Commons Sitting of 23 November 1909

Preamble
The House reassembled, after the adjournment from Friday, 5th November.
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

EAST INDIA (STATE PRISONERS).
Address ordered for Return "showing the names of the persons in India who are now detained under the provisions of Bengal Regulation III. of 1818 and kindred regulations; their caste, race, or nationality; the grounds for their detention; the place and nature of their detention; and the date from which their detention commenced."—[Sir Henry Cotton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Duty on Imported Wines (Treaties).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what treaties with foreign countries would be affected if the present duty on imported wines was increased?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): If the hon. Member means to ask whether it would be an infringement of any treaty to increase the duties on imported wines, the answer is in the negative.

  Unrest in India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay papers before Parliament relating to the conditions of unrest in India which have been held by the Government to justify the numerous repressive measures directed during the last two years against the freedom of the Press, the right of public meeting, the right of trial by jury, and the right of the subject not to be deprived of his liberty except after sentence by a court of justice?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Will no papers be laid at any time?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I think not.

  Midnapur Conspiracy Case
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the Under-Secretary was now in a position to inform the House of the nature of the Report made by Mr. Commissioner Macpherson as to the conduct of the police

  3
  affected by the strictures of the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur conspiracy case; whether the Secretary of State is aware that the three police officers most gravely implicated have been given long leave of absence; and whether he has given his approval to this being permitted?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet received Mr. Macpherson's report. It was completed and submitted to the Government of Bengal early in November, when the local Government took special measures to expedite its examination and consideration by them. According to the information received by the Secretary of State, it is not the case that the three police officers most gravely implicated have been given long leave of absence; Mr. Hyde, superintendent of police at Midnapur, has been granted a year's leave, but he was in no way concerned, and only took charge at Midnapur in September. The deputy-superintendent and an inspector against whom allegations have been made were granted respectively three months' and one month privilege leave on the conclusion of the Commissioner's enquiry, but they are available whenever they are required.
  Sir H. COTTON: Have they returned to their duty?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have said that they are on leave at present.

  Case of Ghulam Mohammed.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information as to what steps the Government of the Punjab has taken to punish the policemen found by the sessions judge at Rawal Pindi as long ago as 12th June to have tortured by racking one Ghulam Mohammed into a confession of the crime of murder; or whether it is the intention of the Executive to take any criminal proceedings consequent upon the grave view taken by the judge on the action of the police?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has now received official information on the subject of the case referred to in the question. The sessions judge did not find it proved that Ghulam Mohammed had been tortured by the police into a confession. He said (after enumerating matters which seemed to him
  4
  suspicious) that the police investigation in the case seemed to him to call for inquiry. The Lieutenant-Governor has now made the inquiry suggested, and has come to the conclusion that the charge of torture is false, and that no blame attaches to the police.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether the judge did not say that marks were visible on the man's arms and legs, and that the man had been threatened that he would be taken back to the place where he had been formerly racked?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The judge did refer to marks on the prisoner which called for inquiry, and all the circumstances were taken into consideration in the inquiry which took place.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: By whom was the inquiry made into the conduct of the police?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: That is the same question as was put by the hon. Member in another case of torture or alleged torture, and I replied that the Lieutenant-Governor was responsible for the report.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: To what are these marks on the man's arms and legs attributed? How do they come to be present—what is the theory?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I cannot really carry in my mind the whole of the reports of these inquiries. The Executive Government went very carefully into these matters, and came to the decision which I gave to the House.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: There were marks of violence on this man said to have been produced by torture. To what are those marks attributable?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of his question.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Was the inquiry conducted in secret without opportunity of cross-examining on the evidence?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The inquiry was conducted precisely in the same way as in the other ease, and in accordance with the usual practice.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: In secret?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Lieutenant-Governor carefully examined the records in the case.

  Gulab Bano Case.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether, in regard to the Gulab Bano case, he would lay in the Library of the House a copy of the full proceedings in the trial before the sessions judge, and also a copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Robertson and Mr. Justice Rattigan reversing the judgment of the sessions judge?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: As I have already stated, I am prepared to lay on the Table a copy of the Resolution of the Punjab Government. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to present any further papers.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Has the India Office a copy of the full proceedings?
  The MASTER Of ELIBANK: The India Office has.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Then why is the House of Commons denied a copy?
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it a fact that the judges in this case indicated their intention to reply to the Resolution of the Executive, and has a reply been given?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir.

  Deportation of Mr. Lajpat Rai.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware of the statement made to the jury by the judge in the recent libel case brought by Mr. Lajpat Rai against a London paper, that the plaintiff had been deported by Lord Morley, in whom the public had great confidence; and whether, in view of the fact that the deportation had been thus used to the detriment of the plaintiff, the Secretary of State will now enable Mr. Lajpat Rai to meet such a reflection upon his character by informing him of the grounds upon which he was deported, and who were his accusers?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen a report of the proceedings in the case referred to. He sees no reason to take the action suggested.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Is it fair and honourable that this man should not have the opportunity?

  Unemployment Statistics.
  Mr. LEVY LEVERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are statistics in his Department showing that there are countries where unemployment
  6
  does not exist; and, if so, will he enumerate them?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I know of no such statistics or country.

  Importation of Foreign-made Porcelain.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the importation into this country of foreign-made porcelain with well-known trade marks of English firms printed upon the same; whether he has any power to prosecute and punish those who perpetrate such frauds; and, if not, will he seek powers to at once do so?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Only one case of attempted importation into the United Kingdom of foreign-made porcelain bearing a trade mark of an English firm has been reported during the last twelve months, and in this case the goods were refused admission. The Merchandise Marks Acts provide for the prohibition of the importation of goods bearing forged trade marks and also for the imposition of penalties upon persons selling or having in their possession for sale goods so marked. The Board of Trade may undertake prosecutions in cases of this sort which appear to them to affect the general interests of a section of the community or of a particular trade. If my hon. Friend has in his possession any information regarding the existence of such a practice as that to which he refers I shall be glad to receive and consider it.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his officers have directed his attention to the peculiar method of enamelling porcelain, giving the foreign marks, and so that the enamel can be rubbed off directly it passes the Customs and sold with the English trade mark attached to it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but if my hon. Friend would like to have an opportunity of explaining the process, and of giving the evidence to an expert, I will arrange that he has the fullest opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have one in my possession which will provide a sample of the process, and I will present it to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Vatersay (Scheme of Settlement).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is now in a position to state

  7
  when the Congested Districts Board's scheme of settlement for Vatersay is likely to be completed; would he state the number of squatters at present on the island and the number of their children for whom no education is provided?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I trust that the scheme of settlement may be satisfactorily adjusted by the end of this month. About 60 persons with their dependents are at present on the island and the plans proposed for a school provide accommodation for 100 children.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Can he say the percentage of squatters who have been imported from the mainland?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Crofters and Deer Forests.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that crofters in the Highland crofting counties suffer serious loss through deer from the adjoining deer forests devastating their crops, and seeing that these crofters owing to want of means Are not in a position to take action for the recovery of compensation, will the Government arrange to take proceedings to enforce Clause 2 of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, which provides for compensation for damage to crops by deer?
  Mr. URE: The answer is in the negative.

  Herring Fishery (Scotland).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Lord Advocate whether, in the event of a Commissioner being sent to inquire into matters affecting the herring fishery in Scotland, he will see that special attention is given to the question of the advisability of establishing a close-time for herrings?
  Mr. URE: There is no present intention to make a special inquiry into the matters referred to by my hon. Friend.

  National Harbour, Dover (Accidents to Workmen).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of accidents occurring to workmen employed upon the new national harbour, Dover, during the whole period of its construction, giving the fatal accidents separately?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The following figures have been supplied
  8
  to me by the contractors through the Admiralty:—The number of non-fatal accidents from the commencement of the works in February, 1898, to the 1st of the present month was 2,690; of these, 1,001 involved no absence from work or absence for not more than one week, 1,115 involved absence for more than one week and less than four; 424 for more than four and less than 12, 109 for more than 12 and less than 26; leaving 41 in which the absence lasted more than 26 weeks. The number of deaths and fatal accidents that have occurred on the works is 36, of which 10 are stated not to have been accidents due to the nature of the work. The weekly average number employed during the whole period has been 1,017.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the statement issued by the contractors on the day of the opening ceremony that there had been no fatal accidents?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have not seen that statement. I have given the answer supplied.
  Mr. J. WARD: It was in consequence of that statement I put the Question.

  Closing of Public-houses (Staffordshire).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked what number of licensed houses have been closed under the Licensing Act, 1904, in the county of Staffordshire during the years 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908; what was the total sum paid in compensation for such closing; and what sum was paid to the licence holders and what sum to other parties?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: All the information desired by the hon. "Member is to be found in the volumes of licensing statistics for each of the years in question. It cannot conveniently be compressed into an answer to a question, except perhaps that I may give the grand totals for the four years, namely: In the whole county of Stafford, including the county boroughs therein, 231 on-licences have been extinguished under the compensation provisions of the Act of 1904 at a total cost of £151,854, of which £9,080 13s. 6d. went to the licensees and £142,773 6s. 6d. to other parties.

  Newport Dock Works (Accident).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to an accident by which a boy, named Richard Smith, was killed on the new dock works at Newport (Mon.) on 21st October

  9
  last; whether the boy was killed by an engine running over level ground, the driver of which could see anything on the line at least 100 yards ahead; what was the speed of the engine at the time of the accident; and whether, in view of the fact that this man has been warned by the coroner for his share in a similar previous fatality, he will place the evidence before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to further proceedings.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiries with regard to this accident. It happened on a straight piece of line, but on the side from which the boy approached there was a ganger's cabin close to the line which to some extent intercepted the view. The coroner informs me that the statement that the driver had previously been warned by him for his share m another similar fatality is a mistake; so far as he is aware, the driver has not been in an accident of the kind before. He is of opinion that there is no evidence of negligence which would justify proceedings against the driver.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Clothing Supplies.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the advertisement inviting tenders for the supply of cloth, tartan, tweed, etc., for the Royal Irish Constabulary, in which it is stated that patterns and specifications of the various kinds of materials can be inspected at the Royal Army Clothing Department, Gros-venor-road, London, and the Chambers of Commerce at Bradford, Galashiels, Halifax, Huddersfield, Leeds, and Bristol; why no mention is made of the Dublin or Belfast Chambers of Commerce; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Irish firms are given facilities for tendering for materials required by the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): My right hon. Friend has already pointed out in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, on 25th October last, that there would be no increase of convenience to intending contractors in having patterns and specifications left at the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, as they can be inspected at the office of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is close by. The contracts for 1910 have already been made, but as regards future years the constabulary authorities see no objection
  10
  to furnishing the patterns to the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and they understand that the Chamber is willing to receive and exhibit them. Instructions have been given that this shall be done.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Does that apply to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is not necessary, because the head office is so close and it is quite sufficient to have it there.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Belfast was excluded this year?
  Mr. CHERRY: The only reason why Belfast was excluded was because it was not considered likely that contractors in Belfast would tender. There is no clothing manufacture of the kind in Belfast.
  Mr. MOORE: Why then, if that is so, is it intended to include Belfast next year?
  Mr. CHERRY: Because Belfast seems to wish it.

  Wren and Stokes Estates (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked what steps have the Estates Commissioners taken to reinstate Mrs. John Cormody, an evicted tenant on the Wren and Stokes estate, in North Kerry?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case, and have found that there was no eviction. The applicant's uncle, by arrangement with her mother, went into occupation of the holding giving her mother a freehold of the house and 5 acres free of rent in exchange. This freehold has been held by applicant for 23 years.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The information I have is that there was an eviction in this ease, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Estates Commissioners to inquire again into it?
  Mr. CHERRY: If the hon. Gentleman will supply information to the Estates Commissioners which will tend to show that the report is incorrect, I am quite sure they will inquire into the matter fully again.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I will forward the information I have at my disposal.

  Ormathwaite Estate (Case of Michael Mulvihill).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say why Michael

  11
  Mulvihill, of Shroneowen, an evicted tenant on the Ormathwaite estate, has not been reinstated in his holding?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have acquired certain lands on Lord Ormathwaite's estate with a view to providing holdings for three tenants evicted from the estate, including the man referred to in the question, but he has refused to purchase the lands offered to him by the Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale of the estate was agreed to on a promise on behalf of the landlord that he would reinstate all those tenants, and that the agent of the landlord consented to that course?
  Mr. CHERRY: I understand that that is so, but a dispute arose as to what was the holding of this particular tenant. That was as to mountain land, which the landlord said had never belonged to the holding. A compromise was arranged by the agent that portion of the mountain land should be added to the low lying portion of the holding, but the man refused to take that.

  Grants to Reinstated Tenants (Case of John Diggins).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say when John Diggins, an evicted tenant at Ballyline, near Ballylongford, was reinstated; whether any grant of money was given to him to buy stock and build houses; and, if not, will he say why this was not done, in view of this man's circumstances?
  Mr. CHERRY: I understand that this man was reinstated in May last. The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an advance in his case for the erection of buildings and a free grant for the purchase of live-stock, and have directed one of their inspectors to arrange for the expenditure of the money as soon as possible.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that money will be expended? He has been reinstated since May and has not received anything yet.
  Mr. CHERRY: I really could not say. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are thousands of those cases and they must be dealt with in their order.

  Hussey Estate, North Kerry.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he could say if the Hussey estate,
  12
  situate near Duagh, North Kerry, was offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and whether the estate was inspected; and, if so, what was the result of the inspection?
  Mr. CHERRY: The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Estates Commissioners. The property has been inspected, and an offer has been made which has not yet been accepted.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Pending completion of the sale, will the Estates Commissioners see that the landlord does not proceed against the tenants for a year's rent where an agreement has been come to?
  Mr. CHERRY: Not having agreed to sell, the landlord has all the rights of a landlord as against the tenants. We cannot compel him to accept the offer.
  Mr. FLAVIN: But pending an agreement, will the Estates Commissioners get the landlord to abstain from proceeding for recovery of arrears?
  Mr. CHERRY: It would not be at all convenient for the Estates Commissioners to interfere with the landlord in the exercise of his rights. If the landlord enters into an agreement to sell, I am sure nothing will be done pending the completion of the sale.

  Intermediate Education Board, Ireland (Awards).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the intermediate Board for the first 25 years of its existence, when publishing the exhibition and prize lists, always gave after the students' names the total marks which counted for these awards; and whether, seeing that teachers, parents, and pupils were desirous of having these totals published, he would request the Intermediate Board to supply this information for the last and for all future examinations?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education that the Board published the marks awarded to exhibition and prize winners up to i906, save in the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, when no exhibition or prize lists were published. Since 1906 the exhibition and prize lists have, in pursuance of a resolution of the Board, been published without the total marks, but teachers, parents, or pupils, desiring to know the totals counting towards exhibitions can obtain the detailed marks awarded at the examination.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that over 40 students in the Irish division of the modern literary course in the recent intermediate examinations scored higher marks for exhibitions or prizes than students in the German division of this course, and yet got lower exhibitions and prizes than the students in the German division; and whether he would circulate with the Votes a list of those students in the Irish division, containing their examination number and their net total of marks which counts for exhibitions and prizes.
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners; of Intermediate Education that at the recent examinations in the modern literary course nineteen boys scored higher marks for exhibitions and prizes in Division I. than were scored by boys in Division II. and were nevertheless awarded lower exhibitions or prizes. The exact opposite happened among the girls, live of whom scored higher marks in Division II. than were scored by girls in Division I. yet obtained lower exhibitions or prizes. I understand that the Board resolved in 1906 not to publish the total marks with the exhibition and prizes lists so that I am not in a position to publish the list for which the hon. Member asks.

  Territorial Force (Vaccination).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether the exemption of the Territorial Force from compulsory vaccination had had any effects detrimental to the health of the men; and, if not, whether he would issue orders to respect the conscience in this matter of recruits to both branches of His Majesty's Forces?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): No statistics are available at the War Office to enable me to reply to the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, there is no intention of waiving the Regulations regarding vaccination in the Regular Forces.

  Commissioned Officers in India (Pay).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he vas aware that the pay of the captains and subalterns of the British Army serving in India was about 40 per cent, less than that of their fellow officers serving in the Indian Army; and whether the question of the pay of the lower ranks of commissioned officers was engaging the attention of the Army Council.
  Mr. ACLAND: It is not at present proposed by the Indian Government to make any change in the relative rates of pay. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

  Natives of India (Designation for Trade Purposes).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Government of India had taken any action on the memorandum received from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce concerning the adoption by natives of India of the names of natives of Europe for trade purposes?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Bombay Chamber of Commerce has addressed the Government of Bombay, not the Government of India, on the subject. So far as I am aware, the Government of Bombay have come to no conclusions regarding it. I understand that it is engaging the attention of other chambers and associations, European and Indian, who are equally interested.

  India (Police and Public).
  Mr. REESasked whether any statistics were available by comparison with which the work of the Indian police might be compared with that of the police of other Governments and Administrations in Asia; whether the British system which had been as far as possible introduced into India depends to a great extent upon the co-operation of the educated classes; and whether the police reports last received from Bengal and the Punjab indicated that such co-operation was wanting?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is not aware of any statistics of police work in other Administrations in Asia which are comparable with those of India.

  Lala Lajpat Rai (Deportation).
  Mr. REESasked whether Lala Lajpat Rai was deported by the Secretary of State as stated by the judge in a recent libel case tried in London; or whether the Secretary of State for India supported the action taken in this behalf by the Governor-General of India in Council.
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Lala Lajpat Rai was dealt with by the Government of India, not by the Secretary of State, under Regulation III. of 1818. The Secretary of State supported the action of the Governor-General in Council.

  Uganda Railway (Extension).
  Mr. REESasked whether the extension of the Uganda Railway from Victoria Nyanza to Albert Nyanza had been sanctioned or was contemplated?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The question of constructing a short line of railway from Jinja on the Victoria Nyanza to a place on the Nile some 40 miles below the Ripon Falls is under consideration, but it has not yet reached the stage at which a definite decision can be given in the matter. This is the only extension which is contemplated at present.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. John Murphy)asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that pension officers in Killarney and various other districts throughout the country were raising objections against pensioners who passed as eligible for pensions nine months ago on foot of Census Returns, which were cleanly incorrect and unreliable; whether they were being assisted in their efforts to deprive Irish pensioners of their allowances by the Irish Local Government Board; whether he was aware that local pension committees were largely disregarded by both pension officers and the Local Government Board; and whether he had made any inquiries on the subject with the view of safeguarding the interests of Irish pensioners and removing the anxiety caused by the recent methods adopted?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is the duty of the pension officers under the Old Age Pensions Act and the regulations there under to raise questions as to the continuance of pensions in all cases in which they consider that the statutory qualifications do not continue to be fulfilled, and the Local Government Board are bound by law to adjudicate upon the questions so raised. I understand that the observations of the pensions committee on each case are fully considered by the pension officer and the Local Government Board. I am not in a position to judge as to the accuracy or otherwise of the Census Returns, but I would point out that if they have been accepted as evidence to disqualify for pensions, they have, on the other hand, been the means of admitting thousands to the benefit of the Act, who, without such evidence, would have been unable to establish their claims.

  Governor General of India (Attempted Assassination).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Under-Secretary for India could give the House any information regarding the recent attempt on the life of Lord Minto?
  The MASTER OF ELIBANK: The reports that have appeared in the newspapers concerning this outrage, happily unsuccessful, are substantially accurate, and I have no further information to give to the House.

  Liverpool Disturbances (Imprisonment of Mr. G. Wise).
  Mr. MARTHURasked whether the Home Secretary had considered the representations made to him in favour of the release of Mr. George Wise from Walton Gaol, Liverpool; and whether he had arrived at a decision in the matter?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I hope that the Royal Assent will be given to the Police (Liverpool Inquiry) Bill on Friday next, and I shall then be able to announce the Commissioner's name; and, when he has been appointed, I shall be in a position to take such action in Mr. Wise's case as may be deemed necessary or expedient in the interests of the inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Can the Prime Minister tell us the intended course of business to-day and for the remainder of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith); TO-DAY (Tuesday): Irish Land Bill (Lords Amendments).
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (Committee), if possible, at a reasonable hour
Trustees Accounts Bill (Third Reading).
Wednesday: Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill (Lords Amendments).
Assurance Companies Bill (Committee).
Asylum Officers (Superannuation) Bill (Lords Amendments).
Naval Discipline Bill.
Police (Weekly Holiday) Bill.
Thursday: Housing and Town Planning Bill (Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments).
Small Dwelling-Houses, etc. (Scotland) Bill (Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments).
Friday (if not taken before by consent): Assurance Bill (Report and Third Reading).
Temperance (Scotland) Bill).
In regard to the business of a non-controversial character, alterations may be made as to the exact order.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what procedure it is proposed to take the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, since the Order is not on the Paper; and also, what he regards as a "reasonable hour?"
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the Lords Amendments by Motion. As to a "reasonable hour," I cannot give an exact time, but it will be an hour that is generally regarded as reasonable.
Sir F. BANBURY: Can a Motion be taken if no notice has been given?
Mr. SPEAKER: A Motion to consider Lords Amendments can be taken.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What business is it proposed to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: That depends on circumstances.
New Member Swobx.—Charles O'Neill, esquire, for the Division of North Armagh, in room of William McKillop, deceased.

IRISH LAND BILL.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I now move, "That the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, in lieu of the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed, be considered forthwith."
I might perhaps say, as the House was not sitting, that it was impossible to give notice of this business as would otherwise have been done.
Mr. MOORE: I think it will be in the recollection of the House that on the last occasion on which the Amendments to this Bill were before the House for its consideration that, the right hon. Gentleman got up and moved that they be rejected en bloc. Before we discuss these Amendments I think the House is entitled to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how they have been arrived at. Do they represent the agreement that he foreshadowed might take place? If these Amendments
18
are put forward by the Government as the result of compromise on each side it is obvious that the tone in which they will be discussed in this House will be very different to what it otherwise would be. Are these Amendments the result of the various negotiations which have been proceeding since this House last met, and by a majority decided to reject the Lords Amendments en bloc? I ask this because it is obvious that there has been a good deal of give-and-take in the Amendments Those who oppose the Bill have given up a good deal; on the other hand, there have been some slight concessions made on the part of the Government. I want to understand before we begin this Debate on which of these Amendments are the Government going to take up the position that they adhere to all the surrenders made by the opponents of the Bill, and at the same time are unwilling to stand by the concessions which they granted during the progress of the negotiations?
Mr. BIRRELL: I should have thought that a gentleman of the political sagacity of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have required enlightenment by the information that he seeks. If he examines the Paper I think he will see that certain Amendments are down in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, and he will not therefore be surprised if these are the Amendments which I shall ask him and this House to adopt. On the other Amendments not down in the name of any Member of the Government, but in the names of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Atkinson, he will not, I should imagine, be surprised to hear that on these subjects that the agreement to which he refers has not been arrived at.
Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND BILL.
  Lords Amendments (in lieu of those disagreed to by the Commons) considered.
  LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Clause 3.—(Power to Make Advances by Guaranteed Stock under Certain Circumstances.)
    Lords Amendment: At end of Clause insert:—

    Clause A.—(Regulations as to Priority.)
    (1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by means of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned or made, and

    19
    for allocating as between different classes of sales the amounts from time to time suitable for advances.
    (2) The regulations shall provide that in determining the priority as between sales of the same class regard shall be had —so far as is reasonably practicable—to the dates at which proceedings for the respective sales were commenced, or, in cases where proceedings are transferred from one class to another, to the dates of the respective transfers.
    (3) Every regulation made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It is a business matter. I think this Amendment meets the necessities of the case. I move.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11 —(Substituted Agreements.)
    (1) Where by reason of the death of the purchaser or the transmission of the purchaser's interest in a holding, or in pursuance of a declaration of the Land Commission under Section fifteen of the Act of 1903 with respect to a sub-tenancy or a sub-divided holding, a fresh purchase agreement is entered into in substitution for an original purchase agreement previously made, any such fresh agreement shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be substituted for the original agreement, and, whenever lodged with the Land Commission, to have been lodged with the Land Commission at the date on which the original agreement was so lodged.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) after the word "holding" ["or a subdivided holding "] to insert the words "or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the. Lords in the said Amendment." This is a technical matter, and it is to provide for additional cases where further purchase agreements are necessitated owing to the direction of the Land Commission.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," put, and Agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

    (a) The expression "pending purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;

    (b) The expression "future purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission or entered into by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board after that date:

    Provided that purchase agreements entered into at any time on the re-sale by the Land Commission or Congested Districts Board—

    (i) of land purchased or agreed to be purchased by them on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine; or

    (ii) of land being land in respect of which or comprised in an estate in respect of which a purchase agreement, though not actually entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight, is deemed for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the percentage payable under the Act of 1903, to have been entered into on or before that date;

    shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as pending purchase agreements and not as future purchase agreements;
    Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a), after the word "Commission" ["with the Land Commission or"], insert the words "or the Land Judge."
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Before this Amendment is put may I call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that it brings us down to line 13 of Clause 12, and before that line there is the question of a date which the Chief Secretary, I understood, both in the Committee and on Report, agreed would be altered.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing before the House.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to refer to an Amendment consequential on the Lords Amendment, and which cannot be made afterwards. The right hon. Gentle-

    21
    man, the Chief Secretary, I understood, promised to alter the date from the 15th September to that of "the passing of this Act"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not before the House.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I suggest, as it is a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment, I am entitled to put a question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: A consequential Amendment to which Lords Amendment?
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It results from the whole of them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That will not do. I think we will follow the regular course that when an Amendment is made which leads to a consequential Amendment we will consider it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." It, and the two following, are purely drafting Amendments.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I have no objection whatever to an Amendment of this kind being adopted, but I suggest that in its present form it is technically wrong. It conveys that the purchase agreements are entered with the Land Judge or by the Land Judge. That is not so. The Land Judge never himself enters into an agreement to sell; neither does he enter into an agreement with the tenant to buy. I suggest that the proper form that the Amendment should take would be to insert after the words "Congested Districts Board" in paragraph (a), the words "or approved by the Land Judge on or before that date." The Land Judge himself never enters into an agreement to buy an estate; he sanctions the agreement to sell the estate to the Estate Commissioners or he sanctions a series of agreements which the tenants are to enter into with the landlord. According to the words on the Paper, there must be an actual agreement entered into by the Land Judge or with the Land Judge. That is really never done. I therefore propose to add after the words "Congested Districts Board" in paragraph (a) of Clause 12 ["or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board"] the words "or approved by the Land Judge on or before that date."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first thing the hon. Member will have to do is to negative the
    22
    proposal to agree with the Lords Amendment. He can then move his Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that it is not the practice of the Land Judge to enter into agreements with tenants to sell, but I understand under the Acts it is within his power to do so. I think under one of the earlier Acts it is in the power of the Land Judge to do so if he wishes.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: He has not done so.
    Mr. CHERRY: I agree, but that is no reason why we should not provide for it. We are of opinion that these words in the Lords Amendment are unnecessary, and that the clause as originally drafted is sufficient to cover all possible cases, but if there is any possible case that might be excluded that is covered by the words in the Lords Amendment we have no objection to them. The alternative Amendment which the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) suggests is one to which the Government would object; "approved" is such a vague term. We have a definite period in this Clause for allowing agreements with the Land Commission or being entered into by the Land Commission, and the result of the hon. Member's Amendment would be to substitute the words "approved by the Land Judge" for the effective and definite phrase in the Bill. I ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment; it cannot possibly do any injury, and it may possibly do some good.
    Mr. MOORE: I never heard a more ridiculous proposition, if I may say so, than that contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. His argument is that the Land Judge has powers under previous statutes to enter into these agreements, and in the same breath he says he never exercised them. This is not a question of the future with which we are dealing; it is a question of something that has been done, because unless the agreements are approved before 15th September, the Clause is no use whatsoever, and the Attorney-General tells us he has not approved of any agreement before 15th September.
    Mr. CHERRY: So far as I know.
    Mr. MOORE: I quite accept that, everyone knows he has not; he has not approved of any of these agreements prior to 15th September last. Yet we are going to put his name into a Clause for

    23
    agreements in which may approve of. If this was legislation for a future date the Attorney-General would be perfectly right, but you are dealing here with lots of people dependant upon a past state of facts, and the Attorney-General has admitted the Land Judge has never entered into an agreement. Will the Attorney-General tell us what class of agreements this is to apply to?
    Mr. JOHN DILLON: It is certainly most cheerful to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore). The hon. Member for North Armagh practically announces that this is an idiotic Amendment. Seeing the source of that Amendment, I do not wonder. It is a House of Lords Amendment, and it is a most edifying spectacle to hear the hon. and learned Member denouncing it as idiotic.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Paragraph (b) after the word1 "by" ["entered into by the Land Commission"] insert "or with."
    After the word "Commission" ["entered into by the Land Commission"] insert "or the Land Judge."

  PART II.—LAND PURCHASE.

