quite agree that words should be inserted making that restriction perfectly plain. Apart from that, I adhere to what I have already said.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I have had a good deal of experience in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land in Ireland, and may I tell the Committee what happens, not in the case of a landlord's property, but in the case of the property of a tenant, whether he be merely an ordinary agricultural tenant or a tenant purchaser, when his land is being acquired for a public purpose. The tenant employs his valuers, who are the same gentlemen as are employed in the Land Court, but of course, in this instance their role is a different one. They have to get the tenant compensation for the value of his property, and in addition to that value they put upon it 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and up to 30 per cent., as the case may be. The figure is universally recognised as between 10 per cent, and 30 per cent, by the judges, and in giving directions to the jury the judges tell them that the figure is to be entirely fixed by them, but that they ought not to give less than 10 per cent, and they may give anything up to 30 per cent. I need hardly say that the result is that in the majority of cases they incline more to 30 per cent, than to 10 per cent.
Mr. BIRRELL: It is a bad plan.
Mr. CAMPBELL: It may be a bad plan, but the tenant farmers do not think so. I am contrasting the different ideas of justice which seem to be entertained when it is a question of dealing with the property of the tenant on the one hand and the property of the landlord on the other. What more did the tenant get in that case where the company acquired this land? The company had to pay every shilling of the cost the man had incurred from the very start to the finish. This Bill does not propose to do anything of that kind for the landlord. In the case of the Land

2411
Court, the company who were acquiring the property of the tenant had to pay a certain amount, to be fixed at the judge's discretion, as the cost of the proceedings for ascertaining that sum. That is what would come out of the pocket of the company or a local body for acquiring the property of the tenant occupier. I want to know on what principle of fair play they are to say that the landlord is to get a less measure of justice than that. Why should not he get the full market value of his property? Why should he not get anything from 10 per cent, to 30 per cent, of the compulsory price? There is no "Hear, hear," to that.
Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that I shall be quite willing to give them 10 per cent, additional to the market value, which at present in Ireland is absolutely nothing.
Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman is not in charge of the Bill, though I know it is really his Bill. I have not to endeavour to bring persuasion to bear on him, though I daresay I could persuade him if I bad him outside. I am afraid I cannot persuade the right hon. Gentleman, whether inside or outside this House. In addition to the position which I have pointed out, why should not the landlord be indemnified in all the costs he has been put to in connection with the transfer? He is an unwilling vendor, he wants to keep his property, he does not want to part with it, and why, then, if he has to part with it, is he to put into his pocket less than the value, which is what he will do unless he gets his costs as well as the value? Therefore, I say that the bonus is a reasonable equivalent to the costs he would be put to. In order to put this man you are dispossessing in the same position as the tenant occupier or purchaser or shopkeeper, or any other person dispossessed of his house or property against his will, he should have the advantage that I have referred to and enumerated. I want to know what exactly is the position of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with reference to this matter. Clearly the essence of the transaction in 1903 was voluntary. That will not be contested. But, the idea that the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway appear to entertain of voluntary purchase is this, that "it is a transaction that if you do not enter into a few years hence we will take your property from you." That is what they call "volun-
2412
tary." I do not call it voluntary, but I call it inviting a man to enter into a contract with you while you hold a pistol to his head. The idea of suggesting when the essence of the Act of 1903 was voluntary that because one of the parties has declined to enter into a voluntary agreement that it is to be made a case of punishment and of penalisation, I say that that it to override and disregard the main essential feature of the whole transaction, which was one of agreement and consent on both sides. What has happened under this Act of 1903? Why, just as the reason for destroying the Congested Districts Board has been its great success, so the argument in favour of destroying voluntary land purchase as you propose to do in this Bill has been the marvellous success that has flown from the Act of 1903. The office of the Estates Commissioners is flooded, the Treasury cannot keep up to the bargains that are taking place, and the breakdown is due entirely not to the difficulty in coming to agreements, but owing to the fact that they have gone on at such a rate that the Treasury is unable to fulfil its financial obligations. That being so the suggestion is that the time has now arrived in that, state of facts, with your office blocked and congested with voluntary agreements, and that this is the time you are not only to apply compulsion, but to apply it under circumstances that would put the unfortunate owner of land in a worse condition than if he had come in under these voluntary agreements. Do hon. Gentlemen forget that one of the chief reasons which has kept out the small percentage of land-owners who still remain outside these voluntary agreements, has been the knowledge that has been forced home upon them during the last twelve months that if they come to agreements with their tenants now, they are not likely to see the cash for ten, twenty, or thirty years to come, and on no scale that the most sanguine of hon. Gentlemen opposite has ever suggested, or that I know of, will the existing block be got rid of at the end of six years. Therefore, any man who enters into a voluntary agreement to-day has only before him the fact that he will have to lie out of his money for at least six years. Is not that likely to retard land purchase in Ireland? As the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Healy) said the other day, the real cause of all this trouble and bother has been neither the unwillingness of the landlords to sell nor the unwillingness of the tenants to

