§ (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 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. 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."92
§ Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 81.93
|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.|
|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.)|