    Clause 14.—(Exclusion from Provisions as to Zones.)
    (1) Where after the passing of this Act application is made under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Act of 1903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, if the Land Commission are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price, they may by order declare that the provisions of the said Sub-section shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly in like manner as if those provisions had not been complied with.
    (2) The Judicial Commissioner and the Estates Commissioners may make rules under Section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 providing for the furnishing of such particulars with respect to rent and arrears and of such information with regard to the estate as may appear necessary for the purposes of this Section and for the verification of the particulars and
    24
    information in such manner as they think fit.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price," and insert instead thereof the words "by means of the existence of arrears of rent owed by the tenant undue influence was exercised by the landlord to induce the tenant to enter into the purchase agreement and the security for the advance might in consequence be insufficient."
    At the end of same Sub-section insert, "(2) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission under this Section may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, and in such case the order shall not have effect unless and until it is approved by the Judicial Commissioner."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
    Those who followed these proceedings will recognise that we are now dealing with Clause 14, which raises the controversial question of the zones. Controversy has arisen as to the meaning of the words of the Clause. Rt. hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite said they destroy the zones altogether, and hon. Members for Ireland sitting below the Gangway said that was a consummation most devoutly to be wished for. I come to the conclusion that they did not abolish the zones at all, but that they modified them in certain cases, such as enabling the Estates Commissioners in certain circumstances, notwithstanding that an agreement had been entered into within the zones between the landlord and the tenants, to make inquiry into a transaction in which the State is so largely concerned, being the mortgagee advancing the whole of the purchase money. The House of Lords, first of all, omitted the Clause altogether and then they proceeded to amend it by inserting Amendments which were placed upon the Paper by Lord Lansdowne. I have considered these Amendments most carefully with the Estates Commissioners, and they are of opinion that they would sooner not have them. We fear, what I recognise would be a great disadvantage, the danger of throwing a doubt upon the title between the landlords and tenants until some time

    25
    at all events had elapsed for the purpose of seeing whether the Estates Commissioners were going to exercise the power conferred upon them by the Amendment. I have, therefore, had to consider the course to adopt in this matter, and I am most reluctant to abandon the words in the Clause as originally drafted and passed by this House, which, in my opinion, were wise and proper words giving a discretion to men well qualified to exercise it when they were satisfied that circumstances existed which amounted to an injury to the carrying out of those transactions. I grieve very much for the loss of those words. I have, however, no desire to insert words which would be nugatory, and which might do a maximum of harm and no good. The harm would be to throw a cloud of doubt upon a transaction between landlord and tenant, whilst the object, which is the prevention of certain frauds which cannot be achieved in the ordinary course because the tenant who can lodge the proofs is well satisfied with the result of his bargain, namely, the advance by the State of the whole amount of his purchase money. You cannot get a man of that sort to come into court and say that he has been put under duress and undue influence. These persons do not want to upset the bargain, and the only persons who want to do this are those interested in seeing that a poor man has not been induced, under pressure of arrears of rent from which he has been excused, to enter into a bargain which from the point of view of the man who advances the money is an unreasonable one. I do not want a worthless or nugatory Amendment introduced into this Clause, and rather than have any more bones about it, I move to disagree with the Lords in these two Amendments, and T move the following Amendment, namely, to leave Clause 14 out altogether.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I wish at the earliest possible moment to enter on behalf of my colleagues and myself a protest against the course which the Chief Secretary has indicated. So far as the particular Amendment on the Paper is concerned which the right hon. Gentleman is moving to disagree with, we approve of his action. He is right in saying that the Amendment on the Paper would be a ridiculous and harmful one, and it would be better to have no Amendment at all. The Chief Secretary went on to say that, in obedience to the pressure of the House of Lords, he is going to give up altogether
    26
    the provision with reference to the zones which appeared in his Bill. For the benefit of English Members let me recall, in a few brief words, the history of this matter. Does every hon. Member who is listening to me know what the zones mean? They mean that in a certain class of cases, where the reduction obtained on the annual payment of the annuity by the tenant falls within a certain limit, the Estates Commissioners are forbidden to inquire into the equity of the price obtained or the value of the security. Looking at it from a purely British point of view, the result is, if landlords or tenants—either from some fraudulent agreement or as the result of pressure of arrears of rent, the threat of the destruction of the interests of the tenant, and so forth—can be got to agree to a price which is ridiculously above what is fair, then the British tax-payer is forced to advance the whole of that money without any inquiry whatever.
    That system in Ireland has worked disastrously against the interest of the tenant, and it has been one of the chief means of the extraordinary inflation of price in Irish land. It has reduced tenants who had large arrears of rent into a position of absolute helplessness when entering into bargains with their landlords, because they have had to act under duress. Cases have been brought forward in the courts where it has been proved that under the operation of this system prices were agreed to and went through, owing to the state of the law, which were ridiculously above the value of the holdings, and where the security was not adequate for the amount advanced; and yet by the law these transactions were forced to go through. That is what the zones mean. We demanded the abolition of the zones, and we contended that the case for their abolition was complete from the Irish point of view and from the point of view of the Treasury and British interests. Accordingly we proposed, in the Land Bill we introduced before this one was introduced, entirely to abolish the zone system, and we pressed our view upon the Government. We could not, however, get the right hon. Gentleman to go the whole way with us. We could not get him to abolish the zones, and we protested that the Clause was not strong enough and did not go far enough.
    What was the right hon. Gentleman's Clause? He would not abolish the system, but he gave the Estates Commissioners power wherever they had reason to think, and were satisfied that circumcumstances existed which in their opinion

    27
    necessitated inquiry into the security for the advance and the equity of the price, to exercise a discretion in every case of holding such an inquiry. That did not satisfy us, but surely, from everyone's point of view, it was a most moderate and reasonable proposal. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and in obedience to the pressure of Irish landlords he gives up the entire Clause. He rightly says their Amendment is no good, but after disagreeing with that Amendment he is going to give up the whole Clause. I have risen at once to protest against this course in the name of my colleagues, because I am sure it will be received in Ireland with the greatest disappointment and dissatisfaction. This is one of the vital points in the Bill so far as we are concerned, and I can only say that I have heard with deep regret and disappointment the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I am in favour of the Motion to disagree with this Amendment, but when the right hon. Gentleman moves to omit the Clause altogether my colleagues and I will certainly go into the Division Lobby against him.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: We take a different view to that adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and we think it is a much more satisfactory arrangement to leave this question of the zones alone. I know the Government and the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford take a totally different view of the advantages to be obtained by this Clause. The Chief Secretary has spoken of this Clause as affording protection to the Treasury, but the hon. and learned member has made it clear that his object and the object of his friends is to damage or weaken the principle of the zones as provided for in the original Act.
    We contended all through that the Clause, as originally framed, would practically destroy the zones. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) hove both spoken again to-day of cases where arrears are piled up and where therefore injury is done either by making the tenant pay too much or by imperilling the credit of the Treasury. The most remarkable thing is that in all the Debates in this House and in another place, the Government have failed, although they have been challenged repeatedly, to produce cases in support of
    28
    the theory they advance, that this piling up of arrears is an evil which ought to be prevented. The learned Attorney-General dissents. Will he tell us whether there was more than one case quoted, either in this House or in the other House, and, if so, what those cases were? There was one case given in this House, and the same case was quoted in the other place. I do not recollect any other case being given. The same general remarks were made; but, although we have repeatedly asked for evidence by the citation of cases in support of the arguments of the Government, they have failed to produce such evidence. In these circumstances I do not wonder they have failed to maintain the position they originally took up. I confess I do-not quite understand why the Chief Secretary regards the Amendment of the House of Lords as being so futile; but, if that is his view, and if he prefers to remove the Clause altogether, we shall offer no opposition to the course he proposes to take.
    Mr. DILLON: I agree with the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) that this is an idiotic Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that the Amendment put in by the House of Lords would render the law worse than it now stands. We are therefore entirely with him in rejecting the Amendment from which he proposes to dissent. But when we come to the subsequent policy of giving up the very insufficient and moderate Clause inserted in the original Bill, then we are entirely and most emphatically opposed to it. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion on this question of the zones and their effects. The matter has been for a long time debated in Ireland, and, so far as those are concerned for whom I speak, public opinion in Ireland is crystallised and settled upon the subject. I was very much struck and edified by the expression used by Lord Lansdowne in another place when moving this Amendment and protesting against any interference with the zones. He said:
    "This provision of the zones is the Ark of the Covenant, and no one must lay disrespectful hands upon it."
    Yes, it is the Ark of the Covenant, and it is valued by the Irish landlords, because they know very well the number of fraudulent cases they have passed through in connection with the zones, and that they have collared hundreds and thousands of pounds which ought never to have been advanced

    29
    to the injury of the taxpayers of this country, and also to the injury of the unfortunate tenants. The right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) said there was a difference of opinion and of point of view between the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). The Chief Secretary spoke in the interests of the taxpayers, and the hon. Member for Waterford spoke in the interests of the tenants. In this particular instance the interests of the taxpayers and of the tenants coincide, because it is to the interest of the tenant to be protected against being squeezed into agreeing to an extravagant price, and it is to the interest of the taxpayer not to have his money advanced where there is no adequate security for repayment; and there never was a device invented by the Irish landlords which has had more disastrous effects upon the tenants of Ireland than this provision of the zones. I frankly confess that in resisting, as I do with all my strength and as emphatically as I can, the proposal of the Government to waive their Clause, I am actuated mainly, not by consideration for the interests of the taxpayers, although that is an interest which affects Ireland as well as this country, but by consideration for the interests of the tenants. I say that under the old Purchase Acts which were in operation in Ireland till the Act of 1903, there was no more important provision for the protection of tenants against having forced upon them unfair bargains by pressure of arrears or innumerable other means. There were no means more effective than this very point of requiring inspection for security. The hon. Member for South Dublin challenged the Government to say if it was not a fact that in all the discussions that have taken place there was only one case mentioned where pressure of arrears was made use of by an Irish landlord to put up the price. I will satisfy the right, hon. Gentleman that we can mention so many cases that I would be ashamed to take up so much time, but, as we have been challenged, it is absolutely essential that I should mention a sample of the long list of cases I could lay before the House if I had no regard at all for time. Before I come to these cases let me mention the only argument ever put forward for the zones. It is that they facilitate and expedite sales. We are told they expedite sales because they do away with the necessity of inspection. That has been repeated ad nauseam in this House and has been believed by people not acquainted
    30
    with the process of sales to tenants in Ireland. Let me read one or two sentences from the evidence given before the Dudley Commission in answer to that statement. This is the evidence of Mr. Bailey:—
    "The Chairman: Just as a matter of information, have you found that sales have been quickened since the adoption of the system?—One of the great arguments in favour of the zones was that by abolishing inspection a case would go through much quicker. As a matter of fact, we have to inspect even zone cases for certain purposes, such as boundaries, occupation, etc, and my own opinion is that the abolition of inspection does not really enable the case to go through much faster."
    There is the opinion of a man who, above all others, should know. He goes on to say:—
    "We have still to inspect."
    Anyone acquainted with the work of these cases knows that inspection for occupation and boundaries takes as much time as inspection for security. You can inspect for security at the same time.
    "Mr. O'Kelly: One of the reasons given for abolishing inspection, was that delays would lie avoided, and you say that result has not been achieved?—I said we have to inspect to see whether the tenant is in occupation, or whether the boundaries are correct."
    Then Mr. Bailey is asked whether, in his judgment, the existence of the zone system has any effect upon the prices given for Irish land. He answers:—
    "There need be no hesitation in answering the question. A system which enables holdings to go through without inspection, some of which holdings would not clearly pass if there were inspection, must result in higher prices."
    He was than pressed a great deal by other members of the Commission whether it was his deliberate opinion that that was frequently the case, and, in many answers, he said he believed it was very frequently the case:—
    "Sir John Colomb: On what do you found the strong statement that they would not have gone through if there had been inspection of these properties?—In this way. There have been a very large number of cases brought into us as a non-zone cases; cases in which there were no judicial rents, and we have got. them inspected as non-zone cases. Afterwards the parties found out that they made a mistake. When we have inspected and cut down advances to what we consider security, it was then found these were zone cases' —cases in which the fair rent had been fixed and consequently, the property having been declared an estate, we are obliged to make the advance, it being within the zone, although we had come to the conclusion after the inspection that the price asked for was not secured."
    4.0. P. M.
    That has occurred over and over again. The money of the State, by the admission of their own Estates Commissioner, is being advanced in hundreds of thousands of cases in Ireland, where there is not adequate security for the money. I say to propose, as a remedy for this, the

    31
    ridiculous Amendments the Lords have brought forward, that where duress or pressure have been exercised, then, forsooth, the tenant who has been subjected to this duress, and has thereby escaped from eviction or seizure, is to proceed by way of appeal, is most ludicrous. It is a contradiction in terms. I have been challenged by the right hon. Gentleman to mention other cases. I could advance dozens of cases. If the Kinvarra case had stood alone, the mere fact that such a case could occur under the zone system ought to determine this House to abolish that system altogether. The greater part of the cases where this zone system has worked evil, both for the Treasury and for the tenant, never come before the public at all. It is only exceptional cases which come into the courts, and, therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the few cases which incidentally become public stand by themselves. As a matter of fact, they represent the great majority of the cases. I will take the Clinton case. Mr. Bailey describes this in these words:—
    "The owners there offered first for wile at 24 years' purchase. Subsequently they reduced their offer to about 22 years' purchase. The tenants offered 19 or 19½ years' purchase, and then the case was brought by both sides before us to try and effect a settlement."
    Why was it brought before the Commissioners? It was because the police had been mobilised to evict the tenants, and the tenants had been mobilised in order to resist the police, and with a view to avoiding a pitched battle both sides were persuaded to agree to the arbitrament of the Estates Commissioners. Mr. Bailey goes on to say:—
    "We got a very careful inspection made. The result of the inspection was rather remarkable because we found that the tenants on it had to be graded into a very large number of classes. The estate was in a fore part of West Cork, running up the side of Hungry Hill. In grading the holdings, 20 years' purchase of the judicial rent was fixed on one class. 19 on another, 17 on another, and we actually had some holdings on which we could not sanction advances of more than 12 years' purchase. There were a couple of cases where the tenants were actually in receipt of outdoor relief and we could not see our way to advance more than 10 or 11 years' purchase.
    "Mr. Bryce: In one case, docs it not go as low as 7 years purchase?
    "Witness: I forget the lowest, but taking the average it only came to about 17 years' purchase of the total rents upon it."
    Thus we see that, whereas a tenant had been asked to agree to pay 21½years' purchase, and had actually offered 19½years', the result of the inspection was to show that the security was worth only 17½years' purchase. Some of these tenants who were to have paid 21½years'
    32
    purchase, according to the terms demanded by the landlord, eventually got off with seven or eight years' purchase. What, I ask, is the justification for advancing the money of the taxpayers in that way? Here is the report of the Commissioners on this case:—
    "The greater part of the land is composed of mountains, bogs and rocks. The soil is generally peaty and the arable land is only found here and there in small patches between the rocks and the rough uncultivated grazing land. The holdings are, with few exceptions, uneconomic, and the supplemental income necessary to maintain the tenants and their families is obtained (1) from America; (2) from labour on the fortification works, Bere Island (which are now nearly finished, and (3) from money obtained from the seamen of the Atlantic Fleet, which spends about six weeks annually in the harbour. Those of the tenants who possess a horse (and they are in the minority), hire the animal to the sailors, and make a little money in that way. Over 50 of the tenants have spent part of their lives in America, and there are some members of nearly every family at present in foreign countries sending money home to their relatives. There are five of the tenants at present in the mines at Montana."
    Thus it will be seen that the landlords are getting a great deal of their money from the Montana mines, where many young men are employed at present, and not from the land. Then I have here the schedule applying to this estate, which shows that of the second term tenants 26 bought the 17 years' purchase, 27 at 20 years' purchase, 22 at 19 years' purchase, 14 at 15 years' purchase (instead of 21½years), and 2 at 10.6 years' purchase; while of the first term tenants I bought the 17 years' purchase, 3 at 15, 1 at 12½, 1 at 12, 1 at 11½, and 1 at 7½; and, be it remembered, in regard to that holding bought at 7 years' purchase, had it not been for the fight made by the tenants and holders, would have had to pay 21½ years' purchase. That is the way in which this system works. We are only able to bring out these cases because they are fought. We do not know how many other cases there may be in which the tenants have submitted to these extortionate demands, but no doubt they are numerous. I can give a few more cases. I was told the other day by a gentleman who knows county Galway perfectly well of a case where, within the last few months, the tenants agreed to pay the landlord £16,000, but, owing to some accident, the arrangement could not be carried through and the estate came before the Estates Commissioners for inspection, and they found the security to be worth only £10,000. The landlord immediately accepted that valuation. Is it a wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, should applaud this Ark of the Covenant. I have here, too, a case in the county of Cavan.

    33
    In that case the tenant had agreed to buy at 22 years' purchase, but the Commissioners, on inspection, held that there was not sufficient security and fixed the value of the security at 17½years' purchas.4–4½years less than the tenants had agreed to give. These cases could be multiplied by the dozen. Here, again, is a case in the county of Roscommon. The estate was agreed to be purchased at 22.8 years' purchase. The Estates Commissioners refused, and on inspection found that there was security only for 17 years' purchase—5½ years less than the tenants had agreed to give. I assert that that is characteristic of what is going on all over Ireland under this abominable zone system. Under this Ark of the Covenant the landlords are collaring from four to five years' purchase more than there is security for the State. No wonder, having got through so many fraudulent transactions under its protection, they deem the Ark of the Covenant to be sacred. I am opposed to this proposal mainly because it affects the unhappy tenantry in the West and South of Ireland. It is the poor small holders who suffer. They are the men who are at the mercy of their landlords. They are the men upon whom chiefly this pressure is exercised. The poorer the estate the more miserable it is, the less able are the tenants to make a bargain, and the more are they at the mercy of the landlords. Yet by allowing this series of Amendments to the Bill, in which the Lords have taken elaborate precautions to prevent estates being classified as congested, the Government are simply playing into the hands of the landlords. Why are the landlords so averse to extending the definition of congestion? One reason is, no doubt, that if the zones do not apply the Ark of the Covenant will disappear. What they want is, by means of this system of zones, to bring hydraulic pressure to bear in order to squeeze these unfortunate tenants into giving extravagant prices for their holdings. I say that that is a most outrageous proposal. For my part I deeply regret that the Government have consented to yield upon this point. I know the Irish party are determined to let the Irish people see that they have neither hand nor responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I share the regret expressed on these benches at the decision of the Government to abandon Clause 14. I do not base my opposition quite on the same lines as those adopted
    34
    by the last speaker. He has argued, in attacking this Clause, as if its effect were to abolish the zone system. The effect of Clause 14 is not to abolish the zones, and does not come near to abolishing the zones, and I do not quite see the advantage of arguing it on that basis, but although it does not abolish the zones, it is a very valuable clause because it restores a beneficial practice which had existed for upwards of four years in the office of the Estates Commissioners, and under which great protection had been afforded to the tenant purchasers, especially in the poor districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) stated that only one case had been cited as a proof of the necessity of this Clause, and that was so. Only one case has been cited, but why? Because it was a case that reversed the practice of four years. It was not the first case of the kind that had arisen. This question arose almost immediately after the passing of the Act of 1903 in the reported case of an insurance company in the West of Ireland. The facts were very remarkable. The owners of the estate, before the Act of 1903, had entered into a purchase agreement with the tenants, and they had lodged the agreement with the Land Commission. That body inspected the estate under the old law, and they found that it was held in rundale or intermixed plots, and they came to the conclusion that it was not security for the purchase money which had been asked. They accordingly refused to sanction the sale, but the Act of 1903 had not been in existence for a year before the owners of the estate entered into a new bargain with the tenants, but within the zones, and as a matter of fact they had actually succeeded in inducing the tenants to offer higher prices than those which the Land Commission had previously refused to sanction. The owners came to the Estates Commissioners and said, "We have now brought ourselves within the zones; it is not competent for you to inquire into the sufficiency of the price, but you have to sanction the sale." The Estates Commissioners said, "Nothing of the kind; it is perfectly true that the first Section of the Act prevents us from inquiring whether the value comes within the Act, but there is another Section in the Act which places upon us the responsibility of declaring whether the lands are 'an estate,' and before we can declare these lands 'an estate' we shall enter

    35
    into all kinds of inquiries about them, the nature of the holdings, the amount of rent due, and whether they are held in rundale and if we find the character of the estate as a whole is such as to make it undesirable for us to declare it to be 'an estate' we shall refuse to sanction, even although the price is within the zones." They came to that decision within twelve months after the Act of 1903 was passed, it was not challenged for four years, and it went on regulating the practice until the Weir's estate case arose, which was taken to the Court of Appeal. The reason, therefore, why Weir's estate case has always been referred to was not because it was the only case, but because it was the case which had reversed the practice under which the Estates Commissioners had been administering the Land Act for four years. My view of this Clause is that it simply restores the law to the state in which it was before Weir's case was decided, but it does not go so far as to abolish the zones. My own view is that the landlords had no reason to fear its results, except in bad cases, and that although it did not abolish the zones it was valuable. I regret the Government have come to the conclusion to drop it.
    House disagreed with Lords in said Amendments.
    Lords Amendment: At end of Subsection (1) after "with" ["as if those provisions had not been complied with"] insert, "Any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission under this Section may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, and in such case the order shall not have effect unless and until it is approved by the Judicial Commissioner."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This is consequential upon the other Amendments. The Government would be unable to assent to any such Amendment.
    House disagreed with Lords in said Amendment.
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved, as a consequential Amendment, that Clause 14 be left out of the Bill.
    Question put, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 192.

    Division No. 896.]

    AYES.

    [4.20 p.m.

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

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Alden, Percy

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Dowd, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Grady, J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Malley, William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Keating, M.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Byles, William Pollard

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cameron, Robert

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dclany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Murnaghan, George

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph p.

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nicholls, George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nolan, Joseph

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Capt. Donelan.

    Hodge, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Balcarres, Lord

    Barnard, E. B.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Haworth Arthur A

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Branch, James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Bright, J. A.

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

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Radford, G. H.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richardson, A.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clark, George Smith

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Clough, William

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H A. E.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Lambert, George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Sears. J. E.

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

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Dumphreys, John

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Maclean, Donald

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Vivian, Henry

    Faber, Capt. W V. (Hants, W.)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Falconer, J.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Fell, Arthur

    Massie, J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Moore, William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Gretton, John

    Morse, L. L.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Griffiths, Ellis, J.

    Murray, Capt Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gulland, John W.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, George

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B

    Paul, Herbert

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

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    CLAUSE 15.—(Limitation on Amount of Advances to Tenant Purchasers.)
    (1) No advance exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds shall be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Acts to any tenant in pursuance of an agreement for the purchase of a holding entered into after the passing of this Act, unless—

    (a) the tenant resides on the holding, or such holding is ordinarily used with the holding on which the tenant resides; or

    (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement

    38
    and the Land Commission consider that an advance of a larger amount not exceeding five thousand pounds may properly be sanctioned.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "or (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement."
    Mr. CHERRY Mr. CHERRY moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the Clause which provides a general limit to advances of £3,000, but by way of exception to that, there are two cases where a limit of £5,000 is granted. The first is where the tenant

    39
    resides on the holding or the holding adjoins the house in which he resides. The second is where a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years previous to the agreement. The Lords rejected the second on the ground that it might unduly encourage tillage in lands which where only suitable for pasture. As a matter of fact, a tillage holding generally is one on which the tenant resides. It is worked by a man who lives on the holding or on an adjoining holding. So we considered that almost all the cases which will be covered by paragraph (b), which the Lords have struck out, will come within paragraph (a).
    Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I am very much disappointed that the Government propose to agree with this Amendment. The defence made by the Attorney-General seems to me to be no defence at all. It is not an unimportant question. Anything which tends in favour of doing away with the big grazing ranches, which provide no employment for the people, and which tends to the increase of land under tillage is not only not an unimportant matter, but one of the very highest consequence. I was hoping that this Amendment would be resisted, especially as I could not understand on what ground the House of Lords insisted upon it. What good will it do them? Does the House of Lords wish to prevent the increase of tillage? Do they wish to prevent the increase of unemployment? And, anyhow, what is it to them, if they sell their lands, what becomes of the land afterwards? The fact of the matter is that this is just the sort of Amendment which displays the true inwardness of the House of Lords in dealing with this whole question. They have no regard whatever, no matter what they may say, to the real interests of Ireland. No one can deny that the increase of the extent of land under pasture has tended to unemployment. No one doubts that it has tended also to decrease the agricultural wealth of the country, and yet, knowing this, they propose an Amendment which would actuary continue that disastrous state of affairs. It is one of those Amendments which, in my opinion, stamp the House of Lords as the enemies of the people beyond question, and I am surprised to find a single Uster Member who, it is to be presumed, represents Orange farmers as well as Orange artisans, indulging in laughter, which means that they have no regard for the material interests of Ireland. I protest against the Amendment and I
    40
    hope the party with which I act will oppose it in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. MOORE: I wish to say a word in, reply to the rather vehement remarks of the hon. Member, who appears always to profess to misunderstand the position of Ulster Members. Whether it is on the question of zones or of restrictions such as this, which are put in at the instance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, the Ulster farmer is anxious that all land should pass under the operation of the Purchase Act, and he is anxious that all land should pass as quickly as possible, because his desire is not to get further reductions of rent by agitation, and not to blackmail the vendor by cattle-driving or any other little amusement to reduce the value of the land. He is willing to pay a fair price, but he wants to get the transaction through, and wants every acre of Ireland, whether pasture or tillage, sold as speedily as possible. For that reason I would regret any restriction which would keep the holding out of the purview of the Act or any policy which would delay the purchase going through once the agreement was signed. I regret to say that the policy of the Government has been in the direction of excluding certain holdings.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: My hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) refers to the Ulster Members because Ulster is largely a province of small holdings and of mixed farming, in which tillage largely predominates. That is the kind of thing that the Lords seek to depreciate and to prevent in other parts of Ireland. I well remember when the 1903 Act was going through the protests which were made by several Members of the Irish party with regard to the advance being raised from £3,000 to £5,000. There was such a desire to get the Bill through that the thing was rushed. We made a protest on that occasion, but our better judgment was overruled, and we allowed the thing to go through. We made a protest, which we repeat now, because it is a great discouragement to the employment of labour all over the country, and the increase of the large pasture holdings, instead of being an economic gain, is an economic disadvantage to Ireland. It is impossible to read the report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which we believe is doing its level best to increase employment and break up the grass lands, and to give more employment and put more land under tillage, without a certain amount of misgiving. And we

    41
    find that on an occasion like this, on which the Government should have made some stand and done something on behalf of the agricultural interests of Ireland and the agricultural labourers, they have weakly given way. Anyhow the action of the other House has been a wanton piece of interference. When the landlord has sold his land, what is it to him so long as he gets his price? If Ireland is to be the fruitful mother of flocks and herds, but not the fruitful mother of an industrious population, it is legislation of this kind which tends to carry it out.
    Mr. J. CULLINAN: Let me, as representing tin agricultural county, where, according to recent returns, the number of acres under tillage has increased by thousands, enter my most emphatic protest against the action of the Government in accepting this Amendment of the Lords. Under the Act of 1903 you made advances of large sums to the large graziers of the country who gave no employment what-
    ever on these holdings, and you now want to try and prevent the farmers in Ireland, who are really conferring immense benefits on the community by giving considerable employment, from getting any special treatment. I think this gives us an indication of the spirit which animates the Lords, especially those who pretend that they are great philanthropists, whose only trouble, night and day, is the welfare of the industrial classes in Ireland. This is simply putting a barrier in the way of employment. I enter my emphatic protest against it, and I am surprised to see that the Government seems to be completely playing into the hands of Noble Lords, who want to keep the open sore there, and are doing all in their power to defeat the Government.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 897.]

    AYES.

    [4.45 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton. Sir H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Banbury, Sir Fredarick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Dumphreys, John

    Lambert, George

    Barker, Sir John

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lamont, Norman

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Elibank, Master of

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Essex, R. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bertram, Julius

    Falconer, J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Fletcher, J. S.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Branch, James

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Bright, J. A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Marnham, F. J.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Moore, William

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T,

    Morrell, Philip

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Paul, Herbert

    Cleland, J. W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clough, William

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pirle, Duncan V.

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rowlands, J.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Sears, J. E.

    Toulmin, George

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Younger, George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walters, John Tudor

    Shlpman, Dr. John G.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Watt, Henry A.

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Neill, Charles

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Pointer, J.

    Boland, John

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Reddy, M.

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cameron, Robert

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Richardson, A.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Delany, William

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dillon, John

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Duffy, William J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

    Stewart, Hailey (Greenock)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mooney, J. J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murnaghan, George

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nicholls, George

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Ginnell, L.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    Harrington, Timothy

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Capt. Donelan.