2413
buy, but the failure of the Treasury to make good its obligations. That has undoubtedly been the real cause.
Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all.
Mr. CAMPBELL: Every man in Ireland knows it.
Mr. BIRRELL: That is not the case.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I think it is the case, notwithstanding the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BIRRELL: All I can say is that I do not.
Mr. CAMPBELL: As I have said, I am not in the slightest degree anxious to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that I am correct or that he is wrong.
Mr. DILLON: Get him outside.
Mr. CAMPBELL: At the same time, I am just as much entitled to my opinion as the right hon. Gentleman is to his.
Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not think there is the slightest necessity for him to get so restive. I think he ought to set an example to all of us. Why he should get so restless just as the guillotine is about to fall I do not know. He cannot expect to transact any more business to-night. Let me point out that every day the influences which are at work to increase sales by voluntary agreement are increasing. I am speaking of what I know, because there is hardly a week passes that I am not consulted either by tenants or by landlords who have failed to come to terms, and the invariable opinion expressed by the landlords is: "Hitherto I have been unwilling to sell to my tenants. I have got on very well with them. I have had no trouble on my estate; my rents were punctually paid; my tenants were fond of me, and I was fond of them?" [An HON. Member: "A rare bird."] He would be very rare in the part of the country where the hon. Member who interrupts me is personally active, because the hon. Member would be a bird of very ill omen for any community. Day by day the few landlords who up to the present have failed to come to terms with their tenants are becoming convinced that there is nothing left for them but to come to terms, and that the sooner they can do so the better. Therefore, I consider that it is a cardinal mistake in this Bill to put up the principle of compulsory purchase in direct
2414
competition with the system of purchase by voluntary agreement which has done so well, and has proved such a phenomenal success. The compulsory principle cannot be inserted in this Bill except with the deliberate purpose of retarding these sales, and thereby coming to the relief of the Treasury. That is the real secret of all this bother, all this guillotine, and all this eloquence, denunciation, and declamation. The Treasury are marking time, or having time marked for them, and they think that the best way in which they can continue that is to set up in competition with the voluntary system which has worked these wonderful changes in the social and economic condition of Ireland, a system which will not commend itself either to landlord or to tenant, but will be a useful drag upon the machine, and inevitably delay the ordinary operations of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. I confess I could have wished that the right hon Gentleman bad stood to his guns in this matter. I know he has been always very amenable to pressure—not from this part of the House, I regret to say—from below the Gangway. He has treated us with jokes, with pleasantries, sometimes with the reverse. But we have never got anything out of him—not so long as he has in hand hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who almost invariably succeed in their demands, no matter how unreasonable or extravagant they may be. I am sure it required a good deal of application to perform that process that some hon. Members below the Gangway thought they would like to see come into vogue, namely, for the right hon Gentleman to get his back stiffened over this matter. His back does not seem to me to be as stiff as I should like to see it. It has been suggested that after all this Amendment is not such a bad Amendment, and certain portions of it the right hon. Gentleman said he would be inclined to accept. All I can say is this, that the position in which he has placed the landlord under his Bill, and against whom this principle of compulsory purchase is to be applied, is neither better nor worse than the position under which, as the law of the land stands to-day, every individual in the community, from the humblest to the greatest, is placed. Why this House should be asked to go out of its way to place the landlords of Ireland under different provisions, under a drastic code of this kind, is a, matter which up to the present I have failed to understand. All I can say is that

