§ In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
- (a)The expression "pending purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission on or before the first day of March nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board—
- (b) The expression "future purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission or entered into by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board after that date:
§ Provided that purchase agreements entered into at any time on the re-sale by the Land Commission or Congested Districts Board—
- (i.) of land purchased or agreed to be purchased by them on or before the first day of March nineteen hundred and nine; or
- (ii.) of land being land in respect of which or comprised in an estate
2179 in respect of which a purchase agreement, though not actually entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight, is deemed for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the percentage payable under the Act of 1903, to have been entered into on or before that date;
§ (c) An order of the Land Judge under Section seven or Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903 vesting any land in the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, and an order of the Estates Commissioners vesting land in the Land Commission under Section two of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as an agreement entered into by that Commission or Board as the case may be;
§ (d) The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Treasury.
§ Mr. BIRRELLmoved to leave out in paragraph (a) the words "first day of March," and to insert instead thereof "fifteenth day of September."
The alterations in the dates which I am now proposing are important. They amend the definition of pending agreements. I should like to call attention to the facts which have necessitated the alteration from 1st March to some other date. Since 1st March agreements for direct sale, representing £1,250,000 of purchase money, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, but in all these agreements the purchasing tenants have agreed to repay the advances at the old rate. Therefore, unless this Amendment were agreed to, the basis of the contract having been altered by Parliament, all these agreements would be upset, the parties would be relegated to their former positions, and there would be a great deal of disappointment and waste of time. In order to prevent that substantial amount of business being rendered null and void, I propose to alter the date from 1st March, which was a precautionary date, to 15th September. I do not think it will be questioned that the date should be altered. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Moore) proposes 31st December. I cannot accept that, because, having come to the con- 2180 clusion that we have done as to the necessity of altering the financial basis of future transactions, we cannot allow a portion of futurity to be mortgaged to the extent it would be if we were to say that anybody who could get their agreement through between now and the last day of the year should have the advantageous and agreeable terms which, for reasons that will bear examination, we find it impossible to continue for the future. Any future date would only excite and promote not necessarily a factitious, but at all events a very eager rush of agreements, and upset the basis of our transaction. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. Member's proposal, but I ask the Committee to agree to substitute to-day for 1st March.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. MOOREIf these words stand part, shall I be at liberty to move my Amendment, which proposes to substitute 31st December for 1st March?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not so. When these words are negatived, the Government will ask to have inserted the words "fifteenth day of September." The hon. Member must secure the rejection of the Government Amendment, and then move his own.
§ Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLSurely there is some mistake about that. The existing words must, of course, be negatived before the Government Amendment can be inserted; but if the Government Amendment is inserted, surely it will then be open to my hon. Friend to move an Amendment to that.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo. The Government Amendment will then be inserted, and you cannot take it out again.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLSo far as the Chief Secretary has yielded to the objections which were raised by proposing to substitute 15th September for 1st March, he has undoubtedly conferred a substantial benefit upon a considerable number of purchasers and vendors. And while I quite agree—I hope I am not out of order in referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Armagh—with the Chief Secretary with regard to not mortgaging 2181 the future, I would 'Suggest to him that it would be only reasonable and night that instead of these words, "the 15th September," we should insert "the date of the passing of this Act." Then there would be no mortgaging of futurity. Every person would be put in a position of equality if you inserted a date of that kind. I cannot in reason myself see why a man who is lucky enough to get his agreement in before 15th September should be let in, and the man who is unfortunate enough to put it in on 16th September, but before the date of the passing of this Act, should be shut out. I think the right hon. Gentleman must see himself the justice and fairness of this. The date of the passing of the Act would be a much more convenient date for everyone, and more convenient in another Sub-section of this Bill, where he seeks to put in 15th September. I throw out that suggestion, which probably, if accepted by him, may prevent discussion on a succeeding Amendment.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe same point would arise whatever date you name. There is always one unfortunate man who comes along the day after. I certainly cannot now insert any such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I may be able afterwards, if we can agree upon some reasonable date to insert it.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI brought this matter before the notice of the Chief Secretary in December of last year. It is necessary to legalise things up to the passing of the Act. Those concerned cannot anticipate any part of this Act. Therefore to-morrow or the next day any agreements must be in conformity with the Act of 1903. So far as bonus is concerned, the Government have been able to deal with it by regulation, because the Act of 1903 gives them that power. Therefore that point does not arise. But in respect of the other two points, the Government, it seems to me, will be driven by force of circumstances under this Act to legalise everything up to the point at which it comes into operation. They cannot leave an anomalous and lawless period in the course of which every agreement will be invalid.