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    CLAUSE 16.—(Prohibition of Advance.)
    (1) No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of a holding if the tenancy was created after the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight.
    (2) This Section shall not apply to tenancies created by the Land Commission or by the Congested Districts Board.
    The Lords Amendment standing next on the Paper was: Leave out "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight" and insert "fifteenth day of September in the year nineteen hundred and nine."
    Mr. CLANCY: I rise to a point of Order. This is an Amendment which proposes to add to the public charge. It may involve an advance of public money, not only for the purchase of land, but also for the purpose of flotation and the payment of bonus. The Amendment, therefore, I sub-
    44
    mit, according to the Constitution, if the Constitution is worth anything at all now, is one which the House of Lords is absolutely incompetent to move. I ask your ruling upon the point.
    Mr. MOORE: The position of affairs was this. Under the existing law all tenancies were entitled to advances, and the Clause which the Government proposed was to restrict them to tenancies created after the first of January, 1908, but that never became law. What the Lords have done is to bring the date forward from 1st January, 1908, to 15th September, 1909. The effect of that is to diminish the charge to be made on the Exchequer, because at present every holding is entitled to an advance. Therefore I submit that the point of Order does not arise, either as a matter of privilege or in any other way.
    Mr. CLANCY: This Amendment will increase the charge proposed by the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I wish to hear the views of the Irish Government on the point.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The view we take of this is that the Amendment does not in any real sense increase the charge, because in the case of tenancies between the two rival dates—the one inserted in the Bill, and the one which is being inserted by the House of Lords—are tenancies on which no advance could be made to the tenants. Still the land comprised in such a tenancy might be the subject of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts. Therefore in reality it cannot, in my opinion, be said that there is any real increase of the charge, because there was a possibility of the land being made the subject-matter of an advance. This Clause provides that no advance should be made for tenancies created after a particular date. Therefore it limits the number of tenancies which can be made the subject-matter of advances under the Land Purchase Acts, and the only difference between the two Houses is as to what date should be inserted. I submit that there is no possible increase of the charge.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to say that these Amendments only came into my hands at 3.30 to-day, and that I have not therefore had time to give that amount of attention to them which I have given to other Amendments made by the Lords. The matter is somewhat complicated to me, although it is clear to hon. Members from Ireland, who are very familiar with the subject, but after the statement of the Chief Secretary that no increase of advances will arise under this Amendment I feel bound to accept his view and say that the Amendment is one which can be discussed by the House.
    Mr. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken, and he can only deal with the merits now.
    Mr. CLANCY: I do not understand the point of Order has been disposed of, and it is not on the merits at all that I wish to speak at present. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if an advance is made not to the Congested Districts Board or to the Estates Commissioners, but to a tenant, there will be no increase of charge? I think that is a fair question.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think there could be, except in the most roundabout way, any increase of charge at all, but it
    46
    is very difficult categorically to say "No" to the question put by the hon. Member. I certainly say that if there was any question of privilege in the matter the House should waive it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. BIRRELL: This Clause provided that no advances were to be made where a tenancy was created after 1st January, 1908, and it may be remembered by those who took part in the discussion that there was a certain amount of uncertainty as to what would happen. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) asked me to put in two Amendments, of which this was one. It was thought that for safety it was desirable that the Bill should be re-committed in respect of these Amendments, because the one did clearly involve a charge. It was a matter of controversy between learned persons whether this Amendment did involve a charge or not. The right hon. Gentleman, when he asked me to put down the Amendments, said with perfect good faith that they would cause no criticism whatsoever. I put them down without giving so full consideration to this particular Amendment as I ought to have done. Having put them down, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends divided the House against the recommital of the Bill. Although I am one of the mildest mannered men, I confess that irritated me almost beyond the point of endurance. These Amendments were put down to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and they involved the recommital of the Bill. The recommital having been opposed, I did not move the Amendments in terms of excessive cordiality when they came to be moved. This Amendment gave rise to an animated discussion. It showed that this Amendment, so far from being popular with those who represented particular views, was most unpopular, and I therefore voted against it. Then when it went up to the other place what I quite foresaw would happen did happen —namely, that the other place put into the Bill the words of the Amendment. Now I cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. I cannot come to terms with the other House and do what I am anxious to do, and what I know can be done—secure the passage of the Bill—without making concessions. Therefore, although my

    47
    reason does not pretend to be convinced, nevertheless I think that the proper course is to agree with the Lords in their Amendment. After all, if this Bill does not become law there will be no limitation at all. It is only if the Bill becomes law that there will be the limitation from the altered date. I think, under all the circumstances, that that is well worth securing, and I now move that the House do agree with the Lords Amendments.
    Mr. CULLINAN: On a previous occasion, after the strong line of action taken by the representatives of the Irish party, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary voted against his own Amendment. He was then the object of very strong attack from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. We are very much accustomed recently to very fine though unparliamentary expressions being used by Leaders on the Front Opposition Bench. I was reading the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell) in Lancashire lately. He made a very strong attack upon members of the Irish party, and said that owing to their action his country was reeking with crime and blood and outrage. His language was enough to make Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament feel most indignant. He used an expression with regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland which I then thought rather strong, but which I think this evening I cannot any longer object to owing to his action in accepting this Amendment of the House of Lords in face of the decision arrived at by this House after full discussion on a previous occasion. Let me tell right hon. Gentlemen on both sides that if this Amendment is passed it will inflict a most glaring injustice, and the Chief Secretary will put a premium upon the Gentlemen above the Gangway and their friends in Ireland who have tried to make his rule of government impossible in Ireland for the last couple of years. When this Bill was first introduced the date fixed for limiting advances was the 1st January, 1908. You have since then seen a lot of those people, under the patronage of Lord Ashtown and the outrage mongers in Ireland, bring in bogus tenants on their properties in order to prevent the old evicted tenants being put back. You have lots of that land which the Estates Commissioners in Ireland might have acquired under the Evicted Tenants Act
    48
    given to such parties, and you have charges made on the Irish County Council for extra police in different parts of Ireland, and in my own county, Tippe-rary, they have had extra police charges. The Chief Secretary says that he has no control, that the laws are there, and that he must enforce those charges on the people. But here you have in this Bill not only a recognition of those bogus tenancies but you have a tax put upon the whole district for extra police who are brought in on account of this effort to prevent evicted tenants and deserving people getting those lands. It has been said that I have, used strong expressions. If I did so all I can say is that I could not possibly make them strong enough to express my indignation as to the consequences of this Amendment. If you accept this Amendment of the House of Lords people in Ireland will understand that you are simply playing the game of those men who have created these bogus tenancies. I have no hesitation in saying that in my division, where there are some of these cases, and in other divisions, if this Amendment is included in the Bill you will have reason to remember it.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: In reference to the Chief Secretary's criticisms of the Opposition for the action which they took in regard to the Motion for recommittal, may I say it is perfectly true that he was good enough to tell me that one of those Amendments would require a Motion to recommit, but he also said it would be necessary to recommit the Bill in respect of other matters. It was in respect of these that the Opposition resisted recommittal, as they were proceeding under a closure by compartment resolution, which limited the time to two hours, and it was, they thought, extremely unfair to take a Motion for recommittal and then go through the Committee stage of the Bill in the time reserved for the general debate without recommittal. That is the reason we opposed the recommittal. In regard to the action of the right hon. Gentleman now, I do not believe that the insertion of this Amendment will have the dire consequences which are foretold by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I believe it is an Amendment which lessens hardships that otherwise would have been created by this Clause, and I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for accepting it.
    Mr. DILLON: I sympathise strongly with the view put forward by the hon.

    49
    Member for Tipperary. This Amendment is another of those made by the House of Lords with which this Bill is studded all over, and which hamper the work of relief of congestion. There is no more disgraceful action on the part of Irish landlords since the Act of 1903 passed than their action in parts of Ireland, where it is notorious that the amount of unoccupied grazing land was insufficient to deal with the problem of congestion. In these places the landlords proceeded to create new tenancies on grazing land, and did a thing which I have always denounced as a fraud, and still condemn as a fraud. They let these lands more or less at moderate rents, which I believe in some cases are turned by agreement into judicial rents. Then they put them up at these rents to auction and took large fines, and they have sold them to the incoming tenants or graziers, whichever they were, for these fines. They then proceed to come to the Government to get advances of public money to sell to the grazing tenants. I think that is an absolute fraud on this House, and on the whole system of land purchase in Ireland. Public money was never voted for that purpose, and the purposes for which the money was voted, and for which all this machinery was set in motion, are defeated by these fraudulent proceedings; and that the Government should approve of this to me is most deplorable, and is, I confess, a thing which I am entirely unable to understand. This Clause, as it stands in the Bill was undoubtedly demanded by public opinion in Ireland. It is no answer to tell us that there are certain groups of tenants in Ireland who support the landlords Amendment. We know there are. They are the tenants who have taken this land. I say without hesitation that the whole of that proceeding is a fraudulent proceeding, and utterly opposed to the whole purpose of the House, and if the House of Commons had been told when they were passing the Act of 1903 that any such proceeding was contemplated I am perfectly certain that they would have put in a provision to make it impossible that it should be done. The House of Lords over and over again in the course of the Debates on this Bill proclaimed their zeal for the enlargement of congested holdings, and wanted to make out that the Irish party were championing landless men and doing other dreadful things; but by this Amendment, as well as by many other Amendments, they have added to the difficulties of relieving congestion, and have
    50
    created machinery for limiting considerably the already insufficient supply of grazing land in the congested districts of the country.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I have no very strong opinion upon this matter. If the Government had included in the Act of 1903 a provision that no public moneys should be advanced on tenancies created after that date, that would be a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one to which no one would have objected. On the other hand, there is always some objection to retrospective legislation. That is the only criticism which I make on that ground. I do not rise to continue a general discussion on it; but I do rise to point out that under the Clause in its present form it appears to me that a very gross injustice may be done to a class of persons whom I am sure nobody in this House desires to hurt, and I wish to move a consequential Amendment to get over the difficulty. As the Clause stands it contains an absolute prohibition against the advance of public money for the purchase of any holding the tenancy of which was created after 15th September. It contains an exception in favour of tenancies created by the Land Commission of the Congested Districts Board, but it contains no exception for the case in which a landlord voluntarily reinstates a tenant whom he has evicted. I cannot conceive why Parliament should deliberately pass an Act providing that where a tenant has been out of occupation for some years and where ultimately he makes an arrangement with his landlord and is reinstated in his holding he should get no facilities for purchasing his holding. Take another case. We all know that the Irish courts in the matter of land legislation carry technicalities very far, so that the mere sub-division of a holding is held to create a new tenancy, and the smallest change in the subject matter of the tenancy at once creates a new tenancy. It is now provided that no advance is to be made in respect of a tenancy created after 15th September, 1909. That was not what Parliament meant in 1903. In 1903 we all know there was a limit on the amount which could be advanced in the case of new tenancies—that is to say, the case of tenancies created after 1st January, 1901—but there was a qualification to that providing that this Section should not apply in the case of a former tenant or a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal

    51
    representative. Whereas the former tenant was carefully protected under the Act of 1903, here we have an absolute prohibition against him. I wish now to make a consequential Amendment, if the Lords Amendment is adopted, so that there may be some qualification such as was enacted in the Act of 1903 providing that the former tenant shall not be excluded.
    Mr. MOORE: This is a very important Debate, I do not say to hon. Members above the Gangway but to hon. Members below it. On the night the Chief Secretary made a memorable surrender, it turned out how very important it was from their point of view, and I want to know whether they still maintain the same opinion with regard to it. The Member for Tipperrary (Mr. Cullman) in the previous Debate on this Amendment, which is now in the Bill, said if the Amendment were passed:—
    "I unhesitatingly say that there could be no more outrageous piece of weakness upon the part of the Chief Secretary, and one which would cause greater dissatisfaction in Ireland, and I warn the Attorney-General he may find it necessary to put the engines of his law and legal power into force against us, and if yon do consent, on the suggestion of hon. Members above the Gangway, to insert such a Clause, then let the consequences be on your own heads."
    The Hon. Member for Kildare said:
    "I say this deliberately, and I say it in the best of good faith to my colleagues, that even should they, after due consideration, think it better to accept the Bill with this provision, than that the Bill should be rejected, that the Irish people will not accept the Bill, neither across the Shannon, not in many of the Leinster comities."
    The Hon. Member for Mayo said:
    "If the right hon. Gentleman insists on the Amendment, he may as well abandon the Bill altogether, because it will not be accepted by the people, and will only lead to a renewal of the land war."
    Mr. DILLON: I did not say that.
    Mr. MOORE: It was another hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sligo (Mr.
    O'Dowd). I want to know whether those lion. Members still entertain that view on this very important Amendment. The whole course of policy on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway during this Session has been to render to the Government support in other matters in order to get as a reward a Land Bill such as this. And now when they come to discuss this Land Bill for themselves, and see what advantages they are getting, it is interesting, if not amusing, to us above the Gangway, to observe how much powder they have got to swallow with the jam. We have heard Amendment after Amendment denounced; we have seen sham fights with regard to them, for they are only sham fights, but hon. Members below the Gangway know very well that the Government on this occasion can outvote them, and they can go home and sleep in their beds perfectly comfortably, knowing that their opposition had done nobody any harm. I do not think their efforts at opposition will impose upon anybody. At any rate, this Bill is the reward of their political virtue, and though hon. Members say that this Amendment, if accepted, will damn the Bill and render it unacceptable in Ireland, yet they dare not go back to Ireland with empty hands; they dare not refuse the Bill now, although it contains this Clause which is so objectionable to them. The Chief Secretary knows that for once he has them in his hands, and he knows that the Amendments which he is now moving will be accepted, and that hon. Members below the Gangway will have to swallow them.
    Question put: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 898.]

    AYES.

    [5.20 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Astbury, John Meir

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bertram, Julius

    Channing, sir Francis Allston

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Clark, George Smith

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Cloland, J. W.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Branch, James

    Clough, William

    Barker, Sir John

    Bright, J. A.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Radford, G. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dumphreys, John

    Kerry, Earl of

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Erskine, David C.

    Lambert, George

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Essex, R. W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Rowlands, J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Sears, J. E.

    Falconer, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fletcher, J. S.

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Gulland, John W.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Teulmin, George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Moore, William

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nicholls, George

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, George

    Henderson, J McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Paul, Herbert

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Percy, Earl

    NOES.

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

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Alden, Percy

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harrington, Timothy

    Muldoon, John

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hodge, John

    Murnaghan, George

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boland, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Dowd, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Keating, M.

    O'Grady, J.

    Delany, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    O'Malley, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    O'Neill, Charles

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lundon, T.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Pointer, J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Reddy, M.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Kean, John

    Richardson, A.

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    54

    55

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Summerbell, T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Tsylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Sheehy, David

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Mr. MAURICE HEALY Mr. MAURICE HEALY moved, as a consequential Amendment, to add at the end of the Clause the words, "or in the case of a former tenant of a tenancy created before the first day of January, 1908, or a person nominated by the Land Commission, or his personal representative, purchasing his former holding, or part thereof." That is simply adopted from the Act of 1903.
    Mr. MOORE Mr. MOORE seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. CHERRY: I really think that those words are unnecessary. I understand that the point the hon. Member raises is as to the case of those who have been evicted and who have been reinstated.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Where there has been a technical breach of the tenancy.
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that that arises. As I understand the law, the landlord who has evicted a present tenant is entitled on reinstating him, even though the period of redemption has passed, to reinstate him in his old tenancy, and to continue the old tenancy. I know of a great many cases where, after the six months for redemption had expired, the landlord reinstated the tenants in their old tenancies, and restored them to all their rights. In a great many cases the landlords have preferred to reinstate them in future tenancies. They have done that with their eyes open, and if they wish they will take care to reinstate them in such a way that they can sell to them under the Purchase Acts. Even if that were not so, and if there were any doubt in the matter, they can always sell the land, as untenanted land for the purpose of having the tenant reinstated, to the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Not as a tenancy.
    Mr. CHERRY: Instead of reinstating the tenant they would sell the land occupied by the tenants to the Estates Commissioners, and then the evicted tenant or his representative could be provided for under the Acts of 1903. I think the Amendment would be dangerous, and I ask the House not to accept it.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Advances for purchase of Parcels of Land.)
    (1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:—

    (a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value;

    (b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value;

    (c) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion;

    (d)A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and

    (e) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section an advance ought to be made.

    (2) Advances under this Section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, which has been made and is then un-repaid by the purchaser, or for which an application by the purchaser is pending, exceed one thousand pounds: Provided that the limitation in this Sub-section may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned, to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
    (3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this Section in like manner as if the same was a holding and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time of his

    57
    making the purchase; and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this Section.
    (4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that Section shall be construed as a reference to this Section.
    Lords Amendments: Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (b).
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The effect of this Amendment is to alter somewhat what I would call the priority of persons to whom advances for the purchase of parcels of land may be made under Clause 17 of the Bill, and I do not know that it is very material. We set out in Clause 17 the persons to whom for the purchase of parcels of land advances might be made as follows: (a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value." "(b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value." "(c) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion." Then in (d) for evicted tenants, and (e) "Any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section, an advance ought to be made." A good deal of controversy arose as to the position of certain persons who were called landless men, that is to say, persons who have not got any land, although they have lived all their lives on it. It was thought that they had got a certain priority over and above other persons whose claims were superior. The effect of the Amendment is, by striking out (b), to secure that in the first place the tenants or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value, or a person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion, or a person who is an evicted tenant shall be provided for, and then they provide for the landless men because they put in at the end of the Subsection an Amendment: "Any person to
    58
    whom in the opinion of the Land Commissioners, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section an advance ought to be made." In that way they come in after adequate provision has been made for the tenant, for the person who surrenders land for the relief of congestion, and the evicted tenant, and I do not myself quarrel very much with that order. I do not know that it makes really very much difference in the case, as it seems to me to make it plain that the sons of tenants are not to be provided for, but may be provided far when adequate provision has been made by the actual tenants for those who have surrendered for the relief of congestion and the evicted. Therefore, I move that we agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I am in favour of disagreeing with the Amendment of the Lords, and I think this Amendment might be characterised in very mild language as a stupid Amendment, and if I would commit myself to the language of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway descriptive of some of the Amendments of the House of Lords, I think it might be called an idiotic Amendment. If the Lords had no other meaning than to change this class of persons from one of the paragraphs to another, then the Amendment would be stupid and meaningless. But to everyone who has followed the discussion in the House of Lords relative to this Amendment, and to the whole question of landless men, and who has listened in this House to the opinions expressed in regard to landless people by those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench and by hon. Members from the North of Ireland, who are the mouthpieces of the landlords of Ireland, it is very well known that this Amendment is dictated by the insensate hatred which the landlords and their friends, both in this House and in another place, entertain to the class of people who are called landless. To hear the speeches made in this House or to read the speeches made in another place, one would think that the greatest political sin which any Government could commit is to provide land for the landless people in Ireland. Everyone would think that the landlords of Ireland had made up their minds for a lock-out against the whole of the landless people of Ireland. If it is desirable at all to provide for people who are landless, amongst those who are landless what class are so worthy or so capable of being good tenants as the class described in paragraph (b)?

    59
    "A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding £30 in rateable value." It is not quite the case that the difficulty produced by excising paragraph (b) is met by the inclusion of those persons in paragraph (e), because paragraph (e) is quite different. Under paragraph (b), as this Bill left this House, there was a direction that land should be provided for people of this class.
    I speak for a constituency in one parish of which alone, that is Magherow, in the Constituency of North Sligo, there are 32 landless families, and the heads of all those landless families, I know of my own knowledge and from personal experience, are people who are capable of managing economically and wisely any holdings that might be offered to them. On the other hand, I know that there are in that parish, and adjacent to the place where those people live, large tracts of land used for grazing purposes which might be advantageously split up in order to settle the question of congestion, which, in regard to those people, has arisen in an even more acute form than with a class of people called congests. I should like to ask why it is that landless people are so much looked down upon in Ireland, and so much condemned by the representatives of the Irish landlords in this House. In another part of the United Kingdom they made ample provisions for landless people. I am able to point out to the House that in the year 1897, when the strongest Conservative Government of a century was in power, and when Gentlemen who are now sitting or reclining on the Front Opposition Bench held high place in that Government, and when the Leader of the Opposition was the leading Member of that Government, provision was made to give allotments of land to landless people in the only other part of the United Kingdom which, on account of its condition, is comparable to Ireland. I refer to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897. In that Act it was provided that land should be acquired by the Congested Districts Board of Scotland for sub-division amongst people who had no land. Of course, some people may say that that Act of Parliament is a dead letter, but it is nothing of the kind.
    I think it will be in the recollection of everyone in this House that a very short time ago, a few months ago, a number of the hardy landless people from the Isle of
    60
    Barra sailed across in their little "Mayflowers" to the lonely Island of Vatersay, armed to the teeth with their bagpipes. When they got to Vatersay, they did not content themselves with the driving of cattle. They settled down, actually took possession, of the land, and insisted on remaining there. What happened? The Scotch people are all for discipline and the formal observance of law. Summonses to the Court of Session were issued against some of the raiders in this land raid of the landless people in Scotland, and punishment more or loss mild, and certainly much milder than has been inflicted on cattle drivers in Ireland, was meted out to these people. What did the Government do? The Government, of which the principal Minister, so far as Ireland is concerned, moves to agree with the Lords Amendments here, said to these people: "You have done exceedingly well. We have punished you, but in principle you are quite right, and we have provision under an Act of Parliament to give land to landless people," and the present Government bought the Isle of Vatersay and divided it up among the landless people.
    It has been said in another place, and by hon. Members sitting in this House, that they are opposed to landless people because they commit the crime of cattle driving. No one in Ireland justifies cattle driving theoretically any more than the representatives of labour justify industrial strikes. Cattle driving in Ireland is the strike of the landless people, or of the sons of farmers who have no land, against the conditions under which they are forced to live, and it is a demand for better conditions for themselves. I think that the advocates of the landlords who have taken part in making a provision in another part of the United Kingdom similar to that we want show a great deal of inconsistency in their action in this matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to agree to the Lords Amendment, or to weaken in any way the provisions for meeting the claims of this very deserving class of people.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has put his points with considerable force and great clearness, and I think he is perfectly accurate when he says that the adoption of this Amendment puts an end to the provision for landless men. What has the Chief Secretary told us? He has stated that paragraph (b) was originally intended to

    61
    make provision for the landless men in the distribution of this land, and that practically all that this Amendment does is to take the landless men out of paragraph (b) and to put them into paragraph (e). It will be in the recollection of the House that when we were discussing Clause 17 we were assured by the Chief Secretary that it had no application whatever to the landless men. He stated that there were always left certain portions of an estate which were non-agricultural—residential or otherwise unfit for ordinary farmers, and that nil that was intended by that paragraph was to enable the Commissioners to dispose of the non-agricultural portions amongst persons other than farmers. Therefore, according to the construction of the right hon. Gentleman, in the Bill as originally framed, the only paragraph in this Clause under which provision could be made for landless men was the paragraph it is now proposed to leave out. I think it is very properly proposed to leave out that paragraph, not because in any part of the House there is any hostility to these landless men, but simply because there is not enough land to go round. The idea has always been that the first and foremost claim upon the untenanted land is for the relief of congestion. It is conceded that if you are to provide for the landless men it can only be done at the expense of the congests. First of all, deal with the congests and get rid of the evil of congestion, and then later on, if you find you have land left, you can deal with the landless men. But I think it was a wise policy to exclude them from the operation of this Bill, one of the main principles of which is the relief of congestion. It would have been far better if the Chief Secretary had told us plainly that the purport of this Amendment is to exclude landless men from the benefit of the distribution under this Bill. That will undoubtedly be its effect, and I think it is an effect to be desired. It certainly will not be removed by the suggestion that these men can be brought in under the final paragraph if the assurance given by the Chief Secretary is correct, namely, that this Clause is intended to deal only with the fractions of an estate which are non-agricultural in their character. I think the Amendment is an improvement of the Bill, and I presume the Chief Secretary will adhere to it.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I desire to express my great disappointment at the action of the Chief Secretary. In a speech made
    62
    at Belfast about 12 months ago, at a time in our political history when the crusade of cattle-driving was attracting a good deal of attention, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the people of Ireland, to Nationalist Members of Parliament, and others who were taking any side in the matter, for a chance to pass a Land Bill, which would presumably give relief to the class of people affected by the omission of this paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman got that chance. The cattle-driving crusade was stopped; and it was stopped to a very large extent, if not entirely, on the basis of his appeal for a chance. We have been waiting 12 months for the fulfilment of his promise, and now the right hon. Gentleman asks us to adopt an Amendment of the House of Lords striking out these men from the operation of the Bill. That action profoundly disappoints me. I have taken part in cattle-driving. I do not boast of it; I do not want to continue it; I do not want to see it continued. I want to see the men affected by this paragraph, not driven out of the country, but given a chance to live on their own land. The right hon. Gentleman, however, after getting his own chance, is, byaccepting this Amendment, depriving these men of their chance. That is not playing the game. I protest against it. We are threatened by a General Election, in which anything may happen. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not be Chief Secretary. Whether he is or not, I say distinctly that, if the landless men are deprived of their chance of getting back to the land, there will be more cattle-driving in Ireland, and the next appeal for a chance may not be so effective as the last. In Clause 41 there is another Amendment in connection with this subject which further limits any benefit under the Bill by practically depriving every man outside the congested area, who is a landless man within the meaning of the Bill, of any chance of relief. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that Amendment, but, judging by his action in the present case, I fear he will. But if he does, it is clear that outside the congested area there will be no relief under this Bill. That will be a terrible calamity. One half of my Constituency, for instance, on the edge of the mountains and bog, is tenanted by the great bulk of the people, while the other half is tenanted by the bullock and the rancher. The people living on the edge of the mountain and the bog are looking down on the fertile plains, which under the

    63
    Bill in its original shape could be acquired for their benefit; but they are now to be kept from going down. I hope they will raid them. If they take my advice, they will. These people are to be deprived of any relief except the emigrant ship. That is an appalling prospect; and I have risen to tell the right hon. Gentleman—for whose general desire for the welfare of Ireland I have nothing but feelings of gratitude, but whose mistaken policy in watering down this Bill at the instance of the Lords I deeply deplore—that whoever is Chief Secretary next year will have to appeal for another chance, and he may not get it so readily as the right hon. Gentleman did after his speech at Belfast.
    Mr. DILLON: It is very difficult to understand what is the policy of the right hon. Member for Trinity College (Mr. James Campbell). First of all, he delivered a philippic against any recognition of the rights of the landless men and then said, "First deal with the congests, and then, if you have any land left, deal with the landless men."
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I did not say under this Bill.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. DILLON: Under what other Bill can it be done? What other means are there of dealing with the landless men? The right hon. Gentleman absolutely contradicted himself. I am not surprised, because anybody who faced Ireland on the platform and cut off from all assistance those who are known as landless men, would have to face a campaign such as that indicated by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Farrell). Let me point out the origin of the landless man. He was called into existence as an element in the Irish situation by the Act of 1903. The audacity and the inconsistency of hon. Members above the Gangway in denouncing the provisions of this Bill as it left the House of Commons, in which the landless men were put in the second category of those for whom land should be provided, are amazing. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that in the Act of 1903 these men were put by their own Government in exactly the same position. The provision in that Act, under which the whole of this machinery is set going, is that in the case of the sale of an estate advances may be made for the purchase of parcels of land for "the following persons … (b) being the son of a tenant" — otherwise, a landless man.
    64
    The only change the Government have made in the present Bill is not one in priority, because the landless man comes in under the second heading just as he does in the Act of 1903, but one introducing the £30 annual value, which is a most beneficial and proper change, because it confines the benefit to the sons of the smaller men. Therefore this paragraph which the Chief Secretary is going to leave out at the dictation of the House of Lords is a paragraph strictly founded on the Act of 1903, and where it does differ is slightly more restrictive. Is it therefore not a monstrous thing that these Gentlemen above the Gangway should raise this howl about the landless men on a policy which has been the creation of their own Government when they were in power? If hon. Members are somewhat taken aback in astonishment at the heat of the language used by the hon. Member for Longford, they must remember that what they are deliberately proposing to do now is to withdraw the privileges granted to these men under the Act of 1903. Ireland is not a very easy country to govern or to manage. I remember on one occasion remonstrating with a certain distinguished Indian gentleman of my acquaintance who was proceeding in Ireland on lines which induced me to say to him that he seemed to think that he was dealing with mild Hindus, whereas he was dealing with Irishmen. Supposing you put England or Scotland, or any other law-abiding country in the place of Ireland, and you proposed, in a Bill, to withdraw from an active and vigorous class the benefits which they have been in the enjoyment of for five years, do you imagine that they would take it lying down? Of course not. Really the stupidity of the House of Lords in these matters is beyond belief and comprehension. Paragraph (e) was put into this Bill and power given to the Estates Commissioners to give land to anybody under the conditions specified, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that when we were discussing this before there was no question of applying paragraph (e) to those who are now mentioned in paragraph (b).
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman ought to quote me correctly. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary assured us that all that was proposed was that the paragraph should apply to the non-agricultural residue on the estate.
    Mr. DILLON: Certainly, because he had already provided for the others.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is what I said.
    Mr. DILLON: I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not know that the Lords were going to stultify themselves, and to make asses and donkeys of themselves——
    Mr. SPEAKER: There ought to be some limit to the terms of abuse that hon. Members may use towards the other House. They would resent it very much if the same terms were applied to themselves.
    Mr. DILLON: I forgot, Sir, for a moment; but the right hon. Gentleman had no conception that the Lords would deliberately cut out paragraph (b), which was exactly framed after the similar paragraph in the Act of 1903. That Act was passed by a Tory Government. What the Lords profess to do is to alter the precedence in which these people are to be dealt with. They are not shutting out the landless men from the benefits of this Act! If the attempt were made it would be civil war in Ireland—to withdraw from these young men privileges that they enjoyed under a Tory Act of Parliament for the last five years. And to do that in a Bill which is supposed to be a Bill to extend these privileges in Ireland! The thing is unthinkable. What the right hon. Gentleman very fairly and rationally said was that the the Lords, under a pretended zeal for the "congests," and a newborn zeal for the evicted tenant, said that the landless men must not come under paragraph (b), but must be shifted down to the bottom of the list, and that they must be taken up in a different order. That is the way to interpret it. I object most strongly to the thing as it now stands. I do not go quite so far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford, but I say that a more foolish campaign was never entered upon by the Government than to withdraw from these men the privileges they have enjoyed.
    Let me say this before I sit down about these landless men. I have heard most extraordinary things said about them. They are spoken of above the Gangway as if they were a set of robbers, or thieves, or ne'er-do-wells. I say that if there was an abundance of land in Ireland no Government could undertake a more beneficial or more beneficent task than supplying these landless men with land. Talk about "back to the land," and trying to recolonise England with the peasantry it has lost!
    66
    We in Ireland have got the peasantry, who live on the land, and cannote be divorced from it except by military force. These landless young men are the cream of our country. They are the sons of our farmers and understand farming, and have received in many cases some assistance from their farmers in the shape of stock. These are pouring now across the Atlantic in continual streams, and depleting the very best blood of our country. These landless men who desire to get upon these farms are talked about as if it were some infamous, lawless passion to wish to possess the land. It is a most laudable passion, and one which every intelligent Government should encourage. Therefore I hope it will be. clearly understood, if this Amendment is passed, that we are most irreconcileably opposed to it, even if it is passed with no question raised as to these landless men in Ireland having their privileges reduced, but simply shifted down to a lower scale in the list of priority.
    Mr. MOORE: I hope hon. Members in this House interested in this question will carefully study and carefully consider the perfervid criticism upon this Bill from below the Gangway. It is perfectly well known when the General Election approaches that the hon. Member for East Mayo and his following will go to their constituents and say, "Look at what we gained for you; look at this splendid Land Bill; look how much we have earned for you from the House of Commons; you have your Land Bill, and you ought to be happy for the rest of your lives." It is only here that you hear any suggestion of the infirmities of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo gets up and talks about "this most monstrous and outrageous proceeding" of the House of Lords, forgetful of the fact that the Chief Secretary has moved it in this House. Hon. Members below the Gangway always ignore the fact that it is a monstrous and outrageous proceeding on the part of the Government to omit these landless men or put them at the bottom of the Clause. In Ireland, however, they will say: "Here is a Land Bill which is giving facilities for existing proprietors of £10 rateable value to have their holdings enlarged. That is the object of the Bill. It is better to add to the holdings of the men already in possession than to bring men in from the village corner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is my opinion. I say it is much more desirable to give a man with a small holding an