2415
we must on this side of the House be thankful for small mercies in the case of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking for myself, I can even derive an element of satisfaction from the fact that, while he has not been enabled to stiffen his back, he has not allowed it to become altogether unstiffened.
Mr. DILLON: I do not desire on the present occasion to divide the House. I wish, after a word or two, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I do feel bound to say that nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said has altered my conviction that the bonus ought not to be given to the landlords against whom this process of compulsion is to be invoked. The right hon. Gentleman in his last speech described the process of the landlord refusing to accede till the pressure of compulsion was brought into force. Then, he said, the landlord proceeded precisely on equal terms with the landlords who sold voluntarily. I want to bring home to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that if his description is a true description, that landlord should not be granted bonus. The landlord who voluntarily sells has to wait for five or six years, and then he may be paid in stock
or cash. The landlord against whom compulsion is brought must be paid, not only immediately, but in cash, and the fact that he gets priority is a very serious matter indeed for consideration. It is on that ground that I say that the right hon. Gentleman is, by giving him the bonus, putting him in a more favourable position than the man who makes a voluntary agreement. That is wrong. I think it is fairly reasonable that he ought to be put in a slightly less favourable position. As the right hon. Gentleman has accepted half the Amendment, and that the important half, I shall ask leave to withdraw it. In doing so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the very serious matter I have mentioned between now and the Report stage. I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded at this day's sitting.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 29.

Division No. 540.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Cox, Harold

Gulland, John W.

Ambrose, Robert

Crean, Eugene

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Crooks, William

Hancock, J. G.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crosfield, A. H.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Baling, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crossley, William J.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cullinan, J.

Harrington, Timothy

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hart-Davies, T.

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Delany, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dillon, John

Hezleton, Richard

Beauchamp, E.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hesly, Maurice (Cork)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duffy, William J.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Black, Arthur W.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Henry, Charles S.

Boland, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hobart, Sir Robert

Branch, James

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hodge, John

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Hogan, Michael

Bright, J. A.

Falconer, J.

Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

Brodle, H. C.

Farrell, James Patrick

Horniman, Emslie John

Brooke, Stopford

Fenwick, Charles

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ferens, T. R.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Burke, E. Havlland.

Ffrench, Peter

Idris, T. H. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Field, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Flynn, James Christopher

Jordan, Jeremiah

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Joyce, Michael

Cleland, J. W.

Gilhooly, James

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Clough, William

Gill. A. H.

Keating, M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ginnell, L.

Kekewich, Sir George

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Kelley, George D.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Glendinning, R. G.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Cooper, G. J.

Glover, Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lambert, George

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lamont, Nerman

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Lundon, T.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Lupton, Arnold

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

O'Doherty, Philip

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

O'Dennell, John (Mayo, S.)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Sears, J. E.

Maclean, Donald

O'Dowd, John

Seddon, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Macpherson, J. T.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Sheehy, David

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Malley, William

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Steadman, W. C.

McCallum, John M.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

M'Kean, John

Partington, Oswald

Summerbell, T.

M'Micking, Major G.

Paul, Herbert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Mallet, Charles E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Waring, Walter

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Watt, Henry A.

Marnham, F. J.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Massie, J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wiles, Thomas

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mooney, J. J.

Padford, G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Reddy, M.

Winfrey, R.