§ Mr. MOOREI bow to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, that it is not open to me to move my Amendment; but it will, I take it, be open to me, after what the Chief Secretary has said, to ask the question how far the Amendment he proposes is a suitable one. I am very much astonished at the reason which the Chief Secretary gave 2182 for adopting the present Amendment instead of the one three months later. He said that if we adopted a future date we would be flooded out—or Something of that kind—with agreements. This from a Government which is very anxious for land purchase! The thing which strikes them as a catastrophe is that land purchase would be so accelerated if they put the date on for three months that they would be flooded out with land agreements! I can hardly understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I could quite understand if he had said that land purchase is so expensive, and that the Government do not want to find any more money for the time. If he had been frank enough to say that was his reason, I could have understood it; but if once the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that view he would be at a loss to explain why he wanted compulsory powers for further acquisition. I can, therefore, quite understand why that is not his case, but I do not understand why the fact that future new agreements will be in by the proposed date should be the reason for refusing the means that will induce them. What is the reason? This Bill has been practically in print since November last. Everyone was led to believe that 1st March was the day on which agreements might be sent which would become pending agreements. The Ides of March was 1st March. If the Government object is to discourage agreements—to rejoice that they are few, and to be apprehensive if they are to be threatened with many—then I can understand their attitude. Surely if there is to be justice or equity in the matter the public who are interested, the owners, the landlord, and the tenants ought to be given a reasonable chance. Why should not they be given a reasonable chance during the next three months to send their agreements in and lodge them with the Commissioners? The right hon. Gentleman has said, "The Treasury is adamant; I can wring no more from them." But the Government are responsible at present for the Treasury. I think, therefore, that it is a very unfortunate thing that the date is to be fixed as it is. If it was to be the 15th September it should have been announced months ago, to enable people to get their agreements in. That course was not adopted. In view of that it is not unreasonable that they should be given three months now under which these agreements, which the Chief Secretary seems so frightened of, can be lodged.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe Government, by passing this Amendment, have practically taken a very heavy insurance policy on the success of their Bill in the House of Lords, because I cannot conceive anybody so foolish, from the landlord's point of view, to do other than accept it. Taking it from that point of view I think large questions of policy arise. The Government have allotted another million of money at the old rate. That is a most satisfactory and substantial concession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has suggested that the date should be the date of the passing of the measure. The Chief Secretary has not closed the door on that suggestion, but I must say, from his point of view, he has not acted unnaturally, because, as he says, he is encumbered by certain obligations with the Treasury, and if he now by his present attitude sought to break any understanding with that extraordinary body it might be considered that faith had not been kept. A wholly different consideration will arise in the "to-ing and fro-ing" of Amendments between this House and the. House of Lords. When, perhaps, there have been accepted and inserted Amendments by the Lords, then will come the time for bargaining, and then will come the time when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say with force, "I can secure the passage of my measure as a whole by granting the concession "—which I assume will have been moved in another place in the sense in which the hon. Member for Trinity College has recommended. Of course, it may be said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman above the Gangway has said, that sufficient notice has not been given to the landlords of the intention of the Government to change their mind. On the other hand, is it not an old proverb that whoever is active and has not slept upon his rights is the man who gains the advantage? Accordingly, what is being done now is this: that these landlords who have been active during the last six or eight months, and have not taken the Government Bill as the last and final word upon the subject, will now get for their vigilance a successful gamble, which would probably have taken a good deal of expense and a great amount of trouble to secure. The result will be that any of the tenants who have entered into agreements with their landlords will now get the benefit of the terms of the Act of 1903. That, in my judgment, gives this Bill a wholly different complexion to that which it has hitherto possessed. It enhances its value—enormously. I think the 2184 Government have acted in a spirit of wisdom. They have seen what would have followed if all these agreements had been thown back in the teeth of the tenants and the landlords, and the confusion that would thereby have resulted. I think by this Amendment we have practically secured that the number of disappointed persons in Ireland shall be extremely small. As to those who have not entered into agreements with their landlords, if it is the landlords' fault, there are other clauses in the Bill to deal with them. Therefore, I think this is the most valuable of all the proposals that have been made. I certainly do not blame the Government, but I should certainly like to see them make an Amendment on the lines indicated.