    67
    additional 5 or 10 acres, and let him bring up his family on an economic holding than bring a gentleman in from the village corner and plant him on a holding alongside of perhaps five acres, with the consequence that both of them are confined to their small plots for the rest of their days, and you have two pauper families instead of one. That is commonsense. I am not going to suggest that all the landless men in Ireland are undesirable persons. I do not think any Member on these Benches has ever said so. But I do say this, that the bulk of the cattle-drivers over whom the hon. Member for East Mayo was so very discreetly silent are landless men. This Government has taught them if they agitate, and cattle-drive, and make a neighbourhood disturbed, that that is the way to get a grant of land from this Government. I say that those who are interested in the establishment of peasant proprietorship could not have taken any other course than what the House of Lords has done by this Amendment to secure first of all peasant proprietorship; secondly, that the man who has given up his farm to allow a congested farm to get more room should be considered; and, thirdly, that the evicted tenant should come first and be provided with an adequate holding before you bring in the young gentleman who has done cattle-driving or anything else, and whose desire, a very natural one, is to get a farm on State credit. I can quite understand that anything would be welcomed by hon. Members below the Gangway and by the hon. Member for East Mayo that would impede and block the work of purchase. The hon. Member for East Mayo has told the public that the Land Purchase Act was working too fast.
    Mr. DILLON: No, I did not say that; that is a gross misstatement.
    Mr. MOORE: The hon. Gentleman is doing himself an injustice and me an injustice. I will quote from "The Freeman's Journal," and then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see if he can repudiate what I quote. In "The Freeman's Journal" for 12th September, 1906, the hon. Gentleman, speaking at Swinford, said:—
    "Attempts have been made from time to time to throw the blame on Michael Davitt, 'The Freeman's Journal; and myself, and it has been said that we have delayed the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, and obstructed the smooth working of the Act. I wish to Heaven we had the power to obstruct the smooth working of the Act more than we have. It has worked too smoothly, far too smoothly to my mind."
    68
    Then he went on to say in the same speech:—
    "Some men have complained within the past year, that the Land Act was not working fast enough. For my part, I look upon it as working a great deal too fast. Its pace has been ruinous to the people."
    Is that report accurate? I think the hon. Member for East Mayo did me an injustice when he complained of my quotation of his remarks. The other day I was interrupted by the hon. Member, and he then stated that he never said it. He got up and gave his reasons, but he cannot now dispute that he said what I have quoted from his own paper. Is this an accurate report or not?
    Mr. DILLON: I am not denying its accuracy, but what I said was that the hon. Member has grossly misrepresented me when he said that I obstructed land purchase. The context of my speech shows what I objected to was land purchase working smoothly at 24 years' purchase in districts where before the Act of 1903 it had worked at 13 years' purchase.
    Mr. MOORE: The hon. Member's memory is again at fault. When I spoke in reference to his desires for land purchase not being interrupted, I said he denounced the Act of 1903 as working too smoothly and too fast. He disputed that, and I thereupon fortified myself by quoting the actual words of his speech. I leave it to the judgment of the House to say whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was in error or was accurate when he denied that he had stated the Act was working too fast. This is all part of the same policy which is intended to stop and to obstruct land purchase whatever way it can. One moment it takes the form of an effort to abolish the zones; at present it is the effort to bring in the landless men. That will mean some delay and obstruction, and will bring some aid to the British Treasury. It is surprising how anxious hon. Members below the Gangway are to help the British Treasury. Bring in the landless men; that will stop purchase. It will keep the agitation on foot, and that is the breath of life of hon. Members below the Gangway, because it will make sure for them their seats in this House.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: The hon. Member who has just sat down taunts my hon. Friend the member for East Mayo with a desire to obstruct land purchase, and to obstruct it by bringing in the landless men. The hon. and learned Member must have a very short memory if he has forgotten how the landless men were first

    69
    heard of. The landless men were first heard of in acute controversy in connection with the Act of 1903, and therefore it is perfectly absurd at this time of day to suggest that it is we who have brought into being the landless men. It is also ridiculous for the hon. Member to suggest that there is now, as the Bill stands without the Lords Amendments, any conflict of interests between the congests and the landless men. He said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College also said, let us first be satisfied that there is sufficient land for the men who have farms of £ or £10 valuation, and then, when that is done, and only then, seek the sons of tenants. Without any change in the Bill, that is precisely what is provided for. The priority which these hon. Gentlemen desire to give to the congests is provided for in the Bill as it stands, and therefore if that is really their object, and if that is all they desire, well, then, it is amply provided for, and there is nothing to need the change suggested by the Lords Amendments at all. But, of course, one cannot listen to Debates in this House or read the speeches and the writings of Unionist members in Unionist papers without seeing that their attitude goes far beyond any anxiety merely for the congests. It really is very difficult to understand their extraordinary hostility to what are called the landless men. If we were free to consider what would be the best for the economic salvation of Ireland, I suppose there is no class in the community for whom we ought to desire to cater more fully than just this very class who are called landless men, because it is through them, and them alone, that we can hope to stop emigration and to build up again a really strong agricultural system in Ireland.
    I have risen not so much to make these criticisms of hon. Members above the Gangway, but to say as a Member for a congested county that it is perfectly preposterous to suggest, as was suggested when the elective element of the Congested Districts Board was under consideration, that there would be a sort of conspiracy of Members representing Mayo, Galway, and Cork to defraud the congests out of their rights in order to bring in the landless men. Although, on the face of it, it is ridiculous to suggest that, we are all unanimous in our desire that when the prior rights, as they are prior rights, and ought to remain prior rights, of the congests are satisfied, the Estates Commissioners should then be free to provide as
    70
    far as may be for men who are likely in their opinion to make good use of the soil of the country. I cannot really understand why there is this extraordinary distrust so constantly shown by hon. Members above the Gangway of officials appointed by their own Government. This extraordinary desire constantly to tie the hands of their officials is very remarkable. I should think that the experience of the Land Tax in Ireland has shown over and over again the enormous amount of harm, delay, and trouble of all sorts which arises by the habit which Parliament has got into of constantly putting in ridiculous little limitations, attempting to foresee every possible eventuality, in such a manner that when those charged with doing the work come to do it they find themselves constantly hampered and unable to turn the land when it comes into their hands to the best use. Surely the best policy is to appoint the best men you can find to carry out these difficult operations, and having found them, then to trust them and to leave them as free as you reasonably can to carry out the operations to the best advantage of the country as a whole.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: As the representative of a congested county, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the landless men. I hope that under Clause (e) the landless men will come in. One of the most vital principles of this Bill is that it provides for these so-called landless men. The whole object of this Bill, and the whole object of the great land movement in Ireland of which this Bill is a product, is what might be called the regeneration of Ireland, and in great part the regeneration of Ireland from within. In Ireland nowadays we see the population greatly reduced—almost reduced to half what it was 50 years ago—yet at the same time we know there is land enough in Ireland, and opportunity enough in Ireland, and resources enough in Ireland, to maintain not only the population which Ireland had 50 years ago, but a still greater population. The congests are sufficiently safeguarded in other ways, and it is absoluetly necessary also that the landless men should be provided for, and they will be provided for inevitably, legally or illegally. It is almost a matter of necessity, and in the course of time these landless men will be provided for. They have been pointed to as cattle-drivers, and cattle driving has been declared to be illegal. One would hardly condemn it on that ground alone. Previous Land Acts during a number of years past have very

    71
    often consecrated what were denounced as illegal measures before these Land Acts were passed. These measures, after all, are not illegal in the true sense. Illegality consists in preventing these men from having access to the land of their fathers, and which is really theirs. These people are suffering from a deep sense of iniquity and injustice in Ireland. I do not propose to speak further now on this subject, and I shall conclude with a quotation from a poet which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will greatly appreciate. I remember on a previous occasion, when this very poet, Oliver Goldsmith, was quoted by Mr. Gladstone, who found fault with him for his political economy, but the words of Oliver Goldsmith, which I now quote, are the words of a true political economist:—
    "Princes or lords may flourish or may fade.
    A breath can wake them as a breath has made
    But a bold peasantry their country's pride.
    When once destroyed can never be supplied."
    These words represent the feeling of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and these people, no matter what may be the fate of this Bill, or this particular Clause in the Bill, will never be satisfied until these men are provided for.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: In my humble opinion the Lords, by their Amendments, have made this Bill less unbearable than it was before it left this House. Where they have dealt with the proposals of the Bill with regard to the landless men, they have done a great service. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Donegal (Mr. Hugh Law) informed us that it was too late in the day now to raise the question as to who first tried to get landless men included under these Land Acts. I agree with him that it was under the Act of 1903 that the landless man was first turned into a living person, and I think a very great mistake was made by giving the landless man the status he was given under the Act of 1903. One of the, hon. Members who has spoken stated that the landless man and his treatment formed one of the vital principles of this particular Bill. Let the House consider that statement for a moment and remember what it was we were told was the vital object of the Bill, which we were promised so many months before this Bill was introduced. We were told that this Bill was simply a measure to facilitate the working of the Act of 1903, and to provide money to carry out that Act. We were also told that the
    72
    question of relieving the ratepayers owing to the loss on flotation was one of the things to be remedied. That was the feeling with regard to this Bill. It is quite true that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway took good care, by pressure upon the Chief Secretary, that the Bill should do a great deal more, and it is the fact of insisting upon having so much put into this measure that has made it doubtful whether it will ever pass into law. As far as I am concerned, I cannot conceive how this Bill will do any man any good at all.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. We are not now discussing the Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I will confine myself to landless men. I would like to ask the Attorney-General how he proposes to deal with the next generation of landless men. How will his successors provide for them? According to this Bill and the views of hon. Members below the Gangway, every landless man in Galway, Con-naught, and every part of Ireland ought to have a right to go to the Estates Commissioners and say, "I am unable to make a livelihood, and therefore you must give me a farm." When these landless men have been provided with land, and when they have families of their own, how will the Estates Commissioners be able to fulfil their obligation of providing land for the sons of farmers. How will they be able to get sufficient land to supply such a demand? The right hon. Gentleman is getting land legislation in Ireland into a greater quagmire than ever it was in in the past by putting forward such provisions as are proposed in this Section. I am only sorry that another place did not go a little further in this direction. For these reasons I think it is unfair to provide that because a man does not already hold a farm, he should be able to go to the Estates Commissioners and get one. That will lead to the utmost confusion in the offices of the Estates Commissioners, and I most heartily support the proposition to leave that proposal out of the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN O'DOWD: I do not rise to advocate the claims of the landless men because I consider there are two prior claims, namely, those of the evicted tenants and the congests. I hope, upon the Motion before the House, I shall be permitted to give my views in a general way. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the thanks of the Irish people for the Land Bill which he has intro-

    73
    duced. As it was brought forward originally it would have satisfied the people of Ireland, and not only would it have satisfied the farmers, but also the landless men, the evicted tenants, and the congests. If the other House had ratified what was proposed and passed by this House everything would have been squared. The point I wish to make, however, is that we should put forward the claims of the congests and the evicted tenants. I know that, after all, these are mere matters of detail, but if the Bill as it went from this House had been ratified by the other House it would have put an end to the agrarian war, and we should not have had the land war entering upon a new phase.
    Mr. P. J. POWER: I think we must all come to the conclusion that by accepting the Amendments which have been made elsewhere the landless people will be in a much worse position than they were put in by the Tory Government in 1903. In the Debate which has taken place we have had the old charge reiterated against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he is opposed root and branch to the system of land purchase in Ireland. Those of us who happen to know my hon. Friend's views are aware that that is not the case at all, because my hon. Friend has always urged on the people that they should be very careful as regards the urns they offer; he believes that people who contract to pay certain instalments should be in a position to do so. Knowing that be believes in the system, I think it is too bad that these changes should be again reiterated. My hon. Friend wishes the people to be more careful in regard to what they do, and he desires them to enter into bargains which they can honestly carry out without having recourse to the ratepayers at all. I very much regret that the views of the House of Lords have been allowed to prevail so much with the Government. I do not know what the effect of their action will be in Ireland, but I know that we should never have had a Land League in Ireland of the strength to which it attained had it not been for the action of the House of Lords in regard to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I am fully aware of the claims of the congests and the evicted tenants, and I agree that they have a prior claim. Nevertheless, the landless men have some claim for consideration, because they are men of intelligence, with some capital, who understand
    74
    the working of the land. I think it would be greatly in the interests of the community if they were kept on the land and not forced to go abroad.
    Mr. W. J. DUFFY: I wish to address a few words to the House as the representative of a constituency in the West of Ireland where there are a large number of young men who have been looking forward confidently to the distribution of the grazing land. The decision which has just been announced will give rise to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction, and I am afraid that dissatisfaction will lead to something still worse. For a considerable length of time there has been an agitation in the West of Ireland in the direction of securing land for the sons of tenant farmers who have the means and who are competent to manage parcels of land, and when they come to know that steps have been taken by the House of Commons to deny them the prospect which was held out to them in the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary they will be very much disappointed. A large number of those in my own Constituency have been agitating on this question, and they have been very active in endeavouring to obtain the untenanted lands of the country for the sons of tenant farmers. From the time the speech of the Chief Secretary was made that agitation ceased in the West of Ireland, because these people were led to believe that steps would be taken to arm the Estates Commissioners with powers to take over that land for distribution amongst those men. To-morrow the minds of all those men will be filled with great alarm, and I am apprehensive of what is going to take place as a result of the action which I presume the House of Commons will take to-night. I wish to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the greater portion of the untenanted lands in the West of Ireland have been brought into the market through the activity of the young men of the country. Who are the young men who brought the land in the neighbourhood of Loughrea into the hands of the Estates Commissioners? Was it not the young men of the district? If this particular Section was deleted, what position will it place these young men in? It will make it mandatory upon the Estates Commissioners, first of all, to enlarge the holdings of uneconomic tenants by giving them an additional slice of land where the valuation does not exceed £10. Secondly, it

    75
    will compel the Estates Commissioners to give over a share of the land to people imported from a distance for the purpose of relieving congestion. They may be people who have surrendered other holdings in different parts of the county a considerable distance away. The Subsection makes it mandatory upon the Estates Commissioners to import such people into a district where perhaps you may have plenty of young men competent to take possession of the land and thus you deny them the right to obtain possession of the land which they consider themselves entitled to on the strength of the statement which has been made during the past year. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without telling the Chief Secretary that the action of the House of Lords and of the Ministry in acceding to the conditions laid down by that House will not only give rise to great dissatisfaction in the West of Ireland but will render the work of the Estates Commissioners very difficult indeed in the future. They have, goodness knows, been hampered up to the present time by conditions which we have all been anxious to remove. The Estates Commissioners have under trying and difficult circumstances done their best to distribute the untenanted land of the country. They have found themselves in
    a rather tight corner in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, and some of us have done our best, having co-operated with the Estate Commissioners, to allay fear and apprehension on the part of the people in the hope that the day would come when the Estate Commissioners would be given powers to enable them to distribute among the needy people of the locality a considerable share of the grazing lands. When they find, as the result of the compact entered into between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, that they will be denied all prospect of having any share in these lands, all I can say is that it will lead to great uneasiness and dissatisfaction. The Government are taking upon themselves a responsibility which I for one, if I were in their position, should regard as being very serious. Owing to the steps you are taking now, you must inevitably within a short time bring in another Land Bill for the purpose of making good the weaknesses of this Bill, because the young men of the country who have willingly gone into gaol and have faced all the terrors of imprisonment in order to secure such land will not rest satisfied.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 85.

    Division No. 899.]

    AYES

    [6.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Causton, Rt. Hen. Richard Knight

    Falconer, J.

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

    Cave, George

    Fenwick, Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawlcy, Sir Frederick

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Astbury, John Meir

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Forster, Henry Wiliam

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Clough, William

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Barker, Sir John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gretton, John

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cox, Harold

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Branch, James

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Bright, J. A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Helme, Nerval Watson

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Byles, William Pollard

    Elibank, Master of

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Cameron, Robert

    Erskine, David C.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hooper, A. G.

    Massie, J.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Horniman, Emslle John

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Middlebrook, William

    Seely, Colonel

    Illingworth, Percy H,

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Moore, William

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Morrell, Philip

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Morse, L. L,

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Tennant, H. J (Berwickshire)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Paul, Herbert

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Toulmin, George

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Vivian, Henry

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lambert, George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lamont, Norman

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Radford, G. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Watt, Henry A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rees, J. D.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Fenwick, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Lynch, H. B.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Winfrey, R.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Younger, George

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rowlands, J.

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Alden, Percy

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Keating, M.

    Reddy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Richardson, A.

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Stead man, W. C.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murnaghan, George

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Summerbell, T.

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ginnell, L.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Dowd, John

    Hodge, John

    O'Grady, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendments agreed to:
    In paragraph (e) leave out the word "considering" and insert instead thereof the words "adequate provision has been made to satisfy."
    In paragraph (c), after the word "of" ["requirements of persons"], insert the word "the."

    Clause 19.—(Facilities for the Planting and Preservation of Woods.)
    (1) Where a parcel of an estate is purchased or proposed to be purchased by trustees under Section four of the Act of 1903 for the purpose of the planting of trees or the preservation of woods or plantations, and the parcel is subject to any

    79
    grazing rights or easements appurtenant to holdings on the estate, the Land Commission may, if they think fit, on the application of the trustees, make an Order releasing that parcel from all or any of those rights and easements upon such terms as to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon by the parties interested or, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Land Commission; and any such Order shall be effectual to release the parcel from those rights and easements in the manner and to the extent therein specified.
    (2) Where any land is resold to the owner of an estate in pursuance of Section three or Section seventy-six of the Act of 1903, and the land is subject to any such rights or easements as aforesaid, the Land Commission may on the application of the owner exercise the powers conferred on them by the last preceding Subjection as regards those rights and easements, if and so far as they are satisfied that the land, or portion thereof, is required by the owner for any of the said purposes.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "grazing," to insert the words "or other."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House, I think, will have no difficulty in agreeing with two Amendments designed to afford facilities for the preservation and the planting of woods and plantations. The first is to enable the Land Commission to release land from other rights and easements, as well as from any grazing rights or easements which are found to interfere with the getting of land for this purpose, the owner, of course, to be compensated when injured; and the other Amendment provides that the landlord may resume a portion of a holding for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations or growing timber on the following conditions: The Land Commission must be satisfied that it is desirable the resumption should be authorised, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption; and that the tenant should receive full compensation. We have reason to believe this Amendment will secure valuable plantations which might otherwise be sacrificed, and will also provide opportunities for obtaining suitable land for forestry purposes which otherwise would be lost. Anyone who knows Ire-
    80
    land knows how important it is to retain existing plantations and to obtain land for forestry purposes.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Everybody from Ireland, both above and below the Gangway, will agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has just said as to the great need for something being done in Ireland to preserve the woods and forests and to increase tree plantation. A very short time ago a Departmental Committee sat in Dublin to take evidence on this question, and it furnished a Report which has met with general acceptance. Everybody in Ireland is most anxious that something should be done to increase afforestry in that country, which I may say is the most neglected land on the face of the earth in that respect with the exception of Iceland. In this country afforestry has been greatly neglected. The same is the case in Scotland and in Ireland, but the area under plantation in some parts of Ireland is less than that in Iceland. Afforestry is a source of wealth and employment. Everybody is most anxious that something should be done to promote it. At the same time I am not quite sure whether this Amendment will forward the object in view. As I understand it, Clause 19 of the Bill originally proposed to give power to authorities to acquire suitable land for the purpose of planting trees in Ireland. The idea was generally understood to be that the power of buying land for the purpose of tree planting was to be placed in the hands of the Agricultural Department in Ireland, which has within it a Department of Afforestry. Many people advocated that there should be established in Ireland anew authority to deal with woods and forests, but it was pointed out that that would require legislation. It was also pointed out that the Agricultural Department has already power to deal with woods and forests, and only requires funds and power to acquire land. I am quite in favour of power being given under this Bill to the Agricultural Department to acquire land for forestry. I think that Department could carry out the work in conjunction with the county councils and local authorities of Ireland. The Amendment, so far as I can understand it, goes further. It proposes to give power to landlords who are selling to resume that part of their property upon which woods and forests may be. I should be very glad to see landlords as well as other people I helping forward the work of afforestation

    81
    in Ireland. What I am doubtful about is whether this will have that effect. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might submit to his friends in the House of Lords—perhaps he may not have any friends there, but at any rate he might submit to his acquaintances the fact that the work of afforestry would be best promoted by not leaving it in the hands of the private landlord. I am not saying that many landlords are not as anxious for the preservation of our woods and forests as other people. Many are in fact undertaking this work and giving employment in consequence, but every country in the world has shown that this question of tree planting is a matter for a public authority, or for the State, and if you are to have a revival of afforestry in Ireland you will not get it if you leave it in private hands. I think it would be far better in the interests of afforestation if, instead of passing this Amendment, the House would agree to leave the whole of this matter in the hands of the Agricultural Department to work in conjunction with the county councils of Ireland. I say that as one who takes a deep interest in this question, and who happens to be a member of the Committee on Forestry, which handed in a Report that has met with general acceptance. Although the Agricultural Department had £6,000 a year given it for the purpose of acquiring land under the Land Act of 1903 for the purpose of tree planting and afforestation, I must say I think it would be far better to leave the whole matter in the hands of a public Department, and not leave it to be worked piecemeal by private individuals throughout the country.
    I know there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the landlord who sells his property, who has perhaps a considerable wood near his house or demesne in which he may take a great interest, and the control of which he does not wish to part with, but I honestly believe, if this work of replanting in Ireland, which all parties, North and South, are anxious to see carried out, is to be well done, it must be done throughout the country by some central authority, and it will not be well done if left to individual landlords here and there. Let the land, which it is proposed under this Amendment the landlord should be allowed to resume, be placed under the county council or under the Department of Agriculture directly, but do not leave it in private hands. If that is done there will be different systems here and there. I am anxious for the preservation of the woods
    82
    and forests of Ireland, and I would agree to any amendment, even if it came from the House of Lords, if I thought it would have that effect. But it is because I honestly believe that the intentions of the people will be frustrated if this Amendment is carried that I ask the Chief Secretary and the Government to consider whether it would not be better to proceed on uniform lines and to put the whole question under one authority instead of leaving it in the hands of private individuals.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: If the occasion were a fitting one, I would be glad to take this opportunity to say something on the whole policy of afforestation in Ireland, where I believe there is a greater field for work of this kind than in any other part of the United Kingdom. If afforestation is to be carried out in that country with a reasonable prospect of success, I say it certainly would be advantageous if it were directed from one of the Government Departments. But may I point out to those who criticise this Amendment that its acceptance does not interfere with the ultimate adoption in Ireland of a large scheme of afforestation such as that recommended by the Departmental Committee. Really all the Amendment does is to enable the Land Commission, if it thinks it desirable, to allow the landlord to resume his land. The hon. Member for East Clare will agree with me that since the last Act came into operation in a great many cases, through no fault whatever of the tenants, the conditions of trees in many cases have become worse on estates than before. I am confident that nobody who has really taken the trouble to study these questions throughout Ireland will deny the truth of the statement that in many cases the condition and supply of trees is worse than it was before. But it has not been the fault of the landowner; it has been his misfortune. I think it is desirable to give to owners of land, where they are willing, the power to carry out the work of afforestation and the extension of plantations or the creation of new ones. I have only one word to say in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Clare. Nobody on this side of the House would venture to bring so grave a charge against the Government as that which he made when he said the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, had nothing more than acquaintances in the House of Lords. When we remember that there are in the House of Lords gentlemen who sit in the same Cabinet, I must sug-

    83
    gest that my sympathies go out to the Chief Secretary when it is hinted that his relations with his colleagues are not more than those of mere acquaintanceship. I hope the Government will adhere to this Amendment. I do not think it interferes with the eventual application to Ireland of some large scheme of afforestation.
    Mr. W. MOORE: May I call attention to the fact that this whole Debate is proceeding on an Amendment to line 18, which simply deals with the question of grazing.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments are moved together and can be discussed together.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin that the responsibility for injury done in the matter of afforestation in Ireland should be distributed, but I confess that I think that responsibility rests far more on the shoulders of the landlord than of any other class. It could not be otherwise. The landlords are human. They are dealing with their own property, and naturally wish to get the last penny out of it. It is perfectly true that the process of land purchase has injured afforestation in Ireland. Very often a tree in the middle of a field has been found to be a serious obstacle to cultivation and the tenant naturally has desired to get rid of it, so that between landlord and tenant there has been a considerable denudation of trees in the country. Some cases have been very bad. There was a notorious ease near Clonturk, where the tenant fought the landlord on the question of whether a portion of the property was residential or not. The owner had a very pretty house and nicely planted land, and the contention was raised in the Land Court that this holding was residential, and the landlord succeeded in the Land Court. What did the agent do when he sold the estate? He insisted upon cutting down every tree on the holding, and in utterly disfiguring it, and certainly proved the tenant's case that it was not residential, and it is the fact, whatever the cause may be, that land purchase has led to the denudation of the country of trees. I share the feelings and sympathise with the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond) in regard to any scheme that will assist in putting an end to that process and get the country planted again, but I also share the view of the hon. Member that this Amendment is
    84
    not the best way to do it. I do not object to the first part of the Amendment, which deals with the cases where the land is vested in trustees, and I think there is nothing in that Amendment which is objectionable, although the addition of the word "grazing" somewhat extends its scope.
    As to the second part of the Amendment, however, I regard it with great dislike and suspicion. This is not the first time since the Land Act of 1881 was passed that there has been an attempt to make an inroad upon the rights of the tenant to hold his land as against the landlord. There was an attempt made under the Land Act of 1906 to give the Congested Districts Board power in the congested districts to put an end to statutory tenancies, and I was against taking from the Irish tenant any of the rights which he won after such a long struggle and after great self-sacrifice. Similarly, I myself, in these Debates, put forward the view that there should be express protection given to the tenant who has bought out his landlord, or who under any tenure was occupying and cultivating his land, and I suggested that that man should be expressly protected from any attempt to take it away from him. It may be said that this Clause will only operate in a very narrow class of case. I do not wish to say anything against the Irish landlords or to treat them otherwise than as good Irishmen, and it is not one landlord in ten thousand, once he has sold his estate, who will desire to plant any portion of it as a plantation, but the danger in this case is that this power will be used for some indirect object. That is the principal danger which existed in regard to the powers of the kind which were given under the Act of 1881. Under the Act of 1881 certain powers were given for the purpose of resumption of the holding in order to make a residence for the landlord, but the difficulty of all these cases is when, the landlord makes his application that the court has to find out not any objective facts, but what are the landlord's intentions, and the landlord succeeds not by proving anything that exists, but by proving his intention.
    Nothing is easier than for a landlord to say, "I would like this holding as a residence for myself," and nothing is easier for a landlord who has some indirect motive in his mind to say, "I want a part of that tenant's land for the purpose of a plantation," and I would ask the House to observe that the Clause is not limited, as the hon. Member for Clare seemed to sup-

