§ Order for Committee read.
§ Mr. J. B. LONSDALE moved"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one to consist of Parts I., II., IV., V., and VI., and the other to consist of Part III., dealing with the congested districts."
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDMay I ask whether this Instruction is in order? It has been laid down in a number of rulings that an Instruction which simply proposes to give the Committee a power which it already has, is out of order. I submit that this Committee has the power of doing, if it chooses, what the hon. Gentleman proposes in this Instruction; that is to say, when Part IV. is reached, it may omit those clauses; then the Bill will consist only of the earlier parts, and that will meet the object the hon. Gentleman has in view. I submit, in view of these decisions, which are doubtless familiar to you, Sir, the Instruction is out of order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that the suggestion which the hon. Member has made is really equivalent to the proposal of the Instruction. The process which the hon. Member suggested could be carried out is not the division of the Bill. The Bill still remains one whole, with a portion left out. It would not be actually divided. The hon. Member (Mr. Lonsdale) proposes to divide the measure into two separate Bills, and that, I think, is permissible.
§ Mr. LONSDALEMy object in proposing this Instruction is to obtain precedence for the measures which are necessary to expedite the working of the Land Act of 1903, and to facilitate the transfer of the tenanted land from the landlords to the occupiers. Looking at this Bill, as I do, from the point of view of the farmers who are anxious to become owners of their holdings as speedily as possible, I see one great objection to it; and it is this: The Bill does not offer the least prospect of an immediate—or proximate—removal of the existing block in land purchase, or any hope of a continuance of negotiations between landlords and tenants under the Act of 1903. Indeed, the closer I look into this Bill the more convinced I am that its effect would be, if carried into law, to bring purchase negotiations to an absolute standstill; and it is because I want, if possible, to prevent that disaster from falling upon Ireland that I am moving this Instruction.
This Bill deals with two quite distinct questions. There is a natural division between them; it is proposed to deal with them by means of separate machinery; and, therefore, from every point of view it seems to me preferable to deal with each of these problems by means of a separate Bill. There are many of the Government proposals referring to land purchase outside the congested districts, to which I entertain very strong objections. Speaking generally, I think they are ridiculously inadequate, if the purpose of the Government is really to expedite land purchase. The first step, however, towards getting through Parliament a satisfactory measure to hasten purchase operations, is to divide the present Bill into two parts, and to relegate the problem of congestion for separate treatment in another Bill.
The question which confronted the Government when they came into office was a comparatively simple one. That problem was how to clear off the arrears of purchase agreements which had accumulated in the offices of the Estate Commis- 1537 sioners. It was a question of finance; the one thing necessary to make the wheels of land purchase run smoothly was an increased contribution from the State of a sufficient amount to relieve the Irish ratepayers of a threatened burden, which nobody had ever contemplated that they should bear. Instead of addressing them-selves to this point, the Government have chosen to complicate the issue, by mixing it up with the most difficult problem of congestion, and to "make confusion worse confounded" they have also introduced the entirely new question of providing land for landless men. I will not stop to discuss the motives of the Government; but I think it is only right to say that they have brought themselves under suspicion of having deliberately complicated the issue, with the purpose of bringing land purchase on voluntary lines to an end. In any event, what I am contending for is that the Act of 1903 should be given a fair chance, and so far as I can see the best way of securing that is to make the division which I now propose.
In proposing that the provisions relating to the congested districts should be taken out of this Bill and embodied in a separate measure, I am following precedent. Although it is quite true that the Congested Districts Board was first established under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act of 1891, a measure which dealt also with the general question of land purchase, yet I may call attention to the fact that no fewer than four separate Acts have been passed since, all dealing solely with the congested districts. Those Acts were passed in the years 1893, 1894, 1899, and 1901, and as the House is reminded in Clause 63 of this Bill, the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts fill a distinct place on the Statute Book. I venture to submit, therefore, that it would be in all respects simpler and better to amend those Acts, if amendment be necessary, by means of a separate Statute, rather than by the incorporation of Amendments into a Bill which deals with the purchase of tenanted land outside the congested districts. There would have been a stronger case for one inclusive Bill if the Government had adopted the recommendations of Lord Macdonnell, and had proposed to abolish the Congested Districts Board and to transfer the functions of that body to the Estate Commissioners and the Department of Agricuture. But they have not chosen to pursue that course. On the contrary, they not only propose to con- 1538 tinue the Congested Districts Board, and to make it supreme within an area—which, roughly speaking, comprises nearly one-third of Ireland—but they propose changes in the constitution of the Board which raise questions of the most controversial character.