Captain CRAIGThe hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has taken up a different attitude upon this point from what I expected from him. I do not really see that one part of his remarks were quite logical, because he said this was the reward of those who had been active, and nobody else suffered. It appears to me that the unfair part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is this: The grant of this million and a half, or whatever it is, by the State, under the 1903 Act, bringing it into that category and giving them the extra 9 per cent., is not nearly so fair as the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend. Whatever has occasioned the right hon. Gentleman to extend his date from March to September has certainly no more logical reason to commend it than that it should be extended from September to December. It is true, as the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said, that this arrangement with the Treasury will be slightly upset. But the Treasury is always upset. Suppose the Amendment had been accepted? What would it amount to? Suppose you put in the date, making it the end of this year, and give every landlord in Ireland a last opportunity of signing agreements under the old scheme, what would it mean? There are 52 millions in hand at the present time to be dealt with. Supposing it means 10 or 20 millions more, would it not settle at all events a great many of the estates in that way, and even although they were not paid their money, the agreements would have been signed, and all the trouble and anxiety as to the future would have been settled once and for all? The object of the Act of 1903 was to settle the land question, and get as many of the landlords and tenants brought together as pos- 2185 sible to have agreements signed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says he dare not do so suddenly, but fancy a Chief Secretary for Ireland grumbling because the land settlement came suddenly upon him! I should have thought the Front Bench would be only too glad to have the land question settled, and to have landlords and tenants brought together, as they would be. There are only three months more to run—October, November, and December—to bring all parties together, who for one reason or another are holding out. The difference of 9 per cent in the bonus is all that it would mean, and that would have to be arranged with the Treasury. I am sure, as the Treasury are offering upstairs something like £5,000,000 a year, and as much more as can be saved annually for certain purposes, they should be glad to assist the right hon. Gentleman to close this great land question. I must say the right hon. Gentleman is most inconsistent in the attitude he has taken up, and he is proving once more what, we already know, that it is not a land settlement he, wants, but that he is desirous of stopping land purchase in Ireland. No case has been made out for refusing my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope he will press it in order to emphasise the fact that we do not think the Government's Amendment is satisfactory, and that we do think that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is the better one.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGI desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on behalf of a class which I do not think is very large, but, all the same, is one that will suffer considerable grievance if the date which the Chief Secretary proposes to introduce into the Bill is finally accepted. That is the class of landlord and tenant in Ireland who during the last five or six months have been negotiating for the sale and purchase of their farms. It is quite conceivable, and I am sure it has happened in a large number of cases, that negotiations may have been begun, say, upon two adjoining estates, and that one of these estates will receive the old bonus, because of having completed its negotiations while the adjoining estate, not having completed its negotiations for some reason or other within the time inserted in the Bill, will be treated differently. I think everybody will agree that it is a hardship that because one estate does not happen to have completed its agreements by the date in the Bill that it should be debarred from the 2186 advantage which the other estate receives. It may not be a large branch of the community which will be so effected, but whatever the number it would be a very serious grievance and hardship; and, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his date from November last year to the 15th of the present month, I think we ought all to press upon him to do what he adumbrated himself, that is to insert, at any rate, the date of the passing of this Bill. If a change is made in the method of distributing the bonus it would be the fairest and the most equitable period for bringing about that change; and I feel sure that if hon. Members below the Gangway would raise their voices in conjunction with us the right hon. Gentleman would agree to make the change.