    85
    pose, to land which is already planted. It is not limited to any portion of the tenant's holding which is already covered in. Therefore, any portion of the 100 acres of a man's land which never grew a tree can be taken, and the provision is absolutely without limit or qualification upon it. All the landlord has to say is, "Here is some land. There were never any trees planted upon it; there are no plantations upon it or in the locality; but it occurs to me that this would be a nice place in which to plant a plantation." All he has to do is to come into court, and if the Land Commissioners believe him, he has power to get his land back, and he may do so, and he can change his mind the next day. What is more, this Clause has no limitation in regard to the holding which the landlord is selling to the tenant. It is sufficient that the landlord is selling the estate, and if there is one dissentient tenant on the estate who is not buying and who is differing from the landlord as to price or for any other reason and is not buying, the landlord may select that one holding as the place on which to make an experiment of a plantation. See what a temptation it is to the landlord who wishes to put pressure upon the tenant. He may say, "You are not going to buy at the same rate as the other tenants. I have a plan for tree planting, and I shall apply to the Land Commission that 20, 30, or 40 acres of your holding, which would suit me very well, should be devoted to that purpose." I quite agree that the cases in which the landlord would act in that way would be very rare, and I do not think that a landlord who would do so would be a fair specimen of Irish landlords generally. But there are some landlords, and some land agents especially, who are not above conceiving a scheme of that kind if it would serve any particular purpose. I do not say this is a largo question. I do not say it is a great danger to Irish tenants, but it does tend to inroads upon their holdings against which I do most emphatically protest.
    Mr. CULLINAN: When this question of tampering with the holdings of purchasing tenants in Ireland was before the House on a previous occasion, I directed the attention of the Chief Secretary and of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the fact that I believed the occupiers of new holdings in Ireland would have a decided objection to it, but I really felt that it was a good thing to see that clearances should not be made by liberty being given to re-
    86
    move ornamental trees. There is no objection to the protection of ornamental trees, but there is a very strong feeling on the part of a large number of purchasers in Ireland, and I think very properly, against Parliament year after year sanctioning new inroads upon their rights. I know there are instances where there have been clearances of ornamental trees, but I also know of cases, in regard to which I addressed questions to the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, in which land agents would not under any circumstances sell to their tenants the beautiful plantations which had been made by their fathers or grandfathers, and actually destroyed those plantations. I certainly must protest against the statement or the insinuation, that since land purchase has considerably increased in Ireland the tenant purchasers are inclined to cut down the timber. In my experience it is the other way, and I say that the new purchasers are showing every disposition to improve, and beautify, and shelter, and make their holdings comfortable. For that reason I must say that I think this Amendment is most uncalled for, and, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has said, there is no limitation in regard to it. What is the object? There is no object in it, except that some Members of the Upper House have in their eye some particular spot which when they sell their property they would like to get hold of and get back again. Take the case of a farmer who has a nice holding. Do you mean to tell me that the Irish tenant is going to be satisfied when in the very centre of the farm which he has purchased he is to hand over a portion to the landlord for the purpose of his planting it? I say that the purchasers would object, and would be perfectly justified in objecting, to such a course. You are getting rid of the landowners in Ireland at an extraordinary price, at much more than they are entitled to, and you talk about the British taxpayer and his giving credit for an amount which he should not be required to give. That being so, why should you, in order to satisfy the opinions of the landlords, give them any claim upon the land which they are parting with. If the Government agree to this Amendment it will cause great dissatisfaction, and I must say I think it is a proposal which is most uncalled for.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I think the condition of affairs which the hon. Member has put before the House is not likely to

    87
    arise. He says no tenant farmer would consent to a landlord commencing a plantation in the middle of his farm, but he has only to look at the Amendment to find that the Land Commission will only allow a landowner to resume possession on such terms as may be approved of by them, including full compensation to the tenant, and that they may apportion the rent and discharge that portion of the holding from the tenancy. It is quite clear that the Land Commission is not going to allow the landowner to resume possession of a plantation of trees without some stringent conditions that the piece of ground must be used for that purpose or some other purpose of the same nature. So far as what fell from the hon. Member for Clare is concerned, I thoroughly agree that we should do anything which would tend to encourage the growth of trees in Ireland, but I think that while that which he asked for would be a more perfect system than is contained in the Amendment before us now, a great deal more can be done than he seems to think by means of the latter, for the reason that the Land Commission have here power to lay down the terms and conditions on which land which is resumed for such a purpose shall be held, and it seems to me that if the Land Commission seriously desire, and I have no doubt they do, to have tree-culture encouraged in Ireland and to see Ireland become more covered with trees than, it is at present, they would proceed to lay down general rules and conditions under this Section. If they do so, if they draw up the rules under which it is known they are prepared to act unless the landlord is prepared to agree to those conditions, he will not be allowed to hold property for that purpose. Another hon Member said there would not be one landlord in 10,000 who would desire to hold property for the mere purpose of preserving trees, but surely every hon. Member below the Gangway can bring 10 his mind a case of demesnes in Ireland where the bulk of the trees are not close to the house, but are scattered about, it may be at a distance of half-a-mile, a mile, or even two miles. There are plantations which, though not actually part of the demesne, add very much to the beauty of the surroundings, and it would be a thousand pities if, when the ordinary tenanted lend is sold, these plantations should disappear. There could be no better way of securing that these plantations should continue to
    88
    exist than giving the Land Commissioners the very powers proposed to be given them by this Amendment, namely, to include these pieces of land which, although not actually part of the demesne land are in reality a part of it, in so far as they are ornamental grounds and had originally, probably, been planted in connection with plantations existing on the demesne. In very many cases it will be the greatest pity if these outlying plantations should be allowed to disappear, and of all the schemes which I have heard put forward, short of some general scheme for afforestation, for preserving trees, the scheme which is contained in this Amendment is by far the most practicable, and one which is much more likely to meet what are the views of every section of the House, namely, that as many trees as possible in Ireland should be preserved.
    Mr. P. J. POWER: I am anxious that we should preserve the few plantations and trees that we have in Ireland. They are not only an advantage to the scenery of the country, but if the country were more planted with trees it would have a most beneficial effect on the climate. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Clare in saying that if the thing is carried out well, it will be necessary to have some sort of uniform system, but at the same time, looking at this Amendment as it is on the Paper, I am inclined to be somewhat sceptical as to its use. I am afraid it may possibly lead to land being unreasonably taken from the farmers which they have already acquired. I hope it cannot have the effect of increasing the habit which some landlords have adopted in my Constituency, of planting farms from which people have been evicted. I had occasion to ask questions about Lord Ashdown's estate where farms were planted with trees and the reinstatement of the people thereby frustrated, and I am sorry to say the same system has been pursued by another landlord in the same neighbourhood. While very anxious to see the trees already there properly preserved and guarded, I should hesitate to give these somewhat plenary powers to the Land Commission. As to who has denuded the land of the timber, as a rule the Irish landlord is a poor man, and, when selling his land, he is tempted to turn into cash any plantation that he may have. Under the circumstances, I should think once, twice, or thrice before I would give these powers to the Commission.
    Mr. MOORE: I think hon. Members are unduly alarmed about this. The hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) said the Amendment looked alright, but he was afraid there was something behind it, some ulterior motive by which it would be used to force a tenant to come to special terms or to pay a higher price for his holding. I cannot see that, because at present you have practically identical powers given to every landlord in the country. He can enter a tenant's holding at any hour of the day to resume under four or five different heads, and it is quite immaterial, if there is going to be pressure of this sort, that a sixth head should be added under the shape of giving power to resume for planting, because the machinery is already there, and, though I have a very considerable knowledge of sales through all parts of the country, I never heard of a case where the power to resume under the Act of 1881 was ever used for any purpose which has come into the head of the hon. Member. But then really there is very little scope left for the operation of this Clause. Fifty million pounds' worth of estates were sold before the Act of 1903, £23,000,000 worth of estates have been sold since then, and there are £62,000,000 worth agreed to be sold now lying in the offices of the Estates Commissioners, none of which can possibly be covered by this Clause. So that if the Clause is passed it would only apply to something less than a fourth of all the untenanted land of Ireland which remains to be sold.
    Then, when one comes to look at the Clause, it seems to me, as far as practical working goes, that it might mean nothing. Consider what sort of holdings this Clause can refer to. It can only refer to a holding where, when the landlord gets his land, the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by his doing so. What sort of holding is that? It cannot be a holding of which all the land is good, because, if you are going to plant, it is not worth while to go to the expense of draining and fencing off the new plantation. I do not think it would pay anyone to plant an area under at least 20 acres. By the time draining, fencing, thinning and everything else is done, and ground game kept out, it would not pay anyone to take up less than 20 acres. If there was any arable land or tillage land you could not get an ordinary tillage holding in which cutting 20 acres off would not materially diminish the value of the rest. The only sort of
    90
    holding which it could possibly apply to would be one, say, at the bottom of a valley, the low land all arable and a mountain thrown in for rough grazing, the sort of land useful for planting and of very small value to the holding. If the landlord was to be allowed to resume 100 acres of it for planting, leaving the tenant 10O acres for rough grazing, that is about the only case in which this Clause would apply. I quite differ from the experience of hon. members below the Gangway in saying that the disappearance of trees is entirely due to the acts of commission of the landlord. I know a part of the country very well where there are 7 miles and 10 miles between each landlord's place and nothing intervening but tenants and small proprietors, and there used to be a very fair amount of timber there, hedgerow, ash and timber of that sort, and since these people have become owners of their holdings—it is not really their fault, but you have agents from Liverpool and Glasgow and those places coming through the country tempting them with offers of 5s. or 7s. 6d. for an ash worth perhaps £1. and buying up all the hedgerow, ash and sycamore trees in the country. These people have never been tempted that way before, because while they were tenants they could not cut the trees, but the whole countryside has been cleared now by these people foolishly selling timber as they have done. It is entirely a mercantile transaction on the part of the tenant purchaser and not the landlords at all in that part of the country. It is one of the few good things in this Bill that at a later stage a new statutory condition has been imposed on tenant purchasers to prevent them from cutting down any of this timber on the holding they buy except with the consent of the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment, at the end of the Clause to insert, "(3) The Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord who is desirous of selling an estate under the Land Purchase Acts, if they are satisfied that it is desirable that the landlord should be authorised to resume a portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, or growing timber, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption, may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved

    91
    of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant, and may make an order accordingly apportioning the rent and discharging that portion of the holding from the tenancy."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 900.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 P.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Middlebrook, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Moore, William

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gulland, John W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Paul, Herbert

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beale, W. P.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Radford, G. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Rees, J. D.

    Bring, John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bright, J. A.

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

    Renwick, George

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hooper, A. G.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

    Cameron, Robert

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Cave, George

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Clough, William

    Keswick, William

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Lambert, George

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lamont, Norman

    Toulmin, George

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Vivian, Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Cox, Harold

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Wardle, George J.

    Craig, Charles, Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Warrer, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Winfrey, R.

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Elibank, Master of

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Younger, George

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Falconer, J.

    Massie, J.

    Fell, Arthur

    NOES.

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crean, Eugene

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Boland, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Delany, William

    Firench, Peter

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dillon, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Kean, John

    Reddy, M.

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Glover, Thomas

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

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mooney, J. J.

    Richardson, A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Muldoon, John

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Harrington, Timothy

    Murnaghan, George

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hodge, John

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Grady, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Keating, M.

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)

    O'Neill, Charles

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    London, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Pointer, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Clause 20.—(Equitable Price of Holdings.)
    (1) The Land Commission in determining under Sub-section (2) of Section one or under Section five of the Act of 1903 whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable shall have regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding and in the improvements thereon, and the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title.
    (2) Any question which may arise under this Section as to—

    (a) whether an improvement was or was not made by the tenant or his predecessors in title; or

    (b) whether the tenant or his predecessors in title have or have not been paid or compensated for any improvement;

    may (subject and without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Law Acts) be determined by the Land Commission, who may, in their discretion, refer the question to a Legal Assistant Commissioner, and the determination of the Land Commission or such Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be final.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 20.
    Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This is nearly the last, if not quite the last, of my broken eggs. I regret that the Clause should have been omitted, but I none the less ask the House to agree to the Amendment. The object
    94
    of the Clause was to meet the case where the calculation of the price of a holding included the price of the tenant's improvements which were the tenant's own property. I think it is only fair to say that such cases are admittedly not of frequent occurrence. There is no doubt that the force of the argument against this Clause consisted in the fact that it authorised the tearing up of contracts and involved offensive investigations by the rent-fixing tribunal. These are the objections involved in the Clause. I think they were overcome by the sense of equity in the nature of the transaction itself, but at the same time the Clause being one which excited the greatest opposition in the House of Lords, I have, for reasons which I need not refer to again, to ask the House to agree to the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. DILLON: I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman has consented to have this egg broken. It shows that the landlords understand their own interests exceedingly well. This Clause does more than the right hon. Gentleman alluded to in his statement. The real genesis of the Clause is to be found in Clause 5 of the Bill of of 1903, which is as follows:
    "In the case of the sale of an estate where an application for an advance, to which the provisions of Sub-section one of Section one of this Act do not apply, is made, the Land Commission may, subject to the limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, advance the whole or part of the purchase money if they are satisfied with the security and are of opinion that, having, regard to all the circumstances of the case, the agreed price is equitable."
    For some time the Estates Com sioners held the view—in fact, the it still—that the plain interprets

    95
    that Clause was that they were to have regard to all the circumstances before they agreed to advance the money for the price. Then came a decision—I forget whether it was by the Court of Appeal or by one of the judges—that that was not the meaning of these words. The Court held that the Commissioners were only to have regard to the rights of the remainder man, and not to the rights of the tenants, atlhough they were directed by the Clause to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Clause 20 of this Bill is far more comprehensive than the Chief Secretary would have us believe. It is, first of all, a reversion of that judgment which deprived the tenant of the protection supposed to be given by the Act of 1903, and it directs the Commissioners in finding out whether the price is equitable that they shall have regard to the rights of the landlord and the tenant, and not only the remainder man. Then it goes on to say the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not
    been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title." The Chief Secretary said that in his opinion such cases would be exceedingly few. I entirely differ. I think they form a large proportion of the sales in Ireland. The man who goes down to inspect for the Commission does not go into the question of the equity of the price; he goes into the question of security. It has over and over again been given in evidence that in considering the question of security the inspector takes into account the whole of the holding as it stands. We all know very well that a tenant's interest is sometimes more than half of the entire holding. Therefore I say that in many instances the unfortunate tenants in these sales are buying back their own improvements, which really ought to be their own property. This Clause, therefore, is not the small matter which the Chief Secretary tried to make out. In the first place, it restores what was originally supposed to be the meaning of Clause 5 of the Act of 1903, and it further says that in determining the equity of the price the Land Commission shall have regard to the tenant's improvements.
    The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 901.]

    AYES.

    [8.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Ainsworth, John St rling

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Astbury, John Meir

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Baker, Joseph A.

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

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Barker, Sir John

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, s.)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Barnard, E. B.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jackson, R. S.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Keswick, William

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Elibank, Master of

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Brigg, John

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Bright, J. A.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Falconer, J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lamont, Norman

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Gretton, John

    Lupton, Arnold

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Gulland, John W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Cave, George

    Hancock, J. G.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. B.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Massle, J.

    Renwick, George

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Toulmin, George

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Vivian, Henry

    Moore, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Rowlands, J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Seely, Colonel

    Winfrey, R.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Younger, George

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Radford, G. H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Rea, Rt. Hon, Russell (Gloucester)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Rees, J. D.

    NOES.

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

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, M.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Richardson, A.

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Ginnell, L

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Summerbell, T.

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    CLAUSE 21.—(Congested Estates.)
    (1) In Sub-Section (5) of Section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate) "ten pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds"; and the consent of the owner required by Sub-Section (4) of that Section shall cease to be required.
    (2) Where an estate not being a congested estate within the meaning of the said Section as so amended, comprises within its area one or more congested townlands, the Land Commission, or in the case of townlands situated in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board, may declare all or any one or more of such townlands to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and such townland or townlands shall thereupon be deemed for those purposes to be a separate congested estate.
    (3) An estate which consists exclusively of one or more congested townlands shall be deemed to be a congested estate.
    (4) The expression "congested town-land" means a townland in which more than one half of the holdings are—

    (a) congested holdings; or

    (b) holdings whose aggregate rateable value when divided by their number gives a sum of less than ten pounds for each holding:

    The expression "congested holding" means—

    (a) a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value; and

    (b) a holding held in rundale or intermixed plots.

    Mr. BIRRELL: I have now to ask the attention of the House to a very important

    99
    matter indeed, and to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in its Amendment," and to insert another Amendment in lieu thereof, "To leave out £10, and to insert instead thereof £7."
    The effect of this Amendment, if you look at Clause 21, will be simply to restore the Clause as it was in the Bill, and substitute £7 for £10. There are two points I find of importance in this matter. These Amendments of the House of Lords were really of the most destructive character, and I am persuaded that they conceived the view which they took not at all from the desire of really destroying the work at present carried on by the Congested Districts Board in the relief of congestion, but simply because they did not appreciate fully the nature of the operations of that work. The view I found very prevalent among persons of authority was that the Congested Districts Board—this is important in relation to the pre-emption clauses—was bound to acquire, for the purpose of relieving congestion, estates which were largely composed of tenants having economic holdings and interfering with them. The answer to this was, "We quite appreciate that the object of the Congested Districts Board is to relieve the uneconomic holdings of a great number of very small persons, but that while the sum of £5 represents, no doubt, an uneconomic holding, £10 really does not," and they appeal with a certain amount of force to the fact, of which anybody conversant with legal affairs is aware, that a tenant with a £10 holding, although very poor, according to ordinary farming ideas, is nevertheless by no means necessarily a person who can properly be described as occupying a congested holding; and therefore they kept saying, "Why do you want to take hold of land above this £5 level? Why not be content, at all events for a great many years to come, with dealing with this very difficult problem and relieving the uneconomic plight of these £5 holdings, and why should you seek to have your area of choice and operation extended so far as £10, which is not really an uneconomic holding at all?"
    The answer to that is that in order to relieve congestion it is absolutely necessary for the Congested Districts Board to acquire estates, and to acquire estates not composed entirely of uneconomic holdings, but composed partly of persons who occupy uneconomic holdings or holdings of a very small character, and
    100
    also tenants of a somewhat larger kind. That is where the policy of migration comes in with some degree of fitness, because in the case of a person with a £10 holding a really practical farmer who is accustomed to till his farm and work it satisfactorily, although in a poverty-stricken neighbourhood and surrounded with persons on small economic holdings, you cannot tempt that person, with his knowledge, his experience, and his fitness for a larger farm, to go out of his holding unless you are able to give him out of the untenanted land you have acquired elsewhere a good holding. Having got rid of him from the congested estate, with all his knowledge, his character, and ability to work a farm some distance away, on a larger scale possibly, and tempted him in that way, you then use his farm for the purpose of increasing the uneconomic holdings of the small men. There is no use in sending away small men to a neighbourhood which will not welcome them. You may have to do it occasionally, but nobody would do it cheerfully, because they have to be supplied with money, and they will have to have farm buildings and stock, and they will have to be looked after and taught how to work for the first time an enlarged holding in a proper manner. Therefore, if you are tied down by the hard and fast operation of these Amendments, if you are tied down to £5 holdings, you are really crippled, and you almost, if not entirely, destroy the operations that have been carried on advantageously by the Congested Districts Board, although with very limited resources. Therefore, as anybody acquainted with these problems knows, two things are absolutely involved: You must have possession of holdings on a larger scale than the ordinary definition of £5 of an uneconomic holding.
    It is the person who is properly called a congest for whom you labour, whom you seek to put upon a better holding, and the only way to do that is to persuade the holder of a decently large farm, a different man with greater knowledge and greater fitness to go elsewhere. That has been done over and over again by the Congested Districts Board. They have got these people to go quite contentedly to a place perhaps no great distance away where they get holdings on a larger scale which they are able to operate without being looked after by the State official, and where they will be able to make the best of their land. But these operations are really the work of the Congested Dis-

    101
    tricts Board alone. They are complicated work, involving a knowledge not within the means of everybody to command. By cutting them down to £5 you really first of all take the very lowest limit of an uneconomic holding. Then you say that unless there is this large majority of holdings of such a character you are not to be in a position to carry out any improvement. Then comes in a question in which the House of Lords are going back on views to which they have given expression in legislation. I find, for example, in the Act of 1891 that the following definition is given: "The expression 'small holdings' means a holding of a rateable value of less than £10 or any higher sum fixed by the Congested Districts Board."
    Later on it was enacted that the Congested Districts Board should aim at the creation of holdings of not less than £10 annual value. Under Section 47, Sub-section (6) of the Act of 1896, the Land Commission were not to make any distinction in respect to any purchase for any tenant under the Board, and all small holdings were defined as in the Land Purchase Act of 1891. Therefore, we are really going back at the very time when we ought to be going forward; and, at the very time when we are receiving a large additional endowment for the Congested Districts Board in order to deal with this admittedly prolonged and only partially solvable problem, you are really, so I am assured by officials of the Congested Districts Board, and as I know of my own knowledge, rendering their task of relieving congestion practically impossible, if this definition be insisted on as now put upon us, and they will practically be worse off, or at all events no better off than they are now. As a compromise, I propose that the limit should be £7. Although I quite agree that a £10 holding is not in itself necessarily a holding which by any means can be described as uneconomic, the £10 holder, if looked at as an isolated individual, is a person who may get along for many a day, and may be regarded as prosperous in a country where food is cheap. It is because the Congested Districts Board must be able to get the use of this property in order to relieve congestion that I am anxious to make a compromise. It is a matter on which I know there is a great deal of feeling, and undoubtedly £7—although it will restrict very considerably the operations of the Congested Districts Board—includes a very large number of cases between £5 and £7. The number between £5 and £7
    102
    is a very great one. The number of holdings both in the existing area of the Congested Districts Board and in the new area, between £5 and £7, is much greater than the number between £7 and £10. Therefore £7 as a matter of practical concession is of very great importance. Then the other point is with reference to whether area or number should be the test of congestion. Everybody tells me—at all events, those who are beginning to have some inkling of the real bearing of these important questions—that the true test of whether an estate or town land is congested is not the area, but the number of uneconomic or insufficient holdings upon it.
    I have been supplied with a whole list of places where there are nests of holdings hung together in one corner, while the remainder of the area or estate, perhaps four-fifths of the entire area, is in the occupation of one large tenant. Under the Amendment of the Lords it would be no use to say, "Here is a number of small persons, the very persons whose interests the Congested Districts Board have at heart, and for whose relief Parliament is willing to give them these supplies." These are the very persons with whom they are to be at liberty to deal, but the definition would say that the town land as a whole was free from congestion. The unfortunate people are crowded in one part of the town land or estate, while there is ample room remaining for a few holders to expand and carry on their industry. These things are not inventions; there are not one case or two cases, but scores of cases all over the country meet the eye. There is a case of a town land of 300 acres, of which 250 acres are in the hands of five holders, while the remainder are held by small tenants. In another case only one-sixth of the area is occupied by congested tenants. I am certain that these Amendments made in another place are attributable partly to their not being very well acquainted with the nature of the operation, which has become quite a special one, and also I think to their being alarmed by the application to congested estates of pre-emption. But I do not think they give the Congested Districts Board that credit for ordinary business faculty which I am bound to say they have hitherto certainly exhibited in the management of their affairs. If they imagine that a Congested Districts Board is going to acquire land compulsorily, or to exercise the right of pre-emption over large and comfortable estates where there

    103
    is no possibility or desire on their part to interfere with the holdings on those estates, that is not their object, that is not their purpose, that is not the function assigned to them. But they do want to have the right of pre-emption over estates suitable for the relief of congestion, but the definition which the House of Lords has imposed would really be destructive of their usefulness in that matter. When the Dudley Commission put £10 as the annual value they did not mean to say that everybody that had a holding of £10 was in himself a person who should be removed in order that he might become an economic tenant. They were considering the margin necessary to be placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board in order to get the land required for economic holdings. While I myself think that £10 is a reasonable and proper limit, I also agree that £7 is enormously better than £5, because it includes a much larger number of holdings of the kind with which we wish to deal. I am sure if it were not for this bugbear of compulsion which people are frightened about, or pretend to be frightened about, or, I will not say pretend, but think they are frightened about, it would never have entered into the minds of the House of Lords to curtail the beneficial operations of the Board.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The Chief Secretary began his speech by saying that we had come to one of the most serious of the proposed changes in the Bill, and I entirely concur. We have arrived at a question which certainly is of the most serious character, and in regard to which I confess I view with great apprehension and regret the course which the Government have adopted. The Chief Secretary says it may have been by accident that the words "consent of the landlord" are, as agreed upon, to be omitted; that is to say, in the Bill originally the valuation was raised from £5 to £10, and the consent of the landlord was required. Now the valuation is reduced to £5, and the consent of the landlord is not required. I understood him to say that he regarded the dropping of the consent of the landlord as part of the arrangement, independent altogether of the valuation standing at either £5 or £10. I think he must, so far as my information goes, appreciate the fact that if there is be a change in one part of the arrangement it does not necessarily follow that the dropping of the words "consent of the landlord" will be regarded as an arrange-
    104
    ment which stands. I only say that by way of caveat. It must be apparent to anybody, even the most casual spectator of our proceedings, that the inconvenience of this method of procedure is magnified in the highest possible degree. Here we are approaching, as the Chief Secretary has stated, one of the most important questions in the Bill, and we are now asked to discuss and consider Amendments of a very far-reaching character, which entirely alter again in another way this very important Clause, and we are asked to consider them, hearing them for the first time from the Chief Secretary in the speech he has just made. Personally I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he has adopted in unfolding the whole of his scheme to us, instead of disclosing it piecemeal with the Amendments as they were reached, because now we know exactly what the proposal of the Government is.
    The right hon. Gentleman tells us he thought that the Lords in another place had acted from ignorance. It is not for me to defend, but I should have thought that the majority of those who took part in that debate in another place were gentlemen who, by their previous life and experience, had as complete personal knowledge and experience of congestion, with its horrors and difficulties, as anyone inside or outside this House. Many of them are resident in the South and West, they have seen those things existing, they are familiar with them all their lives, and I do not think it is therefore ignorance. I think ignorance is there, but it is not the ignorance of those gentlemen in regard to congestion and its difficulties. The ignorance under which we suffer is this: That while the Government tell us that these Amendments are of the greatest and most far-reaching character, the statements made are of themselves contradictory, because, as the Chief Secretary told us in the speech he has just made, while this reduction from £10 to £5 strikes at the removal of congestion and makes the task practically impossible and offers an obstacle which is insuperable, yet at the same time, and almost in the same breath, he told us that this very work for which he seeks this increased valuation, that is the work of taking men who are stronger farmers than the congests and who can be moved to another locality, that is being done every day. If that be the case, are we not entitled to ask, what is the urgent I necessity for this Amendment?