I do not, of course, intend at this stage to enter into the merits of this question of the constitution of the remodelled Congested Districts Board. That is a subject which will have to be discussed when the clauses which deal with it are before the Committee, if any opportunity is afforded us. But, if I may give an example of the profound difference of opinion which exists in regard to this part of the Government's proposals, I should like to read one or two brief passages from Lord Macdonnell's Minute of dissent, which is appended to the Report of the Dudley Commission. Lord Macdonnell said:
In the constitution of the Congested Districts Board, created as it has been to remedy a most pressing hardship, the elective principle would be entirely out of place, because it would increase the Board to an unwieldy size, and thereby make it inefficient; would convert it from being an executive into a political and debating body, and would expose it to local pressure of all kinds, not only as regards its policy, but as regards practice and the distribution of funds and patronage. Moreover, in a Board so constituted the elective members would naturally favour the tenant's point of view, and this would lead to pressure being put on the Government to use its power of nomination to establish an equilibrium of opinion. In the result the Board would become a partisan Board, cease to command confidence, and sink into an arena of acrimonious discussions.Lord Macdonnell has also in the same Minute expressed the following opinions on the proposed great extension of the Board's sphere of operations.I am unable to accept the proposal, because its effect would be to overwhelm the Board with work which it could not discharge: to bring under the Board's control and make lawful objects of public expenditure thousands of estates which are not congested; to ex Inde the Estates Commissioners from co-operation in the work of relieving congestion in the West which they are highly competent to execute, and to give to an independent semi-elective body what really amounts to a controlling voice over the administration of the Land Purchase Acts over one-third of Ireland, involving functions which it is entirely unfitted to discharge.These, of course, are very weighty opinions, and I have no doubt the Chief Secretary thoroughly realises that this part of the Bill will be strenuously opposed.There are other questions involved in the Government's scheme for the relief of congestion which are scarcely less controversial than the constitution of the Board. There is, for example, the question of the area in which the Board has to work and exercise its powers. Again, there is the important question 1539 whether a Congested Districts Board, which is practically independent of Parliamentary control, should be entrusted with powers of compulsory purchase. But besides this, I think the House would do well to consider the size of the problem of the Congested Districts, as measured by the amount of money which will have to be spent in solving it, and also the immense difficulties in the way of finding anything like a final remedy. Does the House realise that the proposals of the Government involve an expenditure of at least £30,000,000 in the purchase of land, within the congested districts, and an irrecoverable loss—which will have to be borne by the State—which is estimated by Lord Macdonnell at £7,000,000 sterling? I may remind the House further of the statement of the late Under-Secretary, which I think no one will dispute, that the, relief of congestion is the most difficult administrative problem of the time in Ireland, and, therefore, I submit that if the attention of Parliament is to be concentrated, as it should be, upon proposals for the solution of this most difficult problem, we should have before us a distinct measure dealing with this subject alone.
Another reason for this Instruction is to be found in the fact that the Government have formulated their proposals without having first arrived at a decision upon one point which is absolutely vital to the prospects of any final solution of the problem of congestion. If there was one point upon which all the members of the Dudley Commission were absolutely agreed, it was that it is impossible to solve the problem of congestion and at the same time satisfy the land hunger of the cattle-drivers. Again and again, throughout the Report, this point is insisted upon, and I would recommend hon. Members to study particularly section 19 of the Report. Lord Macdonnell also brings this matter forward in the plainest possible terms, and he tells the Government that it is necessary to come to a definite decision upon this crucial question whether the landless men or the people of the congested districts are to have first consideration. On this question, as on so many others, the Government have failed to make up their mind. The Chief Secretary has deliberately left the question open, and calmly says the Irish people must fight it out among themselves. I do not know by what means the right hon. Gentleman imagines the question is to be settled; but 1540 it is an additional reason for dealing with the subject of congestion in a separate Bill that the fullest opportunity should be given of considering the rival claims of the "congests" and the "landless" men and settling which of these two classes is to have preferential treatment. The considerations which I have advanced establish, in my opinion, a clear case for this Instruction.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the time having been decided, is the hon. Member not out of order in discussing the question in the way he is doing?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think the hon. Gentleman has urged any argument inconsistent with his main argument, namely, that the Bill should be treated in two parts, one of which would probably pass the House readily, while the other might meet with more resistance. But whether divided or not, the time table laid down by the Resolution cannot be departed from. Therefore, supposing that the hon. Member were successful in carrying his Instruction that part concerned with the congested districts would still have to be dealt with entirely on the sixth day. The only result would be that the Bill would be reported to the House in two parts. What the effect afterwards might be I cannot say.
