HC Deb 23 November 1909 vol 13 cc126-39

(1) The Estates Commissioners may make proposals and enter into negotiations—

  1. (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;
  2. (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 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- 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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.