Muldoon, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel

Murnaghan, George

Richards, T F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Nolan, Joseph

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gretton, John

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hill, Sir Clement

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Clive, Percy Archer

Jowett, F. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kerry, Earl of

IRISH LAND BILL.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Restriction on Compulsory Purchase of Certain Land.)
  (1) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same under this Part of this Act on the ground that the estate or untenanted land consists entirely or mainly of land to which this Section applies, he may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken for the acquisition of the estate or untenanted land under this Part of this Act.
  (2) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same under this Part of this Act on the ground that the estate or untenanted land includes land to which this Section applies, he may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order excluding such land from the purchase.
  (3) Upon any application under this Section the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the estate or untenanted land consists entirely or mainly of land to which this Section applies by order direct that no further proceedings be taken for the acquisition of the estate or untenanted land under this Part of this Act.
  (4) If upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner is satisfied that the estate or untenanted land includes land to which this Section applies, and that such land is not the main portion of the estate or untenanted land, he may exclude such land from the purchase and may fix the price to be paid for the remainder of the estate or untenanted land, and the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the payment and distribution of the purchase-money and the completion of the purchase shall apply accordingly in the case of the remainder of the estate or untenanted land.
  (5) This Section applies to any land in the occupation of the owner which is or forms part of a demesne, garden, pleasure ground, or home farm.
  (6) In this Section the expression "owner" means any person having power
  under the Land Purchase Acts to sell the estate or untenanted land.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 29.

  Division No. 541.]

  AYES.

  [10.39 P.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ballour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Berrldge, T. H. D.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Grady, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Boland, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Branch, James

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Brigg, John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bright, J. A.

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hogan, Michael

  Paul, Herbert

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clough, William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Radford, G. H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, M.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Cox, Harold

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crooks, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Crosfleld, A. H.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crossley, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lundon, T.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Delany, William

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sears, J. E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seddon, J.

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Waring, Walter

  Falconer, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Field, William

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Massie, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Young, Samuel

  Gillhooly, James

  Mooney, J. J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gill A. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ginnell, L.

  Muldoon, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Murnaghan, George

  Glendinning R. G.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  CLAUSE 60.—(Orders for Framing Lists of Assessors.)
  General orders may be made by the Lord-Lieutenant, with the approval of the Treasury, for the framing of the lists of persons of skill and experience in the valuation of land to act as assessors under this Part of this Act and for the ascertain-
  ment of their functions and remunerations, and every person for the time being named in such list shall give his attendance according to general orders.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 29.

  Division No. 542.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ambrose, Robert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Falconer, J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Field, William

  Lupton, Arnold

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gilhooly, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boland, John

  Ginnell, L.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Branch, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bright, J. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gulland, John W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mark, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Massie, J.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Harrington, Timothy

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clough, William

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Muldoon, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Cox, Harold

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crean, Eugene

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Crooks, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crossley, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, M.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Keating, M.

  O'Shee, James John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Paul, Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Waring, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Seddon, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Radford, G. H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Reddy, M.

  Sheen an, Daniel Daniel

  Winfrey, R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sheehy, David

  Young, Samuel

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Summerbell, T.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and the Marquis of Hamilton.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Question, "That the Bill be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow (Friday).
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to raise the question of privilege which I raised this evening. The question is shortly this. The Development Fund Bill was introduced to-day, and owing to the Rules under which we are working no explanation of it could be given. But the House had decided that a Memorandum explanatory of the objects of the Bill should be issued to the House. The Bill was introduced at a quarter to four, and at six o'clock it was brought to my notice that the "Westminser Gazette" had published the text of the Memorandum. It is headed: "The following Memorandum explanatory of the Bill was circulated among the Members." I proceeded to the Vote Office and found that no such Memorandum had been circulated to the Members. I procured a copy of the Paper at ten minutes to seven, and went again to the Vote Office and found no Memorandum was available for the use of Members. At half-past nine I again went to the Vote Office and found no Memorandum had been circulated. At twenty-five minutes past ten 12 copies of the Memorandum were available for the 670 Members who compose this House. All parties in this House have always been ex-
2424
tremely jealous of any information which was intended for their benefit being circulated to the Press beforehand. I do not myself so much blame the "Westminster Gazette" as the person who gave the information. It is impossible for me to bring the name of that person before the House because I do not know it, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assist me, I am quite certain he will be only too willing to do so. I have put before you what I conceive to be a gross breach of the privileges of this House—the communication to a particular newspaper of information which was destined solely for this House, and the giving to that particular newspaper of a privileged communication which should not have been communicated to the Press until it had been communicated to the Members of the House. That I believe to be an infringement of the privileges of the House. It has always been held by all Members on every side of the House that things of this sort should be jealously guarded. It is with confidence that I submit that this is a breach of the privileges of the House, and if you, Mr. Speaker, should so rule, I should be prepared to make a Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to throw any light on this matter.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I can throw light on the matter, and if anyone is to blame it is myself. I tell the hon.