§ Mr. LONSDALEI am free to confess that the matter which concerns me most is the removal of the financial block which stands in the way of the operation of the Act of 1903. The farmers in my Constituency have, for the most part, agreed to purchase their farms, and it is because I want to see them placed in the position of owners as soon as possible, and the way thrown open to other farmers to enter into voluntary agreements for the purchase of their holdings under the Act of 1903, that I commend this Instruction to the House. The Bill, as it stands, does not make for either expedition in and purchase or a settlement of the congested districts problem. If these two questions were separated, and dealt with in two distinct Bills, as I suppose, there might be a chance of getting through Parliament measures which would offer the prospect of a settlement of both problems. But if the Government adhere to the policy which is embodied in this Bill, they cannot look forward to any other result than the complete collapse of voluntary land purchase, and a renewal of agrarian strife, 1541 with all the disastrous consequences which inevitably follow from such a state of affairs. I beg to move.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)It would, of course, be impossible for the Government to accede to this Instruction, and indeed I cannot see myself what useful purpose would be served if it were passed, because, as Mr. Speaker already pointed out, the closure resolutions deal with the Bill as a whole, and allots time to this part of the Bill which deals with congestion. The only consequence of this Motion would be that after dealing with Part II. we should, instead of proceeding with Part III., go on to Part IV. It is quite impossible for the Government to recognise for a moment that it is now possible to divorce from one another the two questions—land purchase and congestion in the West. They never have been separate, and never can be considered so, and although I agree with the hon. Member that Part III. raises a difficult and important question—socially, perhaps the most important question that can possibly be raised in Ireland still they are and must be worked together in connection with land purchase. It is only by carrying out land purchase in the West that you have any chance what-ever of dealing with this problem. From the beginning of this modern land legislation in Ireland it has never been attempted to separate these two questions. The Purchase Act of 1891 dealt in Part I.
§ with land purchase generally, while under Part II. the Congested Districts Board was established, and the congested districts defined. The Land Law Act, 1896, was divided into six parts, of which Part I. is entitled "Land Law," Part II. "Land Commission and Land Judge," Part III. "Land Purchase," and Part IV. "Congested Districts Board," and under this latter part new and extensive facilities for land purchase were given to the Board. The present Bill follows closely the precedent of the Irish Land Act of 1903, of which Part I. relates to land purchase generally, and Part II. relates, exclusively, to the congested districts. Under the latter part the Board were given practically the same powers of land purchase as the Estates Commissioners. The endowment of the Board was increased, and its constitution altered. So far, therefore, from adopting an unusual course in the arrangement of the present Bill, the Government would depart from the recognised practice with regard to land purchase legislation if they were to omit from this Bill the subject of land purchase as the Estates Commisvariably been treated as a special division of the general subject of land purchase.
§ In pursuance of the Order of the House [15th June], Mr. Speaker, without permitting further debate, thereupon put the Question.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 120.
1543| Division No. 260.] | AYES. | [12.32 p.m. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kerry, Earl of |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dalrymple, Viscount | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Percy, Earl |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Renton, Leslie |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Du Cros, Arthur | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Fell, Arthur | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cerlile, E. Hildred | Forster, Henry William | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Foster, P. S. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon, J. | Wyndham, Rt Hon. George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Gretton, John | Younger, George |
| Clyde, James Avon | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Lonsdale and Mr. Hugh Barrie |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Cameron, Robert | Field, William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Clancy, John Joseph | Gilhooly, James |
| Barnes, G. N | Clough, William | Gill, A. H. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Clynes, J. R. | Ginnell, L. |
| Beale, W. P. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Bell, Richard | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Crean, Eugene | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Delany, William | Halpin, James |
| Boland, John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dillon, John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brigg, John | Essex, R. W. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Everett, R. Lacey | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Hazleton, Richard | Murnaghan, George | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) | Roche, Augustine (Cork) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Seddon, J. |
| Hodge, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Shackleton, David James |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Sheeny, David |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Illingworth. Percy H. | O'Doherty, Philip | Snowden, P. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Kavanagh, Walter M. | O'Dowd, John | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire). |
| Kelley, George D. | O'Grady, J. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Kettle, Thomas Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lundon, T. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | O'Shee, James John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pointer, J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Marnham, F J. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Meagher, Michael | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W R.) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Reddy, M. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Redmond, William (Clare) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ [MR. EMMOTT in the chair.]
- PART I.—LAND PURCHASE FINANCE.
- CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of amount of purchase annuity and of rate of interest payable to National Debt Commissioners.) 33,767 words, 3 divisions
-
cc1543-618