§ Mr. ROBERT DUNCANIt seems to me strange, seeing that hon. Members from all parts of Ireland—North, South, East, and West—are united upon certain objects which they have brought out most forcibly, that the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the administration of law in Ireland should be so opposed to their views. We think this Government is setting class against class—
§ Mr. DUNCANVery well. I am not speaking about England or Scotland, but about Ireland; and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is setting class against class.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOrder, order. The Amendment is to leave out "the first day of March." The hon. Member must speak to that.
§ Mr. DUNCANThe question is whether this Amendment does tend to set class against class, and it seems to me that the lesson of this Debate is that the right hon. Gentleman is merely obstructing voluntary land purchase—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already stated that the question is to leave out "first of March," in order to insert "fifteenth day of September."
§ Mr. MOOREAs you put the question in that way first, would it not be permissible for me to now move my Amendment to leave out "the fifteenth day of September," and insert "the thirty-first day of December"?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman will observe how the question is put according to the Rules of the House.
§ Question, "That the first day of March stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That 'the fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."
§ Mr. MOOREI beg now to move my Amendment to leave out "the fifteenth day of September "in order to insert "the thirty-first day of December."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe original Amendment was to leave out certain words in order to insert the fifteenth day of September. The Committee has left out the words, and the question has been put that the words "the fifteenth day of September" must be set up, and no Amendment be there inserted. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member is not an Amendment to the Amendment, but is negative of the Amendment, and can only be moved after the present Amendment has been negatived.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGOn a question of Order. Surely it has frequently occurred in our Committee Debates that after the omission of certain words you then come to the insertion of the new words proposed by the Government. That makes the Government Amendment a substantive Motion and, therefore, it is proper to move Amendments to that.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo; not in a case of this kind, where the Amendment is to insert a date. It is not an Amendment to the Amendment; it is a new proposition altogether.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot explain myself further. The right hon. Gentleman must take it from me that this is perfectly in order, and that you leave out words in order to insert other words when it is a question of a date. Supposing you had to leave out "five" in order to insert "three," as was done last night, it is the privilege of that Amendment to have the first chance of being voted upon by the Committee, and therefore the Government must have the first chance of a Division upon the words "the fifteenth day of September." It is upon this that the hon. and learned Member wishes to 2188 bring forward his Amendment, which is not an Amendment but an alternative proposal.
§ Mr. LONGI have no intention of disputing your ruling, but I confess I find it difficult to follow the very complicated procedure we are now adopting. Certainly I was under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) could have moved his Amendment to the Amendment of the Government, since that Amendment became, as it is now or will be, a substantive Motion; but I understand from your ruling we are obliged to take the Debate upon the question of the Government's Amendment, and we are unable to support an Amendment which many of us would be very glad to see adopted by the Government. The suggestion that this Amendment is meeting the case put forward from this side of the House is perfectly true. It is a fact that as the Bill stood it would have excluded a certain number of people whom we believed it was not intended to exclude. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) has told us that the effect of this Amendment was so magical that, although it is only the other day he stated that thé rejection of the Bill would be abundantly justified in another place—
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI never said that.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGYet now he finds it is so good that it removes all his objections altogether. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, and if he made no remarks of that kind I will not attempt to put words into his mouth, but he made several speeches which conveyed to those who listened to him the conviction that its severe treatment in another place would have been justified. The Bill has been materially altered and completely changed by the insertion of this Amendment. I hope there will be no opposition offered to the Amendment as such, but the suggestion is that it should be accepted as it is as a concession, but I would like to point out that the arguments my hon. Friends used that you are still excluding a large number of people who ought to have been given the opportunity of coming in, is one to which no answer has been attempted, and I think my hon. Friends are bound to support their views by going into the Division Lobby, and the more so because they cannot support in Committee the views they themselves hold, and cannot move an Amendment be- 2189 cause by the Rules of the House they are prevented from doing so. For my part, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the Government are running a very great risk by the exclusion of broader and wider terms. At the same time, I am glad that they have seen fit to admit a limited class, but I accompany that by the proviso that although we pointed out certain instances in which grave injustice would be done by the provisions of the Bill, that in no way commits us to support the amended Clause as a whole. It does not alter our views in any way whatever, and to suggest that because certain limitations are made to meet difficulties which we pointed out that we should therefore accept the Bill, is a suggestion that anyone acquainted with the proceedings of this House can only regard as perfectly ludicrous.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman has made reference to what I said upon the second reading of the Bill. I said that the raising of the rate would till land purchase. What does this Amendment do? It practically gives us merely two millions of money at the old rate, and, therefore, I say it is an enormous improvement in the Bill, because long ago, for seven or eight years, only