2425
Baronet that quite frankly. For the reason which has been explained by the hon. Baronet it was quite impossible to make any explanation to the House, and I thought I could create a precedent by circulating an explanatory statement to the House. I gave instructions that that should be printed; I was not aware there had been an Order of the House last night to do so. I thought it was simply printed at the expense of the Treasury, to be circulated in the usual way, and I gave instructions that it was to be in the Vote Office to-night. Somebody came to me and asked me for a copy, and I gave it. [Hon. Members: "Who?"] Somebody on behalf of the paper. I accept the whole responsibility. I thought the Memorandum would be in the Vote Office certainly before the paper would be printed. I very much regret that there has been some delay in getting a sufficient number of copies. That is really the whole position of the matter. Whatever responsibility there is I fully accept it. That is the whole statement, so far as I am concerned.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London began by calling attention to this matter as being a breach of privilege. After having heard what he has said, I do not think there can be any breach of privilege in the matter. The House, as he said, and I think the House will support me in saying, has always been very jealous of information of this character being given to the Press before it goes into the hands of Members. In this instance the Order was made yesterday that a particular Memorandum should be printed and circulated, and it is certainly regrettable that it should come into the hands of the Press before it reached the hands of Members. I cannot go further than to say that it is a regrettable occurrence, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any who are interested in circulating matters of this sort will take care that the occurrence shall not happen again.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of prosecutions undertaken in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to enable the Department of Agri-
2426
culture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to undertake prosecutions in certain cases under The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887."
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].