    105
    The Chief Secretary went on to say that he thought there would be no opposition to this if it had not been for what he described as an unreasonable alarm on the part of the landlords and others in Ireland in reference to the prospective action of the Congested Districts Board. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the bugbear of compulsion in the whole of his speech, and yet in listening to his speech one would hardly be able to imagine what the real facts of the case are—namely, that under this Bill you are taking tremendous powers with which you are clothing a Government Department in Ireland. One of the Departments you are entirely recasting, and the Chief Secretary asks us to believe that the Congested Districts Board do not intend to do this, that, or the other; but, in doing so, he is asking us to give him a large measure of our confidence and belief, because he admits himself that under this Bill, as it has been altered, the constitution of the Congested Districts Board is to be radically changed. There is no security, and there can be no security, that even the personnel of it will be anything like what it is at present. The whole of the nominated members are to cease to hold office, and it is open to the Government to appoint ah entirely new body, in addition to which there are two additional members and two paid members. It may be the case, and I hope it is the case, that the newly constituted body with these large powers will follow the wise example set them by their predecessors. I only hope that their administration will be half as sound and as good and as successful as has been that of the Congested Districts Board. I am entitled to point out that this Bill is creating an entirely new authority, giving them enormous powers and enabling them, if they think necessary, to use this compulsion very widely in different areas. Under those circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman is not quite entitled to come here and say, "Your fears are perfectly groundless as to compulsion; you have nothing to be afraid of," and to tell us that the Congested Districts Board do not intend to make use of those powers in a wide and rather loose fashion. It may be the case that they will be cautious and limited in the exercise of their powers, but we know these Debates have revealed, even if we did not know before, what congestion is and how it impresses those who are brought into contact with it, and how urgent they feel it to be. That being so, surely it is not a very rash fear on
    106
    our part if we anticipate that when you give the Board very wide powers you ought to pause before you double or treble the area over which they are to exercise authority.
    We have never been able to find out during these Debates the precise effects of an alteration like that suggested. We have asked for the information, but we have not been able to get it. The Chief Secretary quoted one or two general statements where he said that the area would not do, and that he must have numbers. He gave certain numbers, but we have had no information in these Debates as to what will be the effect in regard to the proposed alteration. So far as my information goes I believe it will double or treble the amount of country in Ireland which will be subject to the administration of the Congested Districts Board. Lord Macdonnell speaks with great authority as to the work of the Congested Districts Board during the four or five years he was connected with it, and he is never tired of telling us of the good work they have done and the immense effect they have had on congestion in various parts of Ireland, and how successfully they have been enabled to deal with congestion, as they certainly had been to my certain knowledge, in many parts of Ireland. Surely under those circumstances it ought to be necessary first of all to show us that they are now held up by new obstacles which can only be removed by such an Amendment as this, and that without this they cannot continue their work; but no such information is forthcoming. We have no knowledge in this House of the effects of such an Amendment, and the Government have not told us what will be the precise effect of reducing the valuation from £10 to £5. The Chief Secretary said that we are actually going back. We are doing nothing of the kind. He has referred to the constitution of small holdings, but that is a totally different thing from the standard which has always been accepted as the statutory standard of congestion. Before you reconstitute the Board, giving them much wider powers, and doubling or trebling the area they will have to administer, you ought, at all events, to show that they are worthy of the additional opportunities you propose to give them. In regard to the secondary question of the choice between area and numbers, the information given by the Chief Secretary certainly points in the direction of there being something to be

    107
    said for number as against area. But as to that I cannot speak, because here again, although I have made the best effort I could to get definite information on the subject, it has been impossible to obtain it. I can find nobody able to tell me what would be the practical effect in Ireland of substituting area for number or the reverse. The Chief Secretary said that in certain cases it would present a very serious difficulty. For my part I should be perfectly ready to consider that point. But when we are asked to reduce the valuation from £10 to £5, to abandon the requirement of the consent of the owner, and to make the change in regard to number or area, we are being asked to adopt very violent remedies which could only be justified by making it quite clear that without these great changes it would be impossible to deal with congestion. My own belief is that by making these changes, instead of facilitating the work of the Congested Districts Board, you are likely to render it more difficult and to retard the work of the relief of congestion. You are adding enormously to the liabilities and responsibilities of the Congested Districts Board; you are giving them fresh powers and new authority, and it would have been wiser to let the new Board get into their stride and to prove that they were capable of doing as good work as the old Board before you made changes so grave as are now indicated by the Chief Secretary. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to agree with the greater part of the Amendment as it reached us from another place, and I cannot conceal from myself that the course he has taken may present the greatest difficulties in the way of the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. DILLON: Although we differ very radically as to the necessity of this Amendment or even of this Clause, no one can fail to recognise the entirely friendly tone in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has dealt with the work of the Congested Districts Board. I know perfectly well that when he was in Ireland he took a sincere interest in this body and sympathised with the work of the relief of congestion. But just now he made the strange statement that he could never get any information which would justify the demands of the Government and the changes they are making. I venture to say that if he applied to any single individual—I make no exception—who has been practi-
    108
    cally engaged in the work of the Congested Districts! Board in the country, he would be told that every one of these Amendments is absolutely essential to enable the work to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has not for the first time borne very generous testimony to the work of the Congested Districts Board. Everybody who has come in contact with that work has known that for years it has been a common subject of complaint with all the officials and with every member of the Board that the law was so unhappily framed as to hamper almost beyond expression the carrying out of the work. The Board were always running up against some limitation or restriction of a really heart-breaking character. I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not pronounce implacably against the change as between number and area. Anyone who knows the West of Ireland is aware that it is quite common for three-fourths or four-fifths of the townland to consist of one or two large farms, and for the bog or the mountain side to be crowded with poor people who have been driven off the land. That is characteristic of the entire country. It is one of the horrible anomalies resulting from the working of unjust laws through generations. But where you have these nests of destitution and poverty on the very border of vast grass lands, you have the remedy and the evil side by side. You have not to transport the people to a distance. These are places where the remedy can be easily applied. In many cases the grass farms are held by men who have five, six, or seven grass lands in other parts of the country. They are professional graziers; and some of the farms might without hardship be taken from them at fair compensation. But under the present system these districts are outside the work of the Congested Districts Board. There are one or two rich graziers in the townland and 30 or 40 starving congests, and it is said that this is not a congested district at all, because a part of the area consists of economic holdings. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to discuss all these Amendments together. You require the conditions that have been put forward for the purpose of bringing the districts under the control of the Board. As the Chief Secretary has said—and he has had sufficient experience in the operations of the Board to understand that this is a cardinal point—when you come to the question of migration—and this is the view I took long years ago—it was not popular with the Board at first,

    109
    but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin knows, it has become an adopted principle of the Board—if you are going to have successful migration, you must make the Board strong enough to compass all these circumstances. Supposing you have a man with a farm of 25 or 30 acres, and poor land at a distance. The man has stock, money, and skill. His farm divided will make economic farms for five or six small holders, whom you have not got to build new houses for, whereas if you take these five or six small men to a distance it would cost you possibly £100. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has truly said that if you want honestly to deal with the problem of congestion, you must give the Board power to obtain not only the slum areas—for if you confine them to the slum areas they can do nothing—you must give them power to obtain these lands for these holdings which are essential to the relief of the slum areas. In the past the Board has found itself face to face with a problem of enormous difficulty. It has been deprived of adequate funds and put under all kinds of absurd restrictions, due to ignorance of the problem. This Bill proposes to remove some of the most galling of these restrictions. I wish the Government had gone further, but I see the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman has had to face. I am content with the treatment given to this particular Clause, and I trust that the House will pass it.
    Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: The question of the standard of congestion, of £10, £7, or £5, is very closely bound up with the question of compulsion. That has already been recognised to some extent, but I would like to bring it out a little more clearly, because when once you make a new definition of a congested estate you enormously increase the area over which compulsion operates. I would like to remind the Committee of what the Lords have already done with a view to meeting this question of compulsion with a view to mitigate the misery of the congested districts. You will remember that in the first instance they agreed that compulsory powers should be allowed within congested districts wherever they were required for the relief of congestion. But then other facts were brought before their notice. For instance the Chief Secretary made a point, and I think an important point, when this matter was last under discusssion, that it was not sufficient to get compulsory powers to
    110
    acquire untenanted land which had been done in the first instance if you did not also give compulsory powers to acquire congested districts, because untenanted land was necessary to enlarge the holdings in the congested districts. That was also taken into consideration in another place, and as a result of it the fairness of that contention was recognised, and in the Amendment before us the principle of compulsion is extended so far as to embrace congested estates. Moreover, and thirdly, the Lords extended congestion outside the congested districts area. It was represented to them that here and there through Leland there were patches of congestion as well as in the congested districts area proper, and that similar powers of compulsion ought to be granted to acquire congested estates there. So we have those three several stages by which they have gradually enlarged the powers of compulsion given under this Bill, and I must say that, taking these altogether, it does seem to me that they have shown a most reasonable desire to meet any genuine case made out for the relief of congestion, whether in the congested area or outside of it. But we come to the question of the £10, £7, or £5. As I said, if you make £10 a definition you very greatly increase the whole area in which compulsion operates. If you make £7 a definition you increase it not so largely, but very considerably. If you go back to the old £5 you do make a somewhat strict limit for the field in which you are to give compulsory powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said one thing which I really could not understand. He said, "If you go back to the £5 limit you not only restrict the operations of the Congested Districts Board, but you make their task impossible." How can he maintain that in face of these facts when heretofore, without compulsion, and by voluntary sale, the Board has been enabled to carry out its relief of congestion upon a very considerable scale, and would have done it upon a much larger scale if they had had more money. Their powers are now being increased, more money is being given to them; and yet we are told that if we do not give them this new definition of £7 or £10 that we are restricting them in their operations! It is admitted that we are greatly improving the Board, and adding to their freedom. We are removing restrictions. We are giving them the compulsion they need. We are not raising, but we are keeping to the old limits of £5, and the question may fairly

    111
    be put: "Can they go on doing good work with that limit of £5." Well, my inquiries lead me to very different conclusions from those which have been stated on the other side. So far as I can learn, the Congested Districts Board, accepting the £5 limit, would have found for years and years to come slum areas in those congested districts which they could efficiently relieve. They would be able to concentrate themselves and work on the most urgent cases. To give them the larger power—and I do not say that it may not be necessary hereafter, but at present they have work for the next five or ten years which even with the increased income they will be fully occupied in discharging. I believe there is no ground whatever for this suggestion that we should be crippling or hampering them in their good work. Then there is the other point which has hardly been touced upon, that is the proposed change in the definition of congestion as affecting congested estates which are outside the congested districts area. I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons which perhaps may have induced the other House to have put in £5 instead of £10 was the proposed extension of compulsion to the whole of Ireland, and I imagine that they were rather fearful lest the whole of Ireland should be treated as a congested district. The parts of Ireland to which outside the congested areas this question would apply are holdings chiefly in the North of Ireland, which if you look merely at them from the point of view of valuation would be called congested holdings, but which in point of fact are very prosperous holdings. They are small holdings near the Northern towns, the valuation of which is very often near the limit of £10, but which from other causes, unknown in the poorer places, are quite unsuited to be dealt with from the point of view of compulsion for the relief of congestion. There are other sources of livelihood and other industries which swell the narrow means which the holding alone supplies. It seems to me not an unnatural precaution, if you are extending to the whole of Ireland the principle of compulsion and compulsion for the purpose of acquiring congested estates, to secure that these estates shall be really congested and not sham congested estates. No doubt these powers of compulsion I think will be exercised to a very limited degree outside the congested districts—at least I hope so. If I thought that a return to the old limit of £a for the next
    112
    five or ten years would hamper the good work which the Congested Districts Board have been doing, then I should vote in favour of £10, but I have no evidence to that effect, but quite the contrary, and I hope therefore that the Government will accept the £5 limit.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I protest against the assumption which underlies the speeches to which we have just listened—that is, that it is a desirable thing that there should be continued tinkering legislation dealing with this land problem. It is assumed on all hands the Congested Districts Board has done good work. This Amendment is based upon the assumption that the elective element to which exception is taken is to be ruled out. I submit there is no reasonable man who will doubt that the Congested Districts Board as reconstituted will be more efficient and will have an admittedly important additional factor in its two official members, so that its work will go on continuously instead of spasmodically. I put it to the House that it is really short of insanity to hamper such a body when reconstituted. You can only defend these hampering restrictions on the ground that they can be removed in five or ten years when removing is proved to be necessary. Already all expert opinion declares that these restrictions will be harmful. Everyone who knows the West of Ireland knows that a stronger case could be made out for a £10 limit than for a £7 limit. I fully admit that £7 will get over a good number of cases of congestion, and that most of the holdings in the West are valued at a figure running between £5 and £7. The unit is a townland, not an estate, upon which congestion has been declared, and I most sincerely trust in this matter of compromise that the Government will adopt the plan of splitting the difference, and on the question as to whether it shall be area or numbers it seems to me plain that no reply has been offered to the facts with which everybody who knows the West of Ireland are familiar.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not want to pronounce any opinion upon the question of numbers. I have been very much influenced in regard to that by the opinion of hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland, who are much better acquainted with the actual facts of congestion than I am; therefore I do not want to be taken as irreconciliable in regard to the sugges-

    113
    tion of numbers as against area; but I confess I cannot understand why the case has been raised for changing the valuation limit from £5 to £7. All parties must agree that in another place a very substantial departure from a very clear principle was made when the Lords agreed to the large scheme of compulsion in this measure in regard to congestion in the West. We know that to persons who entertain strong views as to the sanctity of property the idea of compulsion as applied to owners of it is very repugnant, and I do not think that anyone can say for a moment that there was not a very considerable sacrifice of principle made when in another place the idea of compulsion was accepted on such an exceedingly large scale for the purposes of the relief of congestion. I think when we are asked to make a very substantial departure from an Amendment adopted in another place and to raise the limit from £5 to £7, we ought at least to have been told how much additional land that would bring within the area of compulsion. I am told that the number of estates in Ireland in the West or anywhere else on which one-fourth or more of the holdings are of £5 valuation is small, but that curiously enough when you depart from £5 and come up to £7 you bring in an enormous area of Ireland. The facts as regards this matter ought to be in possession of the Chief Secretary, and I think we ought to have been told before being asked to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords what additional land would be brought within this principle of compulsion if we were to raise the limit from £5 to £7. I do not want to dogmatise on the matter, but I am told that if the true facts were known as to the extension of the area the House would be surprised, and not only would it be doubled, but it would be trebled, as compared with the £5 valuation. That is a serious matter, and the facts ought to be in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think the Chief Secretary ought to give some information to the House as to what will be the quantity of land brought within the operation of these compulsory powers by increasing the valuation from £5 to £7. If my information is correct, it means an amount far in excess of what one would gather from the mere difference between £5 and £7. The main objection that I have to this proposal is that it is a very large sacrifice indeed on the part of the owners of congested estates that all this should be done without their consent. I would
    114
    far rather see the limit raised to £10, and the consent restored, than to have the limit raised from £5 to £7, and have all this done against the consent of the owners.
    Mr. DILLON: They will never consent.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is not my own experience, and I can give facts quite different. I know an owner in the West of Ireland who is very anxious to sell his property to the Congested Districts Board, but his solicitor could not get them to come to terms. The Board were asked in February why they had not replied, and the solicitor received a letter stating that they had had 120 estates offered to them for voluntary acquisition in the West of Ireland, and there was not one which they could approach because they had not got the necessary funds. [An Hon. Member: "That is a different point."] The Chief Secretary said that in order to deal with the actual congest on the basis of a £5 limit they must have power to deal with estates where the holdings are not uneconomic, but of a character to hold out sufficient inducement to the tenants to migrate. Surely he does not pretend that they have not at least 100 estates on the list which they could voluntarily acquire to-morrow. But if you are going to say "No, we will not work on that principle, and we must have compulsory powers," then I say leave it at the limit under the old Act, and if you are going to extend it put it up to £10, but make it subject to the consent of the owner. I would prefer it raised from £5 to £10 provided you make it subject to the consent of the owner rather than take away all power from the owner, and raise it from £5 to £7. I do desire to see this question of the congests dealt with on a broad and scientific basis. I agree that we cannot deal with it piecemeal. It seems to me to be a matter upon which all parties are anxious to come to a settlement, and I should be glad to see it settled upon a large and liberal basis. At the same time I think if you want to deal with these holdings on a definition that extends the idea of an uneconomic holding beyond what it has been considered and ruled to be in the legislation of the past, you ought not to do it against the consent of the owners, where it is plain that so far as land-owners in the west of Ireland are concerned, speaking for the bulk of them, it is not a question of unwillingness to sell but a question of price. I believe the Chief Secretary is seriously imperilling the chances and the fate of his

    115
    Bill by this proposal, although I am sure he is desirous of seeing this measure passed into law. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is imperilling the chances of this Bill by asking that this change from £5 to £7 should be made. I think the change is not required, and for many years to come, and for our generation at least under a £5 limit there will be ample material to keep this new Congested Districts Board as busy as it can be from morning to night.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I think it is agreed now that compulsion in this matter is absolutely necessary. If we are to make any attempt to solve it once and for all we should not leave it in such a condition that another Bill will be necessary to deal with congestion later on upon a higher limit than £5. In County Clare there are some 10,000 holdings under 30 acres.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: There are a lot more.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I believe there are also 4,767 holdings under 5 acres, so that if the problem be dealt with on the £5 basis you will only deal with the fringe of this question. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about compromise being in the air. I can understand compromise upon certain questions of principles, but not upon a question of method which would necessitate a special Bill for dealing with that part of the question to be left over. It is said that this matter is bound up with the question of compulsion and that there is a general disposition on the part of landlords to sell. Frequently landlords seem to act in opposition to their own interests. I can cite many instances in West Clare where landlords have refused even very good terms. A landlord has negotiated with his tenants for a long time, and has arrived at what might be understood by both parties to be practically an agreement, and then on some question of detail he has suddenly defused to continue the negotiations. Other landlords have raised difficulties by asking for a greater number of years' purchase than is usual. The singular thing is that there is more difficulty in selling in West Clare, where the estates are not so good, and where the security might be thought to be not so good as in more prosperous counties, like Limerick. The Government has now an opportunity of clearing away this difficulty once and for all, and I hope that, instead of making
    116
    two bites at a cherry, they will rise to the occasion, and in a statesmanlike way see if they cannot settle the whole mater.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will give the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell), such figures as I have been able rapidly to collect. It is a little bit difficult to get figures, but still I have before me some supplied by the Congested Districts Board, and I will just state their effect. The following table shows what figures can be obtained as to the number of holdings in the present area and in the added area:

    "Present Area.

    Added Area.

    Total.

    "1. Not exceeding £4 valuation

    45,059

    …

    22,742

    …

    67,801

    2. Over £4 and not exceeding £10

    29,130

    …

    34,385

    …

    63,515

    3. Over £10

    10,367

    …

    38,637

    …

    49,004

    Totals

    84,556

    95,764

    180,320

    "These figures show that the new area contains 95,764 holdings, against 84,556 in the present area; that the number (45,059) of slum holdings is enormously larger in the present area than in the proposed addition (22,742): and therefore, that much less can be done for the small holders in the present area by increasing the size of holdings unless the two areas can be dealt with as a whole.
    "In order to make a rough estimate of the number of holdings that are at or under £7 annual valuation in the entire proposed new area, the following calculation resting on personal judgment only, is submitted:—

    "Under £4 valuation in present congested area

    45,059

    Do., new proposed addition

    22,742

    Estimated number between £4 and £7 in present area

    14,565

    Do., new area

    11,371

    Total

    93,737

    "Therefore, it is calculated that half of the holdings between £4 and £10 valuation will be between £4 and £7."
    I therefore said, in opening, that £7 was a very important figure to take, because, although it does exclude a number I should be glad to see included, I have no doubt it does include the larger number. With regard to the consent of the owner, the House should understand that that consent is really a very technical thing. The consent of the owner under Section (6) of the Act of 1903 is really a consent in the withholding of which the owner is not much interested.
    "3. The Lord Lieutenant may, under special circumstances, and with the approval of the Treasury, dispense with the conditions in the last preceeding Sub-section as to undertakings to purchase holdings where the Land Commission certify to him that they are of opinion that the re-sale of the estate can be effected without prospect of loss."
    This enables the Lord Lieutenant to go to the Treasury and say, "Although, as a rule, you do not consent to things of this sort unless there is an opportunity of reselling without a loss, still, when the cir-

    117
    cumstances are such as to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant that the sale is a necessary one, then, if the landlord consents, you will purchase, even although there may be a loss on the resale." A landlord has really not much interest in withholding his consent when it is simply a question of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to obtain from the Treasury a relaxation of a rule. It is not a consent to sell, but merely a consent that would enable the landlord to say, "Here is a congested estate, and you can buy it, it is true, but, when you come to resell it, you will inflict a loss on the Treasury. I am quite willing to give my consent that
    that loss should be incurred." The consent is not quite of the important character that might be supposed from the reference made to it by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want it to be supposed that it is anything more than of the general character to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, the House will assent to the proposal I make.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 20.

    Division No. 902.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, T.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lupton, Arnold

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lynch, H. B.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Astbury, John Meir

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Callum, John M.

    Barker, Sir John

    Ginnell, L.

    M'Kean, John

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Glover, Thomas

    Maddison, Frederick

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Meagher, Michael

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Middlebrook, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Boland, John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Harrington, Timothy

    Morse, L. L.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Muldoon, John

    Bring, John

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Murnaghan, George

    Bright, J. A.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Byles, William Pollard

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cameron, Robert

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hodge, John

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Grady, J.

    Clough, William

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Malley, William

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Neill, Charles

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crean, Eugene

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pointer, J.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Keating, M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, M.

    Dillon, John

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Laid law, Robert

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lamb, Edmund G. Leominster)

    Rees, J. D.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Summerbell, T.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Rowlands, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sheehy, David

    Toulmin, George

    Winfrey, R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Verney, F. W.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Vivian, Henry

    Steadman, W. C.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Craig and Mr. Moore.

    Clark, George Smith

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Amendment proposed to the Bill, instead of the words so disagreed to, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "seven"—[Mr. Birrell]—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 149: Noes, 18.

    Division No. 903.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, J.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Barker, Sir John

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Radford, G. H.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rees, J. D.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Beale, W. P.

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bennett, E. N.

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hodge, John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Brigg, John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rowlands, J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (LanCs., Leigh)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Jackson, R. S.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cameron, Robert

    Jenkins, J.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allsten

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Clough, William

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

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

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Toulmin, George

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Vivian, Henry

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wiles, Thomas

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Elibank, Master of

    Massie, J.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Middlebrook, William

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Evans. Sir S. T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L. L.

    Winfrey, R.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bighold, Sir Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, E. Mildred

    Fell, Arthur

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Clark, George Smith

    Gretton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Moore and Mr. C. Craig.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2) leave out "as so amended" ["within the meaning of the said Section as so amended"].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. CAMPBELL: We have on this side of the House registered our protest on two occasions in regard to the principle involved, and these other proposals are consequential to the other Amendments which we have already adopted. I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-Section (4) leave out, "in which more than one half of the holdings are—" ["The expression 'congested townland' means a townland in which more than one half of the buildings are—"] and insert: "more than one quarter of the area of which consists of."
    Lords Amendment: Paragraph (b), leave out "ten pounds" ["gives a sum of less than ten pounds for each holding"] and insert "five pounds."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to amend the Lords Amendment by substituting "seven pounds" for the words proposed to be inserted.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    House agreed with Lords in said Amendment, as amended.
    Lords Amendment: Paragraph (a), leave out "ten pounds" ["a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value"], and insert "five pounds."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to amend the Lords Amendment by substituting "seven pounds" for the words proposed to be inserted.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    House agreed with Lords in said Amendment, as amended.

    Clause 27.—(Delegation of Powers of Estates Commissioners.)
    The Estates Commissioners may, by order, delegate all or any of their powers to any one or two of their number, and anything done by any one or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment: To leave out Clause 27.
    Mr. BIRRELL: This was an excellent Clause, a suggestion of my own, with a view to facilitating the transaction of business and getting rid of the block which every one laments, but it was rejected by both sides, and I now move to agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out the Clause.

    Clause 34.—(Amendment of 3 Edw. 7. c. 37. s. 54.)
    (1) As between the Land Commission and the proprietor for the time being of any holding for the purchase of which the Land Commission have, after the passing of this Act, made any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, the following conditions shall be imposed in addition to the conditions mentioned in Section fifty-four of the Act of 1903, namely:—

    (a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, would exceed the sum of five thousand pounds, and if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold:

    (b) The proprietor shall not, without the consent in writing in the prescribed

    123
    form of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, cut down or uproot, or permit to be cut down or uprooted, any tree (other than a fruit tree or osier) upon the holding which is necessary for the ornament or shelter of the holding; and if any such tree is cut down or uprooted in violation of this condition, the proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each tree so cut down or uprooted, unless he satisfies the court that he received the prescribed consent.

    Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a) leave out "five" ["the sum of five thousand pounds"] and insert "seven."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House of Lords originally omitted the entire paragraph, which was designed
    to prevent a tenant purchaser acquiring a number of holdings whose aggregate value would exceed £5,000. There was a good deal of difference of opinion, I dare say, in many quarters of the House with regard to this matter as to what the limit should be upon acquisitions under the provisions of the Act of 1903. As a compromise the £5,000 was increased to £7,000.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I personally cannot agree with this Amendment. My colleagues and I are of opinion that the limit ought to remain as it is. Five thousand is quite enough for one man to have, and under these circumstances. I suppose it is useless at this stage to urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, but we must register our opinion strongly on the other side and divide against it.
    Question put, "That this House doth I agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 904.]

    AYES.

    [9.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lamont, Norman

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Astbury, John Meir

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Balcarres, Lord

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barker, Sir John

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Callum, John M.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, James

    Marnham, F. J.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Massie, J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Middlebrook, William

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Moore, William

    Brigg, John

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Bright, J. A.

    Gretton, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Morse, L. L.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T (Cheshire)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Byles, William Pollard

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cameron, Robert

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Pearce, William (Llmehouse)

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cave, George

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Charming. Sir Francis Allston

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Clark, George Smith

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rowlands, J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Seely, Colonel

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Toulmin, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Verney, F. W.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Vivian, Henry

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Winfrey, R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    NOES.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Meenan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Murnaghan, George

    Walsh, Stephen

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nannettl, Joseph P.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: After Clause 34 insert following new Clause: "Sub-section (3) of Section sixty-seven of the Act of 1903 shall not apply to any land or holding subject to a purchase annuity unless the Land Commission deem it expedient, having regard to the situation, size, and character of such land or holding, to apply the provisions of the said Sub-section thereto."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This new Clause, although rather complicated in appearance, is really purely administrative.
    Further Lords Amendment: After Clause 40 insert following new Clause: "Where the immediate landlord of any holding or holdings has not an interest sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the next superior landlord having such an interest shall be deemed to be a person having power to sell to occupying tenants under the said Acts, notwithstanding that the said holding or holdings constitute the whole estate of such superior landlord,
    126
    and Section fifteen of the Act of 1903 shall apply accordingly."
    Further Lords Amendment. After Clause last added, insert following new Clause: "(1) Where any land sold under the Land Purchase Acts is subject to any rent reserved under a lease, and no payment on foot of such rent has been made for a period of forty years prior to such sale, such rent shall, for the purposes of such sale and the distribution of the purchase money, be deemed to have been released.
    (2) Where portions of any such rent have become vested in different owners, this Section shall apply to any portion of such rent as if it was a separate rent."

    Clause 41.—(Proposals for Purchase by Estates Commissioners.)
    (1) The Estates Commissioners may make proposals and enter into negotiations—

    (a) For the purchase, under Section six of the Act of 1903, of any estate not situated in a congested districts county, notwithstanding that an appli-

    127
    cation has not been made to them by the owner under that Section;

    (b) For the purchase, under Section eight, of the Act of 1903, of any untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county, whether required for the purposes mentioned in that Section or for the purpose of resale to any persons to whom parcels of land may be sold under this Act.

    (2) For the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the boundaries, extent, and character of any estate or untenanted land which they propose to purchase and to estimate the price to be offered for the same, any inspectors or other persons appointed by the Commissioners may, after notice sent by post to the person who appears to the Commissioners to be the owner thereof, enter upon the estate or untenanted land and make all such inquiries and do all such things as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph (b).
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is preliminary to the general consequences, which come afterwards.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: This is the first point on which the exclusion of the general powers of compulsory purchase arises. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is preliminary, but this is the point on which we must take the discussion so far as I can see. My colleagues and I are vehemently opposed to the change which the Lords have made in the Bill. The powers of compulsion, as contained in the Bill, if the Amendment of the Lords is carried, will be confined entirely to compulsory purchase in respect of congestion. We are of opinion that general powers of compulsion, apart altogether from congestion, should be created. I suppose no one denies that sooner or later general powers of compulsion dealing with landlords who will not sell voluntarily will have to be carried. The landlords themselves say that there will remain a certain remnant of Irish landlords who will not freely sell and who must be dealt with by general powers of compulsion. There are landlords at the present moment who are refusing to sell, and who cannot be allowed to continue this refusal for years to
    128
    come. The case must be dealt with at once. Take the historical case. Lord Clanricarde will not sell until he is compelled to sell, and so long as Lord Clanricarde is allowed to remain in possession of estates, there will be a plague spot and a centre of disturbance in Ireland. I have always held the view that general powers of compulsion would be very little used. The moment you create the weapon of compulsion and put it into the hands of the Estates Commissioners, estates will come in under voluntary settlement. I think it is the greatest possible misfortune that the Government think they are obliged to agree to the Lords Amendment in regard to these powers of compulsion. I am one of those who believe that the concession of the principle of compulsory purchase all over Ireland wherever congestion is to be found is a most important matter. It can be brought into operation in every county in Ireland with reference to the acquisition of untenanted land. I do not at all say that if the Amendment is carried the compulsory power remaining in the Bill would not be of enormous advantage. But it would not settle the question. Surely it is the desire of the Government that this Bill should come as near a settlement as possible. What is the use of this Parliament continuing its old tradition of giving half measures which do not satisfy anybody and which do not settle anything. If this Bill is carried in its maimed form you will not settle the trouble in Ireland, and you will get no gratitude in Ireland. You make concessions always in such a way as not to conciliate the people to whom you are giving them, and not to create the sense that they have been fairly dealt with. You make half concessions, and you do not conciliate Ireland. If you agree to this Amendment you will be faced next year or the year after with the necessity for another Bill. That has been the old tradition of this House for the last 50 years in reference to this. Surely now a new departure ought to be made. I protest most vehemently against this mutilation of the Bill in depriving it of the advantage of a general power of compulsion. I know that the Chief Secretary naturally wants to get his Bill through, and I suppose he feels that he cannot get it through at all unless he makes these concessions, but I am bound to say that while he has been making these concessions all the evening, we have not got any concessions at all from hon. Mem-

    129
    bers above the Gangway. I know not what the future may have in store. Further concessions may be made by them, but at any rate it is a very serious thing for the Government to be thowing overboard the most valuable parts of the cargo. For my part, on behalf of the Irish Members on these benches I should be guilty of a want of duty to the Irish people if I did not at any rate make it pretty plain that our position is a perfectly simple one. We tell you that without this provision and similar provisions this Bill will not satisfy people in Ireland. It will not settle the question. It will not be a Bill in such a shape that we can take any responsibility for it at all if it is passed. The whole responsibility must rest on the Government which accepts those Amendments, and on those who forced them on the Government. We at any rate will be free of all responsibility, and will be in a position to go back to the Irish people and tell them that although we have done our best, and although we have to a certain extent succeeded we have not succeeded in getting from this Parliament, as indeed we have never succeeded on any similar occasion in the past, a measure which satisfies the needs of the case and which settles the Irish land question.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I hope that the speech to which we have just listened will satisfy the Chief Secretary that the wisest course for him to adopt is not as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) suggests to make new proposals by way of compromise which are themselves objectionable, but to take his stand on what he believes to be a legitimate extension of the law in regard to land purchase.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That is his view.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. and learned Gentleman told us quite plainly that whatever the Chief Secretary passes he need not look for gratitude from Ireland.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I never said any such thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say that I asserted that whatever the Chief Secretary passes he need not look for gratitude from Ireland? He has done many things for which the Irish people are most grateful.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Of course it is quite obvious that I was talking about the Amendment now before this House. The hon. Gentleman's whole speech was addressed to that Amendment and
    130
    not to the general speech. It is quite obvious that my remark has reference to that and not to the whole policy of the Irish Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminded the Chief Secretary that the House will never satisfy Ireland because we will not give them all they ask. That is a remark that is cheered on the other side of the House. Let English, Scotch and Welsh Members realise what they are asked to do now. They are giving under this Bill compulsory powers with regard to the acquisition of land which have no parallel in any other part of the United Kingdom. They are under this Bill, placing in a Government Department, which is not represented in this House, and has no Minister except the Chief Secretary to speak for it, and over which there would be no control, compulsory powers which are exercised practically over all Ireland for the relief of congestion, and when they are doing that, taking this enormous stride because of the exceptional conditions in Ireland, they are told by the representatives of the majority in Ireland, the Nationalist party, that they are doing that for which they will receive no gratitude, and that further demands will be made upon them. I say that this should strengthen the position of the Government, and I hope that they, at all events, will stand by their position in regard to this particular question. In reference to our attitude the hon. and learned Gentleman says we have made no concession, that no concessions have been made by those who represent the landlords in Ireland. I say that very large concessions have been made. A great part of this Bill goes far beyond, in our judgment, what is necessary or what is right. But as we have said before, so we say now. We have pressed our views before this House. But we have certainly accepted proposals coming from the Government to which we object, and which we think dangerous, and we have done so because we realise that it is necessary to improve the rate of land purchase and necessary and urgent to deal with congestion; and although we do not approve of a great deal which the Government has suggested, we have not offered to a great part of the proposals any strenuous opposition, and, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says that there is nothing in the shape of concessions in the attitude which we have adopted.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not want in any way to be a bone of contention between right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am