| Division No. 663.] | AYES. | [5.40 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Glover, Thomas |
| Alden, Percy | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Gulland, John W. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Harrington, Timothy |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Barker, Sir John | Crosfield, A. H. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Cullinan, J. | Harwood, George |
| Barnard, E. B. | Curran, Peter Francis | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Healy, Timothy Michael |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Delany, William | Henry, Charles S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Dillon, John | Hogan, Michael |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duffy, William J. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Boland, John | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Elibank, Master of | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Branch, James | Erskine, David C. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Bright, J. A. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Everett, R. Lacey | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Falconer, J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Farrell, James Patrick | Kavanagh, Walter M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fenwick, Charles | Keating, M. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ffrench, Peter | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Byles, William Pollard | Flynn, James Christopher | Kilbride, Denis |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fullerton, Hugh | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gilhooly, James | Lamont, Norman |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Ginnell, L. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Clough, William | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
§ five millions of money used to be voted by Parliament.
§ Mr. J. J. O'SHEEI understand that the Chief Secretary has expressed himself favourably in regard to the insertion of the words "the date of the passing of the Act" to take the place of the words "fifteenth of September." If this Bill passes by the 15th of November it will give ample time to those who are negotiating at the present time. The difficulty is that people have no idea when the Bill is likely to pass, and therefore they will not keep negotiations alive. They may be in the middle of the negotiations when the Royal Assent is given, and all their trouble will come to nothing. If the Chief Secretary will give an undertaking to arrange the date somewhat in advance he will enable those people who have negotiations pending to proceed with greater confidence.
§ Mr. J. GORDONThe Chief Secretary will now see that all parties from Ireland are in favour of this suggested change in favour of a future date. This would give some opportunity of landlords and tenants coming to an agreement.
§ Question put, "That the words 'fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 59.
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford). |
| Lehmann, R. C. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West) | Sheehy, David |
| Lundon, T. | O'Dowd, John | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Lupton, Arnold | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Snowden, P. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | O'Malley, William | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | O'Shee, James John | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Summerbell, T. |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| M'Kean, John | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Pointer, J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Marnham, F. J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton). |
| Massie, J. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Meagher, Michael | Raphael, Herbert H. | Tillett, Louis John |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Verney, F. W. |
| Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Reddy, M. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Middlebrook, William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Mooney, J. J. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Muldoon, John | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wiles, Thomas |
| Murnaghan, George | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas | Young, Samuel |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller. |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Seely, Colonel | |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Shackleton, David James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fell, Arthur | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Fletcher, J. S. | Percy, Earl |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Renton, Leslie |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gill, A. H. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Gordon, J. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Stanier, Beville |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clark, George Smith | Kerry, Earl of | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | M'Arthur, Charles | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Younger, George |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Myer, Horatio | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Lonsdale and Mr. Moore. |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Nicholls, George | |
| Essex, R. W. | Partington, Oswald |
§ Mr. BIRRELLmoved, in paragraph (i), to leave out the words "first day of March" and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of September."