  Clause 1.—(Official prosecutions under 50 and 51 Vict., c. 28.)
  (1) The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Department") may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, make regulations providing that in cases which appear to the Department to relate to Irish agricultural or horticultural produce, or to the produce of any other Irish industry, and to affect the general interests of the country, or of a section of the community, or of a trade, the prosecution in Ireland of offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, shall be undertaken by the Department, and prescribing the conditions on which such prosecutions are to be so undertaken.
  (2) All regulations made under this Section shall be laid before Parliament within three weeks after they are made if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not then sitting within three weeks after the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, and shall have effect as if enacted by this Act.
  (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of any person or authority to undertake prosecutions otherwise than under the said regulations.
  (4) The expenses of prosecutions undertaken by the Department in pursuance of this section shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRE-(Mr. T. W. Russell)The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRE-(Mr. T. W. Russell) moved, in Section (1), after the word "Ireland" ["Lord Chancellor of Ireland "] to insert the words "and of the Board of Trade."
  Mr. MOONEY: I would ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture what is the meaning of this Amendment? This is purely an Irish Bill dealing with solely Irish matters which are to be decided in purely Irish courts, and I would ask what is the reason for bringing over the Board of Trade to Ireland to regulate these matters?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The Board of Trade is the authority for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. SEDDON: Does this Bill refer to manufactured articles being imported into Ireland, and if so, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will see to it that so far as the importation of watches is concerned—
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: This Bill is limited to those industries which are under the Department's Act of 1899.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I take a great interest in the Board of Trade associating themselves with, and forcing themselves on this Irish Department, but I do not know whether the Board of Trade are aware of the absurd position in which this Department is placed by this Amendment. The section will now read: The Department of Agriculture, and so on, may with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Board of Trade; so what will happen when the Board of Trade quarrels with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland I cannot well imagine.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: In Section (1) to leave out the words "or horticultural."
  In Section (1), after the word "Irish" ["any other Irish industry"] to insert the word "rural."
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL Mr. T. W. RUSSELL moved, at the end of Section (3), to insert: "(4) In this section the expression 'rural industries' means the rural industries mentioned in Sub-section one of Section thirty of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1890."
  Mr. MOONEY: The hon. Gentleman has just left out, by a previous Amendment, the words "or horticultural." In the Act of 1899 the words were brought in under the definition Clause. The point I wish to put is that the definition Clause of the Act of 1899 includes certain words, and by the Bill before us the hon. Gentleman takes out certain words of that definition Clause. Is he not diminishing the power of the Board in doing that?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: This Amendment is designed to limit the power of the Department under the Bill to those special industries enumerated in the Act of 1899. Horticulture is included in that list, and therefore there is no need to repeat it.
  Bill Reported with Amendment.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction of Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1901."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.
Considered in Committee; Reported without Amendment; read the third time and passed.
ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for second reading read.
The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): Measures of this kind are already in force in several colonies, especially Australia and Canada. It was produced at the instance of the Council of Agriculture, which is the only body that may be said to represent the entire agriculture of the country, and which has impressed upon me—
Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the Treasury informed me the Bill would not be taken if it were objected to, and it is objected to by an hon. Friend. I merely wish to save time.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I would like to have the opportunity, at all events, of explaining the Bill on account of the great interest that is taken in it in Ireland, though I recognise if the Bill is seriously contested it cannot, in the words of the Prime Minister, be proceeded with. I would like to explain what it is in deference to the widespread opinion in Ireland amongst all classes in the community. The reason weeds give so much trouble in Ireland is due to three causes. First of all, under the eleven months' system of letting a large number of people have possession of the land who really have no interest in keeping it clean. There is a second class who take land for mere cropping purposes, and they take no interest in it. Then there are the ditches by the roadside and the roadside itself, nobody attends to them. The result is that these noxious weeds are growing all over the country, and men who desire to keep their land clean are unable to do so. The Bill is not a police measure. We propose to work the Bill, if it becomes an Act, by the officers of the Department as part of our agriculture work. It gives the Department power to serve notice and to compel eradication of these weeds. They are not numerous. I believe that they number three. First of all there is the thistle in all its varieties. I put it as the greatest pest; the second is ragwort; and the third, docks. Some members have expressed a desire that a definition of noxious weed should be inserted in the Bill. If that is desired by any section of members, I shall be very glad to put such a definition in the Bill. Then there are objections as to the penalties. It has been represented to me that the penalties are excessive. I am inclined to agree, and if the Bill gets into Committee I propose to reduce them by one half, substituting £10 and £5 for £20 and £10. An hon Member, who is a member of the Agricultural Council, suggested the other day that I should endeavour to carry the Agricultural Committee of each county with me in this work. I entirely agree. And he asked that the Department, before undertaking any prosecution or issuing any order, should notify the agricultural committee of that county. Another objection urged is that the Bill will give "Castle officials" power
2430
to enter upon the land of the people. I do not believe that officials of the Department, who are on the land of the people every day, working with and encouraging the people, are regarded as "Castle officials," and I am certain that this measure, worked in the way the Department propose, will not give rise to that opposition. Already the Department have power of this kind in regard to other matters; their officials can enter upon farms and gardens to deal with defects; and they have never been regarded in that light.
The second part of the Bill deals with agricultural seeds. Poor people, in the West of Ireland especially, are being punished in the most extraordinary manner by reason of deficient seeds—seeds which when planted never germinate, with the result that enormous loss falls upon the people. The Bill proposes that officials of the Department shall be able to enter a seedsman's shop and take samples of the seeds. We do not propose to prosecute, but we desire, in case of persistent offences of this kind, where seeds are found to be defective, power to warn the people of the neighbourhood by posting the name of the wholesale vendor who supplies the seed. I have had communications from English and Scottish Members in favour of the extension of the Bill to England and Scotland. I hope, if we get into Committee, they will not press the point. Next Session the Board of Agriculture will have a Secretary here, and Members will be able to press their views upon him. I hope therefore, they will not punch my head in place of the head of Lord Carrington. The Department here cannot consent to the extension this year. I should be glad if it were possible, but in the absence of agreement on the part of the English authorities I cannot accede to the request. I have now introduced the Bill, but, as the Prime Minister has said, if there is serious objections, I cannot press it. I hope, however, the House will give it a Second Reading.
Mr. W. MOORE: I think it may be quite possible, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, though I have had no communication with him, to remove any objection I have to the Bill. I think its purpose is a perfectly good one, but I rather object to the way in which it is being carried out. I do not attach any importance to the fact that the Agricultural Department recommends the extension of their own powers all over Ireland; it is very natural