    131
    quite aware that I need not expect any gratitude on this transaction unless what will come to me in the Kingdom of Heaven. The right hon. Gentleman is no authority on the Kingdom of Heaven, though he may know something about the kingdom of Ireland; but I would wish to point out to him that when he says "we this" and "we that," he is not speaking of the House of Commons, because in the House of Commons I got the Bill in the shape in which I wanted it. It is only when I go elsewhere——
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I am speaking for those whom I represent j I am not entitled to speak for the House of Commons.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am ready to acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's claim to speak for himself. In this House he speaks for himself with great ability, and urges his case with great force and eloquence. But in this House he was beaten, and therefore when he called my attention to the fact that "we did this" and "we did that," he means his friends elsewhere. He does not mean his Friends here, because his Friends here made a very fine fight of it, and were beaten; and but for another place they would have had to acknowledge their defeat, and the law would have taken its course; and though it is not very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to avoid referring to his forces elsewhere as if they were here on the floor of the House, which, of course, they are not, yet as this compulsory purchase outside congested areas and all over Ireland is to be confined to the relief of congestion, I do not think there is much use in the right hon. Gentleman referring to England, Scotland, and Wales, and saying what would they give if only we gave powers of the same kind, because the congestion exists in Ireland and does not exist in these countries to anything like the same extent, or indeed at all. Therefore compulsory purchase limited to the relief of congestion may be useful, and I think it is useful, and I do hope that the House will secure that it is retained in Ireland; but at the same time there is no use in saying that compulsory purchase limited to congestion is a thing which my Friends behind me representing English or Scotch constituencies will be wildly desirous of acquiring, because it would be no use. It is not for the relief of congestion that people desire compulsory purchase, if they do desire it, outside
    132
    Ireland. It is for quite other purposes—for the acquisition of small holdings and the like. This is limited to the curing of a particular disease, a disease which I am happy to say does not exist in any other country except Ireland. This particular kind of congestion for which alone these powers are to be now confirmed deals with an Irish problem, and in no sense is-an English, Scotch, or Welsh problem. Therefore I fail to see the relevance of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I have to take what I can get, and I do feel that, limited though they be, the legislative provisions which the House of Lords have been good enough to place at our disposal are such as we should take.
    Mr. MOORE: There is no such thing in the Bill as compulsory purchase, but there is compulsory sale, and when people talk of compulsory purchase instead of compulsory sale one cannot value very much the profundity of their deductions in regard to other parts of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) really did not address this House but his constituents, before whom he hopes in a short time to have the pleasure of appearing. His observations were not meant for consumption here. I noticed that he said in a loud voice that he would take no responsibility for this Bill. It is a very fatal thing for any Government when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford refuses to take responsibility, though he takes the £250,000 for congested districts.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: What about the millions to the landlords?
    Mr. MOORE: If the hon. and learned Member rejects the responsibility, why does he accept the money? He repudiates responsibility and says that in Ireland the last case will be worse than the first. But the last thing he will get up and say is that he and his party will not take the Bill. Of Amendment after Amendment hon. Members below the Gangway have said that it will ruin the Bill, and that it is a blot upon it, but they always stop short at the point of saying that they will not take the Bill, for the simple reason that they are afraid to go back to Ireland without it.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends are not satisfied with the Bill, especially with the proposed Amendment moved by the Chief Secretary. My ex-

    133
    perience of hon. Members below the Gangway is that they are very rarely satisfied with any Bill. The nearest approach that I can remember to satisfaction with Irish legislation was in connection with the Bill of 1903. Those who were in the House at that time will remember that hon. Members below the Gangway came as near, I think, as could ever be hoped for to unqualified satisfaction with what was given by a British Government. I remember well that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford himself, on the third reading of that Bill, thanked the Government of the day most heartily and sincerely for what they had done for Ireland. He practically told the House of Commons of that day that the system of voluntary sale and voluntary purchase was to have fair and exhaustive trial. We have passed now through six years in which voluntary purchase and sale has had a trial, and I confidently assert to this House that it has been in a very great degree successful, absolutely successful so far as anything that could be done by either Irish tenants or Irish landlords. We all know, unfortunately, that the only blot in the Act has been that the money has not been forthcoming. Roughly speaking, I submit that is the only blot in the Act of 1903. Hon. Members below the Gangway declared themselves to be as nearly satisfied with that Act as it was possible for them to be. Yet after six short years, when I say that the Act has worked as well as it could possibly work, they come here and force the hands of the Chief Secretary—for that is what it comes to—to bring in this Bill, which is a complete overturning and absolute reversal of the Act of 1903. If that is the result of satisfaction, then what will be the result of want of satisfaction with the present Bill? We all know what the words of the hon. and learned Member mean. They always express dissatisfaction with anything they get; but at the same time they grasp it greedily, and they take the last penny they can get out of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member and other Members said that we had made no concessions in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You had not the power."] It is very true so far as we above the Gangway are concerned, but fortunately there are other people: I say it is absolutely contrary to the truth that the Unionist party, whether in this or another place, have made no concessions in this Bill.
    Everybody knows that, especially since the passing of the Act of 1903, so long as
    134
    that Act has been working satisfactorily, one of the most important points we have insisted on is that voluntary sale must still be given the opportunity of working out the land question in Ireland. Although we are accused of making no concessions, we have made this concession that we have admitted the principle of compulsory purchase for the purpose of relieving congestion. I say that that is a most important concession. It is one which, if I personally had anything to say in the matter, I would not have conceded, because my not very long experience of Parliament, especially of Irish politics, leads me to the conclusion that this is a very big "thin end of the wedge," and as it is granted in this case, I am afraid hon. Members below the Gangway will not rest until they have shoved that wedge in very much further. Be that so or not, there can be no question whatever that the admission of this principle, even in what hon. Members call the limited form in the Bill, is a very great concession, and therefore it is quite wrong to say that the Unionist Party have made no concession. With regard to compulsory sale and purchase, which is excluded from the Bill, I would like to ask once more the question asked by myself and a number of my hon. Friends during the Debate in the Committee stage of the Bill, What is the case that is put forward by the Chief Secretary or by hon. Members below the Gangway for general compulsory sale? What has invariably been the answer? One solitary case is given by hon. Members below the Gangway, that of Lord Clanricarde, and one solitary case adduced by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture. Those are the two solitary cases held up as the argument and justification for the introduction of a compulsory purchase system which exists nowhere else in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I am open to correction.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about Australia, which is in the world?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I will qualify my assumption and say nowhere in the wide world nearer than Australia.
    Mr. LONSDALE: It does not exist there.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am afraid I do not know which hon. Member is correct. At any rate, it does not exist in Europe or America. Less than six years ago the House of Commons distinctly and solemnly

    135
    pledged itself to the existing system of voluntary purchase being given a full and proper trial. That trial has proved so successful and has carried out the objects of the framers of the system to such an extent, that its success has been its only fault. At present landlords and tenants, in spite of all that hon. Members below the Gangway may do, are falling over one another to get the benefits of the Act of 1903. Had the 112 or 150 millions sterling, whatever would have been the amount necessary, been procurable during the last six years, I am confident that there would now be only a few thousand acres of ordinary tenanted land in Ireland which had not passed from landlord to tenant. I am not going into the question whether tenants are paying too much for their farms or landlords receiving too much for their estates. The fact remains that there has been the greatest desire on the part of landlords and tenants to come to an agreement. That being so, no argument has been adduced which ought to in-
    fluence any House of Commons to introduce compulsory purchase clauses, at least so far as concerns ordinary tenanted land. As regards other land, I am sorry that Noble Lords have, for some reason best known to themselves, thought fit to allow this provision to remain in the Bill. We are not going to run counter to their wish, because it would be no use our doing so. But if I had the command of a couple of hundred votes I would certainly go into the Lobby against it. I rose, however, to show that the claim of hon. Members below the Gangway that these rights of compulsory purchase should be extended from their present limited area to the whole of Ireland are entirely uncalled for, and that it is not open to them to ask for that extension in view of the attitude which they took up in the discussions in 1903.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 905.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Astbury, John Meir

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Duncan. Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barker, Sir John

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

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

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Maclean, Donald

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Maddison, Frederick

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Brigg, John

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Gretton, John

    Massie, J.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Middlebrook, William

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Moore, William

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Morrell, Philip

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morse, L. L.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Cave, George

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hills, J. W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Clark, George Smith

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Clough, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Rowlands, J.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Thompson, J. W H. (Somerset, E.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Seaverns, J. H,

    Toulmin, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    NOES.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    Lords Amendments: Leave out paragraph (b), and insert instead therof "If the owner of the estate accepts such proposal, or consents to enter into negotiations with the Estates Commissioners."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments," and I will then move to insert after the word "any," in Subsection (2), the word "congested," so that it would read: "For the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the boundaries, extent and character of any congested estate or untenanted land which they propose to purchase," etc.
    There was evidently some confusion in the minds of Noble Lords in another place with regard to this Amendment. Compulsory powers being now limited to the congested estates, the Amendment of the Lords is unnecessary. The object of the Amendment of Lord Atkinson was to limit the operations of the Sub-section to cases in which the vendor was willing to enter into negotiations. Lord Atkinson's Amendment was not well adapted to carry out the object he had in view. If the Amendment I suggest is inserted there would be power
    138
    to enter upon these estates for the purpose stated in Sub-section 2. In those cases where the vendor refused to proceed any further it is within the power of the Estates Commissioners to acquire the land by compulsion. I therefore propose to disagree with the Lords in these two Amendments for the purpose of inserting my Amendment.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not quite follow the Chief Secretary's argument. Untenanted land cannot be congested, because there is no population upon it. Surely he does not mean that there shall be compulsory entry upon all untenanted land. I think if we put these words after "estate" and before "untenanted land" it would carry out what the right hon. Gentleman desires.
    Lords further Amendment agreed to: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "the Estate Commissioners" ["for the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners"] and insert instead thereof the word "them."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to leave out Clause 42 (Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of the Estates Commissioners).
    This is only the preliminary to the new provision which appears later on.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Procedure of the Estates Commissioners on Failure of Negotiations to Purchase.)
    (1) Where negotiations have been entered into or proposals have been made for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of any estate or untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county and no agreement has been arrived at, the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, send in the prescribed manner to the person who appears to them to be the owner a final offer in writing for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land.
    (2) The final offer shall contain the following particulars:—

    (a) A description of the estate or untenanted land to which the offer relates;

    (b) The amount of the price which the Estates Commissioners are willing to give for the estate or untenanted land, subject—

    (i.) to any public rights affecting the estate or untenanted land;

    (ii.) to any maintenance charges under the Public Works Acts; and (in the case of an estate);

    (iii.) to any interests of the tenants or of persons having any claims upon those interests, and to any easements, rights, and appurtenances mentioned in Section thirty-four of the Act of 1896:

    but save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of the Act of 1903 with respect to minerals discharged from the claims of all persons who are interested in the estate or untenanted land, whether in respect of superior or intervening interests or incumbrances or otherwise; and

    (c) The time within which the offer may be accepted.

    (3) If within the time specified in that behalf in the final offer, the offer is accepted in writing by any person who within the prescribed period satisfies the Estates Commissioners that he may be dealt with as the owner of the estate or untenanted land under Section seventeen of the Act of 1903, the offer and acceptance shall as
    140
    from the date upon which the Estates Commissioners certify that they are so satisfied, have the same effect as an agreement for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land under the said Act as amended by this Act, and the like consequences shall ensue and the like proceedings shall be carried on as in the case of such an agreement save that the advance for the purpose of the purchase shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, be made by means of money and not by means of stock, except in cases where the vendor agrees to accept in lieu of cash an amount of guaranteed three per cent, stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced, and carrying dividends as from the date of the advance, and the Estates Commissioners agree that the advance shall be made in that manner.
    (4) If the said offer is not accepted as aforesaid the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, proceed to acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in manner provided by Part IV. of this Act.
    (5) In estimating the price to be named in the final offer the Estates Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the Act of 1903, as amended by this Act, in respect of advances and to the prices which the tenants and other persons are willing to give for the holdings (if any) and parcels of land comprised in the estate or untenanted land.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (1) after the word "any" ["any estate or untenanted land"] insert the word "congested."
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "if they think fit" ["the Estates Commissioners, if they think fit"] and insert instead thereof the words "if in their opinion it is desirable that the estate or untenanted land should be purchased for the purpose of relieving congestion."

    CLAUSE 45.—(Reconstitution of the Board.)
    (1) From and after the appointed day, the Congested Districts Board shall consist of the following members:—

    (a) The Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, who shall be ex-officio-members:

    (b) Five members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as appointed members):

    141

    (c) Nine members representing the congested districts counties, of whom one shall be elected by the local authority of each congested districts county (in this Act referred to as representative members):

    (d) Two paid members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as permanent members).

    (2) An appointed member shall hold office for four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
    (3) Each of the permanent members shall hold office during pleasure, and shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at their disposal an annual salary of two thousand pounds:
    Provided that a permanent member shall not be removed from his office except by an Order in Council, and any such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void.
    (4) His Majesty may fill any casual vacancy in the office of appointed or permanent member by appointing a member in the place of the member whose office is vacant.
    (5) Every existing member of the Congested Districts Board who is not an ex-officio member, or is not appointed or elected under or in pursuance of this Section, shall cease to hold office on the appointed day.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out "five" and insert "eight."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to leave out "eight" and insert "nine."
    We are now coming to the provisions with regard to the composition of the Congested Districts Board. The theory to start with was that there should be three ex-officio members, nine elected members, and two permanent members. The elected members have disappeared somewhere between here and the other House. They are now abandoned, and the proposal as it appears on the Paper is to constitute a Board of three ex-officio members, eight appointed members, and two permanent members. Eight, three, and two are thirteen, and, although I am in these matters perfectly opaque, and do not quite
    142
    comprehend why there should be any difficulty to a Board composed of 13 members, still I am bound to confess that that objection to it is widely spread, and I am very anxious there should be full attendances at this Board, and that every member should feel it his duty, as far as he possibly can, to attend it. I am told, and I am bound to say I recognise, that a Board of 13 is not a convenient number. It so happens that we have now practically included Clare.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, the greater part at all events, of the County of Clare, is included in the area, though not the best part, of course, and the whole of the counties which were to have the honour of sending the nine representatives who are to be included in the new Board. Although I am animated in this matter by the desire to avoid the number 13, the unlucky number, I feel there is a certain force in the point that, having regard to the extended area, we ought to have nine members, only they will be appointed instead of elected. That will make the number 14. I therefore move to leave out 5 and insert 9. It is a departure from the proceedings which took place in the other place, but, having regard to the fact that Clare is now, barring the omission I have mentioned, practically included within the area, I do not think there ought to be any objection in any quarter to the insertion of the figure 9 instead of 5. That will constitute a Board of 14 members.
    Mr. DILLON: This Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment raises the question of the dropping of the representative element of the Congested Districts Board, and that is a claim made by the House of Lords against which I desire to enter my most emphatic protect. The objection shown by the House of Lords and by hon. Members above the Gangway to the representative element is to me most extraordinary and unconstitional. After all, these representatives would have been elected by the County Councils who were constituted by the Tory party, and any Members who are old enough to recollect the Debates which took place when the Bill was before the House will remember the extraordinary prophecies of evil which came from some of the Members of the Tory party. We were told that the new bodies would be examples of corruption and extravagance, and that the ratepayers would be ruined, and the busi-

    143
    ness of the country disgracefully mismanaged. What has happened? All these prophecies of evil to which we have listened year after year when we were introducing Bills have been absolutely falsified, and the Local Government Board and hon. Members above the Gangway on the Unionist side of the House are obliged to admit that the business is now better done than ever before.
    Mr. MOORE: What about the County Council of Mayo?
    Mr. DILLON: I say that the business of the county is better and more economically done than it was under the old plan, and that is a lesson showing the stupidity of this continual opposition in every department of public life in Ireland to the representative and democratic principle. I can only say, in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Armagh, that the moment you give the people authority, religious advocacy and trouble disappears. I regard it as one of the greatest triumphs of the Chief Secretary that a Catholic has been elected in Belfast to teach scholastic philosophy: that is the beginning of peace in Ireland. I only alluded to that in order to point the moral—the responsibility must be fixed on the men who have the responsibility: a Board which is popularly elected is more responsible than a nominated Board. My own belief is that the very best way of smoothing and rendering easy the task of the Congested Districts Board will be to bring in the local leaders and put the responsibility of the work on them Under the original constitution there was ample safeguard for the control of the expenditure of public money. Therefore there is no real reason for saying that there was the least shadow of danger of local men being able to job public money. Let me say this, that after the Councils Bill which hon. Members above the Gangway are not responsible for, but which the Government are responsible for and Lord Macdonnell was responsible for, I cannot understand why objection should be taken by men like Lord Macdonnell to admitting elected members on the Congested Districts Board when they proposed in that Bill to place the entire control and management of that Board in the hands of a council which was pre-eminently an elective body. For my part I do not consider the matter is absolutely vital to the Bill. I do not say it would kill the Bill or that if I had the power I would kill or
    144
    reject the Bill rather than sacrifice this power, but I say it is another illustration of the incurable distrust of popular control which resides in the other House across the Lobby that they have resisted in this intractable way the elective settlement which I am convinced would lead to the smooth working of the Congested Districts Board. I therefore enter my strong protest against this proposal.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House and his Friends offered some advice to the Chief Secretary a few moments ago as to his prospects of gratitude and his chances of finally solving the difficulties which have arisen in Ireland by this Bill, and let me also offer him a little bit of advice, which has, at all events, the advantage of being gratis, and that is that he will find the same experience here that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway prophesied with regard to other proposals. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who represents the party, has told him that if he only would associate the popular element with the Congested Districts-Board he would be quite certain, or, at all events, humanly speaking, quite certain, of the success of that Department. We have had a little experience on this matter. The Board of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland has popular representation upon it, and in the earlier stages of this Bill we were told by the Government, and on more than one occasion by the Vice-President of that Department, that the powers which it was proposed to give to the elective element on the Congested Districts Board in the future were the same as those enjoyed by the popular control of his Department. I do not think that is quite correct, but it is accurate to say that the Department of Agriculture and Technical instruction has associated with it a considerable popular element representative of the county councils, and during the time that I was Chief Secretary and during the time of my predecessor, and during a very considerable portion of the time of the present Chief Secretary and his immediate predecessor, the criticisms which came from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in regard to the administration of the Department were as severe and as frequent as any criticisms addressed to the Irish Government in respect to any branch of their work. Therefore to suggest that by the association of the popular element

    145
    with this Congested Districts Board you are going to avoid criticism and secure success is to make a suggestion which has no foundation in the experience of the past.
    The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) suggests that we in this House—and in order to make my position perfectly clear, as the Chief Secretary unwittingly but very successfully misrepresented me on the last occasion, when I say we I speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House—are taking now exactly the same line that we took on the earlier stages of this Bill. We oppose the popular element, not because we have any want of confidence in popular representation, not because we attempt to decry the work that has been done by the Irish county councils. I could not go as far as the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) either in saying that they had done better or more economical work than the grand juries or that they had been more successful than other popularly elected bodies elsewhere, but I admit that they have done their work very well and have been extremely economical, and, subject to this one reservation, that they have excluded from their membership those who represent views different from theirs in politics, I admit that the county councils have done their work well. We have continuously opposed the suggestion that there should be popularly elected bodies on the Congested Districts Board solely because all experience shows that, where you have a body whose business it is to administer and deal with funds which are to be applied to the relief of local difficulties, such as congestion, if you have properly elected bodies you do not bring about corruption or jobbery—we have never made any suggestion of that kind—but you bring about paralysis of administration. If you put representatives of the various county councils on to a body of this kind let the House remember what is the work they will have to perform. They are to be charged with the expenditure of a very large sum of money which is to be spent upon the relief of congestion. It does not mean that we are implying jobbery or corruption or any intention to do anything which is improper when we say that it is inevitable that those who represent particular districts will say, "In our district congestion is worse, we want the most relief, and you must give something to us first."
    The result of that will be that you will not have the careful consideration of an
    146
    abstract character of the claims of the different districts and the possibility of meeting those claims, but you will have constant debates upon the requirements of each district, and finally a sort of solution on the principle of "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours," which will ultimately result in money being spent, not to the best possible advantage but in this district to-day on the understanding that it is to be spent in that district to-morrow, and so on. I do not believe there is anyone who has ever been connected with the administration of Government Departments who will not endorse that view. The Chief Secretary has abandoned that altogether, I am glad to say and he proposes now to add to the nominated members. The number we had anticipated he would suggest was eight. He proposes to make nine. I suppose we cannot quarrel with him for that. He is in the unpleasant position of a dispenser of public patronage, and. no doubt the claims upon his benevolence have been so numerous that he finds eight nominated members would not be sufficient, and therefore he has had to increase, them to nine. He might have done that by reducing the number to seven. He has chosen to do it by increasing rather than decreasing the number. I am one of those old-fashioned people who believe that a small body would be more likely to administer successfully than a large one. I do not believe that you get good administration by adding to the number. I think a Congested Districts Board of eight or nine would be much more likely to do the work successfully and with advantage to Ireland, than a Board of 14. I rejoice in the interest of what I believe to be good administration that the Government have abandoned the representative element of the county councils, not because I and those for whom I speak have any mistrust of properly elected bodies or of the representatives of county councils, but because we believe that, if the work is to be well done, it would be better to adhere to the old model than to depart from it entirely.
    Mr. MOORE: I think on this occasion the protest of hon. Members below the Gangway has been more hollow than usual. What is the grievance? It is that the county councils are not to nominate nine gentlemen. I venture to say that the Chief Secretary will not nominate a single one of these gentlemen without the concurrence

    147
    of hon. Members below the Gangway. The Board will have control of £250,000. Is the House going to pass this Amendment without knowing who the nine gentlemen are to be? I have known occasions when if there was a proposal to appoint anyone to a position under land legislation none would have been louder than hon. Members below the Gangway to know the name, pedigree, sire, and dam of the man. On this occasion they pass the proposal sub silentio. The nine people are to be appointed by the Chief Secretary, and hon. Members do not inquire who the worthies are to be. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in making the appointments to see that the minority are protected? Will he give any representation to the unfortunate owners of land who are to be absolutely expropriated? Are these nominated members to represent exclusively the views of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his friends? No one is more strongly in favour of popular representation than I am when it goes with popular taxation, but in this case not a penny of the money is collected from the locality. This is a Board appointed to expend Government money. I would much rather have a Government Board if I were sure that the Government would appoint impartially representatives of all interests. Will the Chief Secretary tell us the minority representatives? It is not an unreasonable thing. Are the minority to suffer in this case as he said they were to suffer in other cases?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I never said that they ought to suffer.
    Mr. MOORE: He said that they have to suffer, and he would not lift a finger to prevent it.
    Word "eight" inserted by the Lords left out, and word "nine" inserted—[Mr. Birrell]—instead thereof:
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to agree with the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c).
    This Amendment omits the provision for providing representation of the county councils. I have no desire to say anything on this subject. I did the best I could and had the House with me on the original proposal in the Bill. After all the House of Commons counts for something, even when the Liberals have a majority in it. From the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) we could gather what an excellent proposal it was. He rejoiced to note that the House of Lords had destroyed the responsibility that was imposed by the original provisions of the Bill upon the county councils of selecting either from their own number or outside some competent persons to represent them on this Board. Having got rid of that, there was no other course open to the House of Lords but to trust the executive Government for the time being to exercise the patronage. I very much regret the decision of the House of Lords. I believe that the county councils are far better persons, are better qualified, not only than myself but than any possible successor of mine, to whatever Party he may belong, to discharge this important duty. But as the House of Lords will not hear of the county councils, and as there is no other alternative but to fall back on the executive Government of the time being, all I can say is that I shall discharge the duty if it falls to my lot as well as I can. When the hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to name the nine gentlemen, I have not the faintest idea at the present moment of who the nine gentlemen are—not one. I only say that I shall discharge the duty reluctantly which has been imposed on me through the House of Lords not trusting to their own body, for whom in a sense they are responsible and who would discharge this duty far better than any executive officer.
    The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 78.

    Division No. 906.]

    AYES.

    [11.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bytes, William Pollard

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bonn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Cave, George

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Astbury, John Meir

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Bright, J. A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Clough, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, Noarth)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Firie, Duncan V.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Rondall, Athelstan

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Laidlaw, Sir Robert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lambert, George

    Roc, Sir Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Rowlands, J.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Falconer, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Gretton, John

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gulland, John W

    Massie, J.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Moore, William

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morrell, Philip

    Toulmin, George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Helme, Nerval Watson

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Williamson, Sir A.

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Hills, J. W.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Holt, Richard Durning

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O' Grady, J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O' Malley, William

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    O' Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Boland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Keating, M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegol, E.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hodge, John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out Sub-section (2) and insert, "An appointed member shall hold office for five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of an appointed member or otherwise, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the member in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire."
    Leave out Sub-section (4).
    Leave out Clause 46 (Duration of Office of Representative Members and Casual Vacancies).
    Leave out Clause 47 (Administrative Committee).

