HC Deb 23 November 1909 vol 13 cc23-37

(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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' 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.

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 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 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 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)