2431
that they should. But we have got a very excellent system, and an equally good staff, whereby County Councils have subcommittees of their own for agricultural purposes. The most sensible suggestion I have heard—I say it without offence—was that from below the Gangway, the notice of putting into force of the Act shall in the first place—
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: It is intended to notify the agriculturists before the Act is put into force.
Mr. MOORE: All I want is that our County Councils and the people generally should not be at the mercy of the Central Department—that remote rural districts should not be at the mercy of an inspector for Dublin. The hon. Gentleman has referred to gooseberry mildew. People who might be ordered to burn their gooseberry bushes would probably consider it a great hardship. They do not know who to go to inquire from, and it takes a long time to write to Dublin. If these points are borne in mind I withdraw all opposition to the weeds part of the Bill. For the seeds part I have nothing but praise. But I think the County Council should—as in a great many other Acts—have the option of saying whether or not they will put the Act into force in the county. There should be no objection to that.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I have had the greatest possible pleasure of listening to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I think he has in substance expressed the views entertained on these Benches. I understand that the Vice-President of the Council has agreed, in substance, to carry out the views which the hon. and learned Member has expressed, and which have been pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman from these Benches. Under these circumstances, I respectfully suggest to hon. Members above the Gangway to allow the second reading to be taken now. It is possible in the course of an hour or half an hour in Committee to put the matters mentioned right. In view of the great need for this Bill, the great demand for it—it has been demanded over and over again unanimously by the Agricultural Council of the Department, in view of the period of the Session, and the danger of Bills of this kind falling to the ground, I would appeal to hon. Members to let the Bill go through now.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I hope the views expressed by the hon. Member for Water-
2432
ford will commend themselves to my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I can only repeat what has been said by the Vice-President of the Department, that the agriculturists of Ireland are unanimously in favour of this Bill, subject to the modifications which have been impressed upon the Vice-President. Speaking for myself, I would be exceedingly sorry if the Bill should not be placed upon the Statute Book this Session.
Lord BALCARRES: One word on the Bill. It seems to be analogous in certain respects to the clause which was discussed last night about the powers of the Department to deal with trees in Ireland. That clause was extremely wide in its scope—so wide that it was not possible for it to be carried out. Here we have something of about the same character. Personally I agree with what has been said by hon. Members that the County Councils who are on the spot are much more likely to be acquainted with the difficulties of the case. I do, however, wish to enter a protest against the authorising of the Central Department to declare any vegetable matter to be a noxious weed. Some people consider the yew tree a noxious weed. If the Department is going to decide that the County Council one day is to cut down a yew tree, and that another County Council on another day is to cut down another tree—
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I have already said that I am quite prepared to insert in the Bill a definition of what is a noxious weed.
Lord BALCARRES: If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, and if he will go further and place it in the hands of the local authorities rather than in the Department of Agriculture which cannot be as familiar with the necessities of Galway as the people on the spot, I shall be satisfied, I think, also, if people are convicted of selling inferior seeds they should be prosecuted.
Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I think it is rather to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should persist in asking the House to read this Bill a second time to-night. It was arranged between the Front Benches that certain Bills should be passed tonight. A number of the Bills which we have already allowed to go through would certainly have been debated had we known that the arrangements come to between the Front Benches was going to