    CLAUSE 48.—(Congested Districts, Counties and Local Authorities.)
    (1) For the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended

    151
    by this Act, each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry, shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.
    (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county, except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (3) For the purposes of this part of this Act there shall be a joint committee of the councils of the rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, consisting of two persons chosen out of their body by each of the said councils, and that committee shall be the local authority of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (4) No electoral division shall, after the passing of this Act, be or form part of a congested districts county, unless it is included in a congested districts county constituted under this Section.
    (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "Clare."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Although the word has a warlike sound I think I shall be able to show, having regard to the Amendments which I propose to move, that after all this is not quite so formidable as it looks. I am, of course, very sorry that in another place they did not agree to what was the Report of the Dudley Commission: that Clare should be included as a whole. [MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: "Put it back."] It is only fair, however, to say that I find in that Royal Commission Report that Clare was included with some hesitation. Of course, it will not be denied that Clare is a county differing in many important respects, especially having regard to the congestion within its borders, from other counties which are included under this Bill. At the same time, in view of its geographical situation, surrounded as it is by counties included in the congested area, it is rather unfortunate that we should have this difficulty. It was found impracticable to
    152
    obtain the necessary consent to the inclusion of Clare as a whole, on the ground that it was not, properly speaking, a congested county or one which ought to be included within the congested area. It therefore became a question whether some portions of Clare ought not properly to be so included. We had not much time to determine what those portions were, but it was agreed that Ballyvaghan, Ennisky-mon, Kilrush, and Killadysert should together form one congested districts county. After that I made careful inquiry of the Local Government Board in Ireland, who know a great deal more about the poverty of Ireland than any other Board and much more than anybody else, having the Poor Law administration in their hands, and they were unanimously of opinion that Scariff and Tulla were as much entitled to be included within the provisions of this Bill as Ballyvaghan, Enniskymon, Kilrush, and Killadysert. Therefore the proposals we make amount to this—that six rural districts, namely, Ballyvaghan, Enniskymon, Kilrush, Scariff, Tulla, and Killadysert, shall together form one congested districts county. That excludes two rural districts—Ennis and Corofin—from the new congested district area; but the whole of the sea coast of Clare will be within the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board. I sympathise with the anxiety of the whole of county Clare to be placed under the beneficent rule and sway of the Board—and it is a tribute to the popularity of the Board that that feeling should exist throughout the whole of the county—but, having obtained the inclusion of two-thirds of the county, which was included only with some diffidence by the Dudley Commission, I think that that ought, at all events for the present, to satisfy even the most grasping and patriotic Clare man. I hope, therefore, the House will support me when I move to substitute "six" for "four" rural districts, and to insert the names "Scariff" and "Tulla."
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not know who is here prepared to agree with the Amendment of the Lords in this respect. But I lose no time in saying at once that I for one am not going to agree with the Lords. I think that the Chief Secretary and the Government—certainly the Government—have treated the county of Clare extremely badly in this matter. And I must say that when I took up the newspaper in Dublin the other day, after the proceedings in the House of Lords, and found that Lord Crewe had got up in his place and calmly proposed to exclude the

    153
    greater portion of East Clare, I was more than astonished: I was indignant. I venture to tell the Chief Secretary that my indignation is shared to the fullest extent by every person in the county of Clare, and particularly East Clare. What are the facts of the case? After a long and exhaustive inquiry extending over years, embracing visits to every part of Ireland, and taking evidence in the most exhaustive way, the Commission, presided over by Lord Dudley, issued their report. They recommended unanimously that amongst the new districts to be put under the supervision of the Congested Districts Board should be the whole of the county of Clare. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seeks to justify the action of the House of Lords in leaving out the greater portion of the county of Clare by saying that the Dudley Commission recommended the inclusion of the whole county with some hesitation. I think if he was going to refer to that he might have quoted the recommendation of the Dudley Commission with regard to the county of Clare. If he had done so he would have informed the House that after very close and careful inquiry, after considering all the circumstances of the case, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was desirable in the general interest to include the whole of the county of Clare in the new congested area. They pointed out that if Clare was not included it would be practically the only county in the West of Ireland that was not so included. Moreover, they pointed out, as regards East Clare, which I represent, that if the congestion there was not so accentuated as in West Clare and other portions of the West of Ireland, it was most important that it should be brought within the operations of the Congested Districts Board, because there there were large tracts of grass land or untenanted land which were absolutely essential for the relief of congestion in other portions of the county of Clare.
    Yet, in face of the recommendation unanimously given by this Commission, representative of all the parties in this House, and founded on the closest and most exhaustive inquiry, the House of Lords refuses to include the county of Clare in the new congested area, and we are asked to agree with the action of the House of Lords in this matter. I cannot understand the meaning of this at all. The new congested area comprises nine counties. The new areas agreed to by the House of Lords to come under the sway
    154
    of the new Congested Districts Board are very large. Yet out of all the immense district recommended by the Dudley Commission, the House of Lords have fixed, and fixed alone, upon this particular district which is represented by me in this House. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Some one says "Hear, hear." But the Chief Secretary has not explained. I should like to know who it was in the House of Lords that put up Lord Crewe to move the exclusion of East Clare. I venture to say that it was two or three Lords who are landlords in East Clare, and I ask the Chief Secretary to ask Lord Crewe. If I have the opportunity I will ask Lord Crewe myself. I would like the Chief Secretary to find out whether any landlords in East Clare had anything to do with the exclusion. I say if they had it is an outrageous scandal and a disgrace. We say that men interested in legislation in this House, men whose private affairs are concerned, are not to take part in the discussions and divisions in this House. On a Committee of this House a Member would not be allowed to act if the matter for consideration was one in which he himself was personally interested, or if he had any financial interest in it. Yet in the House of Lords we find that some landlords who are directly interested, who have a financial interest in this matter, are allowed to have their way, and are able to have excluded large districts from the operations of this Act simply because they consider that their own lands might be dealt with, and their own financial interests might be interfered with. That is, in my opinion, an outrageous scandal and a monstrous shame. I venture to tell the Chief Secretary perfectly frankly and straightforwardly that if this course is persisted in, and if the whole county of Clare is not included, it will give rise to no end of trouble and disturbance in the county.
    I have received to-day communications from Gentlemen representing absolutely the whole population of the district. I have a Resolution which I showed to the Chief Secretary this morning, proposed by the Bishop of Killaloe, and seconded by the chairman and the County Council of Clare at a meeting of the Clare County Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and this Resolution, proposed and seconded by those Gentlemen—the two most representative and responsible men in the whole county—declares that from their intimate knowledge of the county that the exclusion of this district will cause great trouble and prevent the

    155
    Congested Districts Board from relieving congestion in the western portion of the county and other districts. From every part of the constituency, from every part of the district, representations have gone forth protesting against the action of Lord Crewe in excluding this district. I venture to say if the Government persist in this Clause they will be simply laving by for themselves much trouble in the future. Imagine how absurd the thing is. Here you are taking not merely a county and dividing it, but you are sub-dividing half a county. East Clare is to be divided into different portions. In one Poor Law Union the people are to be told they will be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board and have the administration of that Board; in another Poor Law Union across the road the people are to be told: "You are not to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board, you must take your chance in the ordinary way with your landlords." Under these circumstances does any reasonable man in this House expect there will be anything but discontent and dissatisfaction when the people find they are not dealt with as a whole in the county in the same way but that the people in one district have great advantages over the people in another.
    We are told sometimes that the county of Clare is really not a congested district at all and that the recommendation to include it in the congested area was only arrived at after hesitation. I really do not know what is the true definition of a congested district, but the holdings throughout the county are miserably small, and in this district you are now excluding there are thousands and thousands of acres of good land practically deserted and bereft of human occupations or habitations. Allow me to give a few figures. There are in this county nearly 2,000 holdings which do not exceed one acre; there are above one acre and not exceeding five acres something between 1,500 and 2,000 holdings; above five acres and not exceeding 10 or 15 acres there are something like 4,000 holdings. If we take the holdings throughout the county which are not more than 30 acres we find that there are between 11,000 and 12,000, and yet in the case of the people who are endeavouring to eke out a miserable existence upon holdings not exceeding one acre in extent—and thousands of them do not exceed five acres—we are told they are not worthy of being dealt with by the Congested Districts Board; we
    156
    are told that they are not to have any hope of having their holdings enlarged or of getting a share of the large grass lands. Under these circumstances can anyone possibly expect that there will be anything but dissatisfaction and discontent. I say to the Chief Secretary quite plainly that I do not think he believes that this course is the right one. I do not believe that if the right hon. Gentleman took up a strong position the House of Lords would wreck this Bill on the question of whether a few districts in one county in Ireland were to be included within the congested area or not. I am obliged to come to the conclusion that two or three landlords interested in the county of Clare have worked this extraordinary change.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary whether they can speak for Lord Crewe on this point?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes. I can assure the hon. Member that Lord Crewe had no negotiations, relations, or interviews with any Clare landlords on this question. I cannot tell how other persons may have been influenced by representations from-different parts of Ireland, but the hon. Member is in error—I am as responsible for what Lord Crewe did in this matter in the House of Lords as I am for what is done here—because no influence of any sort or kind has been brought directly to bear upon Lord Crewe by any of the Clare landlords.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I know that there were no Clare landlords at the Conference, but Lord Lansdowne was there. Did any of the Clare landlords approach Lord Lansdowne? Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us why it was that of all the large areas recommended by the Dudley Commission to be put under the Congested Districts Board this one particular portion of one particular county was singled out.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Our great difficulty was to get Clare in at all. The feeling was that it should not be included because it was not, properly speaking, a congested district at all, and we tried to get as much of Clare in as possible. As a matter of fact, I have been the champion of Clare in this matter, and to the extent of two-thirds I have succeeded. Had it not been for such energy as Lord Crewe and I exhibited in regard to this matter no part of Clare would have been included.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state what were the reasons given by Lord Lansdowne and those who objected to the inclusion of County Clare? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] This matter affects my constituency, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench that I will have my say and will not be put down. The more they interfere, just the more will I say, and I repeat that this is no mere coincidence. The right hon. Gentleman says the great difficulty was to get County Clare included at all. Why should there have been this difficulty with regard to Clare when the question of its suitability for inclusion was carefully considered by the Dudley Commission and when they reported favourably? It is said it is not suitable. That was the business of the Dudley Commission, and they are better judges in the matter than Lord Lansdowne or any Gentleman who so strongly objected to the inclusion of county Clare. I do not know whether it is possible to hope that there may be any alteration in this matter or not, but I tell the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, who is soon to be a judge and leave us—I am sorry to part with him personally—the Solicitor-General, who, I suppose, will be the Attorney-General in a day or two, and everybody responsible for the government of Ireland that if this is persisted in and the people of this district in Clare are treated with this injustice that so far from tending to settle in any one way the land question in the County of Clare, this Bill, for the injustice it does to a portion of the people, will cause discontent and fresh agitation; and I venture to predict that in a very short time the exclusion of Clare will be altered and the whole county will have to be included in the congested areas. I will make this attempt to alter the injustice which is proposed. I will propose to amend the Amendment of the Chief Secretary by including two other districts in the county. He has moved to include the districts of Scariff and Tulla. I will move to include the rural districts of Ennis and Corofin. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Gentlemen in the House of Lords who have to decide this question pay no respect whatever to what I say, I would ask them at least to pay some attention to the representative men in the county who have spoken in this matter.
    Whatever may be thought of what I might say here, I doubt whether there is any man even in the other place who will be
    158
    inclined to disregard the Bishop of the district, the Most Rev. Bishop of Killaloe, and the Chairman of the County Council. These two gentlemen may be fairly said to represent the feeling of the population, and I would urge the Chief Secretary to use what influence he can in another place so that the wishes of the people may be met and that this injustice may not be done. There is more behind the exclusion of Clare than appears on the surface. Strenuous attempts have been made to blacken the character of the county of Clare. The press of this country have been filled with exaggerated reports of what has happened in Clare. Anything which happens in the county is magnified into a great outrage, and I am really afraid that to some extent the county is being punished for a reputation which it does not deserve. I can only tell the Chief Secretary that so far as I am concerned when I return to Clare next week I will tell the people there that they have been treated with the most infamous injustice and that as it stands they can have no hope of any considerable relief with regard to their land tenure by the passage of this Bill. What makes the matter all the more cruel is there is not a district in the whole of Ireland which has been left so untouched by the Act of 1903 as the county of Clare. In other districts landlords have, to some extent, shown themselves reasonable, or at any rate they have agreed to sell on certain terms. But a large section—the vast majority of the landlords in the county of Clare—have practically refused to sell on any terms at all. The result is that whereas in other parts of Ireland progress is being made with the transfer of land, in the county of Clare there is little or none. We all hoped that the Chief Secretary would adhere to the recommendation of the Dudley Commission and place the county of Clare under the administration of the Congested Districts Board. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman it was most pathetic to watch the anxiety with which the small landholders in this great county looked forward to the day when they would come under the control of that Board. From the moment this Bill was introduced into this House their delight and satisfaction was unbounded, because they felt that under the operations of the Congested Districts Board the transfer of land would proceed rapidly. But at the very moment the people hoped and believed the Bill would become law they found to their astonishment and their horror that of all parts of Ireland which had been recommended for inclusion in the administration of the

    159
    Board, this portion, and this portion alone, had been struck out by the House of Lords.
    No hon. Member representing a constituency treated in this way could do otherwise than enter a strong and emphatic protest. No reason whatever is given for this proposal to strike out county Clare; no arguments have been advanced in justification of it; it is simply put forward with cold brutality, and all I have to say is that from the days of Daniel O'Connell—from the days when Catholic Emancipation was passed—it has never been found easy to ignore county Clare, and the House of Lords even yet may find that, while they are tearing the British Constitution into a thousand pieces, they will not be able to "leave out county Clare." I say to the right hon. Gentleman when next he sees Lord Crewe let him tell the Noble Lord and ask him to tell the Marquess of Lansdowne, with my compliments, that whatever the outcome of this constitutional struggle which is now going on may be, whatever happens to the House of Lords, whether it goes on, or whether it goes down, the county of Clare will be there, and I will take very good care that the farmers and labourers of the county of Clare will look after their own interests, protect their homes and take whatever steps they may consider necessary for the welfare of themselves and their families until the day comes—and it speedily will come—when some Minister will have to come down and admit that the recommendation of the Dudley Commission was right, and the action of the House of Lords in leaving out Clare was wrong.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: The question is not one which affects East Clare alone, because the interests of East Clare and West Clare are inseparable. Moreover, it is not one which affects Clare alone, but the whole of Ireland. I am reminded in this connection that when the American Act of Independence was signed, Benjamin Franklin, who was one of those men with a certain amount of wit, said, "Now, Gentlemen, if we don't hang together we will hang separately," and that is also the position of all the constituencies in Ireland. We say East Clare and West Clare hang together like the representatives of the Nationalist party in Ireland hold together in one indissoluble unity. On this question of leaving out Clare I do not propose to add much, and it would be utterly impossible to do so to the eloquent speech which we have just heard from my
    160
    hon. and learned Friend. This question of congestion in Clare involves also the question of compulsion, because the reason for excluding one and including the other is to bring it within the operation of this Clause or exclude it. The other day an hon. Gentleman above the Gangway said we were always depending upon and having recourse to one example, but I am able to give a number of cases of landlords who have refused to sell, not only in contravention of the interests of their tenants, but in violation of their own. One is the estate of Charles MacDonnell, New Hall, Ennis, who absolutely refused to sell. Offers were made to purchase and negotiations proceeded up to almost the carrying through of the business when the landlord withdrew from the operation on the ground that he must sell his turbary first. Another landlord refused to sell unless he got 27½ years' purchase, and yet another refused to accept less than 24½ years for his estate which simply consisted of bog. In another place the landlord refused to sell at less than 24½ years' purchase; and then again there is the estate of H. B. Macnamara, of Ennistymon, who has refused to sell; and Lord Leconfield, near Miltown Malbay, is in the same position.
    12.0 P.M.
    In another place Lord Lansdowne said the landlord regards his grazing lands somewhat in the frame of mind in which a connoisseur regards a fine piece of old china. Men of the stamp of Lord Lansdowne find it a sufficient reason to refuse the just rights of the people that they find an æsthetic delight in the contemplation of their rolling grass lands, while the son of a poor tenant farmer has to choose between two alternatives, one to wrench himself away from his family and his home to seek his fortune in another land, or to live in poverty, eking out a miserable existence in his ancestral home, and when you find that man's case could be met by the extension of benefits, such as including the whole of Clare in the congested districts, that must make an extremely forcible appeal to a man who is so sympathetically inclined to Ireland as the Chief Secretary. The Government has included West Clare in the congested districts, and has excluded a great part of East Clare; but suppose the operations of the Congested Districts Act have full play in Clare, and there is a great desire to give free play to the beneficent operations of that Act, where is the land to be found for the people in West Clare? A man does not

    161
    like to leave his country, and if he has to migrate it is easier after all to migrate to America, which they call in West Clare the nearest parish of the West, and if there is a real desire to benefit West Clare where is the land to be found to satisfy the needs of the poor landless man, when the great part of East Clare is removed

    CLAUSE 48.—(Congested Districts, Counties, and Local Authorities.)
    (1) For the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended
    from the scope of the operation of the Act?
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 907.]

    AYES.

    [12.6 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marnham, F. J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Anson, Sir William Reyneil

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Middlebrook, William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Elibank, Master of

    Moore, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Falconer, J.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Forster, Henry William

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nuttall, Ha y

    Beale, W. P.

    Gretton, John

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gulland, John W.

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon, Sydney Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hills, J. W.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Toulmin, George

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Clough, William

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Lambert, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Wood, T. M'Kinnen

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Crosfield, A. H.

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

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allsten

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duffy, Willam J.

    MacVelgh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Walsh, Stephen

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

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

    by this Act, each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry,

    163
    shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.
    (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county, except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be a joint committee of the councils of the rural districts of Bantry, Castledown, Schull, and Skibbereen, consisting of two persons chosen out of their body by each of the said councils, and that committee shall be the local authority of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (4) No electoral division shall, after passing of this Act, be or form part of a congested districts county, unless it is included in a congested districts county constituted under this section.
    (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "county" ["shall be a congested district county"] insert "the four rural districts of Ballyvaghan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, and Killadysert in the county of Clare, shall together form one congested districts county."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move to leave out the word "four" ["four rural districts"] and insert instead thereof the word "six," in order that later on, after the word "Kilrush," we may insert Scariff and Tulla.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave our, "six" and insert "eight."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): I am afraid that that cannot be done now. First of all we must leave out the word "four." When we are dealing with the insertion of the word "six" the hon. Member can vote against it.
    Question, "That the word 'four' stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'six' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, after the word "Kilrush," to insert the words "Scariff" and "Tulla."
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Sales of Parcels of Land by Congested Districts Board.)
    (1) The Board may sell any parcels of any land purchased by them whether before or after the passing of this Act or purchased on their requisition under this Act to any tenants or proprietors of holdings in a congested districts county.
    (2) If any parcels of such land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land, or district cannot advantageously be sold to, such tenants or proprietors, the Board may sell those parcels to any sons of tenants or proprietors of holdings situated in a congested districts county and not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value.
    (3) Where the Congested Districts Board sell any parcel of land to the son of any tenant or proprietor under this section, they shall insert in their annual report to the Lord Lieutenant full particulars of the sale and the circumstances in which the same was made.
    (4) The provisions of this Act with respect to the application of the Land Purchase Acts to parcels of land shall apply in the case of the sale of any parcel of land under this Section.
    (5) Section seventy-five of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "whether before or after the passing of this Act, or purchased on their requisition under this Act," and insert, "after the passing of this Act."
    Mr. CHERRY: I move to agree. The object of this Amendment is to limit the power of the Congested Districts Board as regards the selling of land.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end of Sub-section (1) insert the words "or to any herdsmen employed on or in connection with the land."
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).
    Mr. CHERRY Mr. CHERRY moved to agree.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not intend to divide the House against this Amendment, but I strongly protest against it. I believe the omission of these Sub-sections will make the work of the Board very much more difficult.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end of Sub-section (5) insert the words "save as respects sales of parcels of land purchased by the Board before the passing of this Act."

    CLAUSE 60.—(Restrictions on Sales of Land in Congested Districts Counties.)
    (1) The Land Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, enter into an agreement for the purchase of any land situated in the congested districts county, save with the consent of the Congested Districts Board: Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in the case of land required for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.
    (2) No estate situated in a congested districts county shall, after the passing of this Act, be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, to persons other than the Congested Districts Board without the consent of that Board, which consent shall not be withheld unless the Board undertake to purchase the estate within a reasonable time: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of any sale of a congested estate in pursuance of an originating application or request lodged before the passing of this Act.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), after the word "No," insert the word "congested."
    Mr. CHERRY: I move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. DILLON: This is an Amendment of the very first importance, and it is a most mischievous one. In fact, there are few points to which I attach greater importance than the proposal to insert this Amendment. As the Bill now stands, any estate, being outside any congested district, can be sold to any person except the Congested Districts Board. In other words, the Board has the right of preemption throughout congested districts, but by the insertion of this word, that right will be confined to congested districts,
    166
    and the Board would have the right to purchase congested portions of estates in congested districts, but would not have the right of pre-emption over other parts. It has been argued, I know, both in this House and in the other House, that there is no reason why the Board should have the right of pre-emption over estates which are not congested estates. I will be able to show that there is every reason why the Board must have that right. What is going on at the present moment, and what has been going on for the last two years? In the first place, one of the facts brought out at the Dudley Commission was that the amount of grass land unoccupied in the West of Ireland is absolutely insufficient to solve the problem of congestion in that province. Every acre is required, and even if every acre was available it would be insufficient. Under the present system the better-class estates, those on which there are large and extensive grass lands, which could be of use and made available for the relief of congestion, are passing rapidly away and are being sold to substantial farmers, and are being lost for ever for the relief of congestion.
    Let me point out, and this is really a matter of primary importance, that there are two classes of holdings in the West of Ireland that might be used for the relief of congestion. First of all, there are what are known as untenanted grass lands, the vast tracts of land which are out of the occupation of the owners and which are used for grazing purposes, and there are immense tracts of land which are tenanted grass lands, and which do not come under the denomination of untenanted lands, and which yet could be made available if the power of pre-emption is preserved to the Congested Districts Board, with no injustice or hardship to anyone. Those tenanted grass lands are great grazing farms held by yearly tenancies by the great graziers of Connaught, who are men, many of whom occupy six, seven, and I have known them to occupy twelve great grass farms in different parts of the country. They are men whose profession is that of grazier. They pick up those tracts and some of them occupy as many as five and six thousand acres in different large tracts in different parts of the country. They have no tenancy of those tracts, they hold them by yearly letting. Some of them have them for a great many years, and the Land Acts do not apply to them, and they cannot get judicial rents fixed. The Land Acts draw the line when

    167
    they are upwards of £200 valuation, and mainly pasture, and they are not subject to the Land Acts. The tenant cannot get security of tenure, and we never desired to give security of tenure to those great graziers in different parts of Ireland. Half the grass lands of Connaught, at least, are held by those great grazing tenants. I do not for a single moment propose that those men should be stripped of all their lands, but I do say that in view of the great sacrifices made by this House and the public funds to redeem the population of Connaught from a horrid condition of things, that it would be nothing short of an outrage to allow these vast grass lands to be withdrawn for the relief of congestion. If they are allowed to be withdrawn the problem cannot be solved or nearly solved. Remember that it is impossible with all land to solve this question, but the Lords say that the Congested Districts Board are not to have the right of pre-emption on any estate which is not a congested estate. Most of these great grass farms are situated on estates which are not congested estates, even within the £10 definition. The larger farmers, including the great grass farmers, get up an agitation to have a "direct sale," so that they may be relieved from any danger of losing their large grass farms, and they use every means at their disposal to induce the tenants to agree.
    Let me give a typical case. The Lynch Blosse estate was not a congested estate, the tenants were nearly all substantial. Sir Robert Lynch Blosse sold the estate by voluntary sale to the Congested Districts Board. If the estate had been sold by direct sale, as is the case with most estates of a similar character in Con-naught, all the grass farms would have passed away for ever from the control of the Congested Districts Board. They were all tenanted farms; but I am informed that the Board succeeded in obtaining 2,000 acres of most excellent grass land in Mayo for distribution amongst the neighbouring congested districts by getting rid of some of the graziers. The Board did not effect that without compensation, but as the graziers had no tenure they were able to get the lands on reasonable compensation. In the case of many other similar estates direct sale has taken place, and the Board have lost the chance of settling many families on holdings. The supply of land necessary to solve this problem is passing away, and once it
    168
    passes away into the hands of the large farmers it has gone for ever. As the Bill left the House of Commons the Congested Districts Board was given power to considerably stop this process of the passing of the land. Wherever there was an estate on which there were these grasslands suitable for their purpose they could object to that sale, and say, "We will buy it for our purposes." Now I think it is a most deplorable thing that the Lords, while professing their zeal for the relief of congestion, should by this and many other Amendments show a determination, a most vicious determination, to do everything in their power to prevent the possibility of the Board solving this question. Of all the Amendments this is one of the most mischievous. What I wish to impress upon the House is this: That it is no use, but quite the contrary, to tell the Congested Districts Board that they can acquire by right of pre-emption or of compulsory purchase these slum estates—these portions of land which are absolutely essential for relief. In all the official experience of the Members of the Board this particular provision was looked upon as a most valuable one. The compulsory Clauses were regarded by the officials as among the most valuable so far as the West was concerned. They said, "We are not afraid of time—our work is slow—provided you do not allow the land to be sold away from us. We are content to take a considerable number of years to complete our work, but for Heaven's sake do not allow the land to be seized upon by these large farmers, so that it prevents our work."
    It is these small Amendments, the insertion of a single word, that have done infinite mischief to the cause of the relief of congestion. I have, I am sorry to say, become a veteran in these fights in the House in the long history of trying to solve the Irish land question. I have been a Member of this House for 28 years. I remember the Act of 1881, and the twenty Acts that have been passed since. I say that without an exception there is not a single Act that the Lords have not put poison into. In every single one they have left their traces, and if Ireland has been disturbed and tortured by crime for the last 27 years, it is the work of the Lords from beginning to end. Whenever this House has addressed itself to the task, as it has been compelled to do year after year, all who were most anxious to rescue the Irish people from the horrible oppression of the landlords have been thwarted

    169
    in all their efforts by the House of Lords, who, in their infinite and diabolical ingenuity and small insignificant-looking and apparently trifling Amendments, like the insertion of a certain word, have done almost unbelievable and incomprehensible mischief. Now they are at their old work again. I wish to bear my testimony to the Chief Secretary for his conduct of this Bill. He has fought very hard for the people, though I am sorry he has given way on some of these Amendments. But his exertions, like those of his predecessors who have tried to solve this Irish land question, have been to a large extent baffled and paralysed by the interference of those gentlemen across
    the Lobby. I believe that Irish land troubles are to be continued. If so you will find that just as in the old days, when birth was given to the Land League by the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—and they have repeated their operations on many subsequent occasions—so on the present occasion. They will leave a root of bitterness behind by their Amendments which will rise into serious disorder and trouble in Ireland.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 908.]

    AYES.

    [12.37 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marnham, F. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Middlebrook, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Elibank, Master of

    Moore, William

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Falconer, James

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Beale, W. P.

    Fuilerton, Hugh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Gulland, John W.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

    Hills, J. W.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cave, George

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Toulmin, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horniman, Emslle John

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Clough, William

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, George

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

    Lamont, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    NOES.

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

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John

    Keating, M.

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, T.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Kean, John

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Muldoon, John

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Murnaghan, George

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Mr. WALTER LONG: I think it must be obvious to the House that we have arrived at a time when the Government should tell us what their intentions are for the rest of the morning. I myself have been here since 3.15, and we have been for more than nine hours engaged in the discussion of this Bill. I may point out that we are now approaching one of the most important questions in the Bill, which I think ought to be debated, I will not say in the daylight, but at any rate when hon. Members are not so fatigued as they must be at this moment. I wish to call attention to the fact that the numbers in the last two divisions have disclosed to everybody that if 50 Members of the Opposition had chosen to transfer their votes for the purpose of gaining a temporary party advantage the Government would have been placed in a serious position, Such things have been done for the mere purpose of scoring against the Government of the day, and it is quite obvious it could be done now. We do not, of course, suggest anything of the kind. Whatever time the Government propose to sit we shall vote without any regard to the existing position of the parties. It is not decent, however, that we should go on when the Government by the fatigue of Members are reduced to the numbers they can now command. I submit, having regard also to the question we have to discuss and decide, that we have arrived at a time when we might very well adjourn. We have been through 60 Clauses and there are some 10 or 15 more, including the most important one of all. So far there has been no factious opposition or anything which could be described as obstruction. It has been a perfectly businesslike discussion, and I should think a couple of hours at a time when we could discuss the matter in a better form would suffice to dispose of the remaining Amendments. I therefore move the adjournment of the Debate.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I should like to say a word in support of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. My colleagues and I have been at work in this House since noon yesterday, and I do not think it is fair to ask us to go on. There is only one important point remaining, and in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that a couple of hours would dispose of that I think it is eminently reasonable to ask that we should be allowed to adjourn now.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Hon Members speak to very willing ears when they speak to me on this subject. I have been hard at work on this thing from a very early hour yesterday morning. I quite agree that on the whole we have made marvellously good progress, and I am quite sure there has not been a word said which could reasonably have been omitted. We are, however, peculiarly situated. Our days are numbered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, there is the chance of a joyful resurrection—I mean in this Parliament. We really have only one subject left, the important and considerable subject of the tribunal; but, when I have stated what our proposals are, although they may give rise to some discussion, I think an hour and a-half ought to be quite sufficient to get rid of it. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself to a minute or two, but it would be a disastrous thing for other important measures on the Paper to-morrow if there were to be any undue prolongation of that time. I am quite sure that if to-morrow the same spirit is evinced as has been shown to-day, an hour and a-half or two hours will be quite sufficient after the statement which will be made on behalf of the Government to finish off this Bill. If that view is accepted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall be willing to agree to the motion that the further proceedings on the Lords Amendments be now adjourned.
    Question, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments to be further considered to-morrow (Wednesday).

TRUSTEES ACCOUNTS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir F. BANBURY: Before this Bill is read the third time, I wish to say a few words. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury knows I have always had certain objections to this measure to which I believe there are four Amendments down, one to recommit and another to read the Bill this day three months. I admit the provisions are of a very important nature. But on the other hand it must be remembered that the Bill creates certain duties with regard to trusteeships and imposes penalties upon trustees in the event of

173
their failing to carry them out. As a. result the conscientious trustee will be put to very considerable trouble in complying with the provisions of the Bill. He will have to keep accounts, to produce vouchers relating to his trust and do all sorts of things which while adding to his labours will not in any way benefit the beneficiaries. One trustee may comply with the provisions of the Bill should it become an Act of Parliament, but another may not be inclined to do so, yet I do not believe there is any power included in the Bill to compel him to do so. The Act will therefore become a dead letter. More than that the Bill is calculated to create not a little friction, and under these circumstances I do not think the Government should press its consideration on the House at this hour of the night. They must remember that this is not a Government Bill at all, but a private Members', and I really do not think the Government in regard to such a Bill as this ought to press the third reading at five minutes to one o'clock. The Prime Minister this afternoon said he proposed to take the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, and if there was time the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and this particular Bill, and you can hardly call five minutes to one time. Under these circumstances I move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. CARLILE: I second the motion for adjournment.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present——
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Motion. I endeavoured to find out what the extent of the opposition to this small Bill was and found it was of a very limited character.
The opportunities for passing the Bill are also limited, and, it having gone through its various stages, I hope the House will give it a third reading.
1.0 A.M.
Mr. J. J. MOONEY: I cannot agree that this is a very small Bill and I cannot understand how it comes into the category of unimportant, as it is a measure which is going to put a very heavy burden upon trustees. Clause 3 of the Bill indeed states that no increased burdens shall be put upon trustees, but Clauses 1 and 2 do nothing else but put them on. The Bill is one of a technical character and there is no representative of the law present to tell us what it is about, and I do not think it reasonable to ask the House of Commons at one minute to one o'clock to pass a Bill of this kind, which calls upon trustees to account in a detailed form for every penny of their trust and places them under a heavy penalty for not keeping vouchers and accounts. Are we to pass a Bill upsetting the whole of the law relating to trustees without any assistance from the Law Officers for England. The Law Officers for Ireland are here, and apparently have not heard of the Bill or seen it. I cannot understand what the Bill means. It provides that it shall be the duty of trustees to keep accurate accounts, and that they shall keep vouchers for a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? Some authority might say that three months is a reasonable time, and another might say three years. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he knows nothing about the Bill. Is it right that we should be asked to pass a measure without there being anybody on the Treasury Bench who knows anything about it? If my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall support him.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 60

Division No. 909.]

AYES.

[1.5 a.m.

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Mooney, J. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Carlile.

Courthope, G. Loyd

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

NOES

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Falconer, James

Beale, W. P.

Clough, William

Ffrench, Peter

Bennett, E. N.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Harrington, Timothy

Layland-Barrattt, Sir Francis

Redmond, William Clare

Haworth, Arthur A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hedges, A. Paget

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

Helme, Norval Watson

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Higham, John Sharp

M'Kean, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Scanian, Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Marnham, F. J.

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Massie, J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Middlebrook, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jowett, F. W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Toulmin, George

Keating, M.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, George

Nolan, Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Nuttall, Harry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Original Question put and agreed to; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes after One a.m., Wednesday. 24th November.