2433
be broken. It was clearly understood that this Bill was not to be included, and therefore I think it is regrettable that this Bill should have been brought forward.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I explained to the Opposition that in the event of this Bill being opposed, I should at once move the adjournment of the Debate. I proposed to call upon the Order to ascertain whether the Bill might be regarded as a non-controversial Bill, and if not, I was hopeful we might secure its second reading. Only Committee points have been raised, and therefore I think we should get the second reading.
Mr. CARLILE: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. If he looks at the Paper he will see there are a number of Motions against the second reading of the Bill. That being the case, I think this is a rather curious way of carrying out the arrangements that have been made. Many of us are in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, and we know that in many parts of Ireland weeds flourish very much. I am entirely in sympathy with the desire to do away with these weeds, but I do not think legislation is necessary in order to induce people in the West of Ireland to clear their land. Agriculturists in this country are inclined to clear their land themselves, and to induce their neighbours to do the same. There is an increasing tendency in Ireland, a great deal more so than in this country, to expect the Government to do every mortal thing, and that view is liable to be fostered by the spiritual advisers of the people. If the Bill is insisted upon, I hope it may bring about the good which the right hon. Gentleman desires. It seems to me that the penalties imposed by the Bill are extremely high. If we compare them with the rents paid by these old farmers they strike one as being most severe penalties, even when fixed at £5 or £10. There are very few of the tenants whose lands are filthy who pay anything like the amount of those penalties as an annual rental. I suppose that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman nothing short of those penalties will bring about what the Government desire. If the second reading is persisted in we have no alternative but to vote against it. I repeat what I have already said, that this is a clear going away from the arrangement made with us, and in future we
2434
shall have to place arrangements made Whips.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: As the hon. Member who has just sat down has stated that Ireland relies so much upon the English Parliament in these matters, perhaps I may be allowed to give him the reason why. The reason is that the English people and the English Government have stolen the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government, and the result is that we have no other Government to rely upon, except gentlemen of the kidney of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Carlile), and that is perhaps the greatest misfortune that ever happened to any country. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward a very valuable Bill, but I would beg of him not to schedule the weeds. In some counties I know the weeds are a great nuisance, but in others they are not of the same character. I think if the officer of a union reported that a particular holding was in a foul state, the Board of Guardians should have the right to prosecute. I think the scheme in this Bill has too long a range, and I cannot really see how a Department in Dublin can carry out this system. You want to get more into touch with the local Boards of Guardians who would be able to give a tenant notice. I also think that the word "eradicate" will have a tendency to throw a heavy burden on the occupier in the earlier years of the operation of the Bill. Then, again, I think you should only allow this provision to be put in force by the local authorities during the time when the weeds are seeding. They are very great offenders, but to throw upon these bodies who gain no profit the burden of eradication would, I think, be a rather strong thing, and it would be unjust to expect them to do more than cut down the weeds. I respectfully commend the right hon. Gentleman for his care in bringing in this Bill, and I am glad to recognise that portion of it-dealing with fertilisers to be absolutely necessary. There is no doubt the Germans are a greater trouble to us with their bad manures than with their Dreadnoughts. They undoubtedly, in connection with the spraying of potatoes, indulge in adulteration in the shape of German imports which, instead of doing any good, have absolutely destroyed potatoes for many areas, and unfortunately led people-to suppose spraying, instead of being any good, is deleterious.
Mr. C. CRAIG: If the right hon. Gentleman could give us the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. W. Moore), and leave it to the County Councils whether or not they put the Act into force, he would remove from us the least opposition.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: If the Bill is read a second time, I will undertake to consult with hon. Members on both sides of the Gangway opposite as to the best method of dealing with it. I am not wedded to a central authority doing everything, and I desire to carry the local authorities with me in what would be a delicate and difficult matter.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday, August 30th.—[Mr. T. W. Russell.]
Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.