§ Mr. MOOREI do not think that this is a consequential Amendment. I think we might have heard a little more from the Chief Secretary about this proposal. I presume, according to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, it will not be in order to move a corresponding Amendment. I think it is essential in these transactions, in which the parties are voluntary agents, and where it is open to them to deal or not to deal with the Estates Commissioners as they please, that they should be allowed a reasonable interval to come in and have their transactions completed. I hope the 2192 right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of further extending the time, and if he does not do so we shall have to take the same course as we did on the previous Amendment, and protest against the date being fixed without reasonable notice to those most concerned.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThis is not, I am inclined to agree, strictly speaking, a consequential Amendment, but it is certainly ejusdem generis. It is almost impossible to imagine, having set up one date for one set of transactions, to have another date for another set of transactions.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
2193§ Question put, "That the words 'fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."
| Division No. 664.] | AYES. | [6.4 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gilhooly, James | Nicholls, George |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gill, A. H. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Ginnell, L. | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Alden, Percy | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Glendinning, R. G. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Glover, Thomas | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Ambrose. Robert | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Barker, Sir John | Gulland, John W. | O Donnell, T. (Kerry, West) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Dowd, John |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harrington, Timothy | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Harwood, George | O'Malley, William |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Shee, James John |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Healy, Timothy Michael | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Helme, Norval Watson | Partington, Oswald |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Henry, Charles S. | Pointer, J. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Higham, John Sharp | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hogan, Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Holt, Richard Durning | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hooper, A. G. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Branch, James | Horniman, Emslie John | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bright, J. A. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Reddy, M. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Joyce, Michael | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Byles, William Pollard | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Keating, M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Kekewich, Sir George | Seaman, Thomas |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kilbride, Denis | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Clough, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Seely, Colonel |
| Clynes, J. R. | Laidlaw, Robert | Shackleton, David James |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lambert, George | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamont, Norman | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Sheehy, David |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Snowdon, P. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lewis, John Herbert | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cullinan, J. | Lundon, T. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Lupton, Arnold | Summerbell, T. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Delany, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Dillon, John | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | M'Kean, John | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Duffy, William J. | M'Laren, Sir C. B (Leicester) | Verney, F. W. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Micking, Major G. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mallett, Charles E. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Marnham, F. J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Essex, R. W. | Massie, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Meagher, Michael | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Median, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Wiles Thomas |
| Falconer, J. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Middlebrook, William | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Mooney, J. J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Young, Samuel |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Muldoon, John | |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Murnaghan, George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Norton and Mr. Fuller. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Barris, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Butcher, Samuel Henry | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Clark, George Smith |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Carlile, E. Hildred | Clive, Percy Archer |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 46.
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Arthur, Charles | Stanier, Beville |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Calmont, Col. James | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Moore, William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hamilton Marquess of | Percy, Earl | Younger, George |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Renton, Leslie | |
| Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—MeGordon and Captain Craig. |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
§ Mr. MOOREThere is a part of the Clause to which I would invite the Chief Secretary's attention, and that is that part which makes the vesting order of the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act the date of the agreement. You have in the case of the Estates Commissioners wishing to buy an estate adopted as the date of the agreement the time at which particulars are furnished; in other words, the beginning of the proceedings in every other case is made the date of the agreement, but in this case it is not until the very end of the whole transaction when the purchase money has been lodged in the court; it is not until the final act that the date of the vesting order is to be taken as the date of the agreement. I think these matters should be treated as the Chief Secretary has said, ejusdem generis, and I put it to the Chief Secretary if the beginning of all these proceedings is the date for everything else in the matter of purchase, is there any reason in the world why the notice of intention or proposal to take the land should not be the date under the Evicted Tenants Act, instead of the final matter, the vesting order? The very instant a proposal is made under the Evicted Tenants Act, made in a form under statutory authority, it practically prevents the owner from selling his land to anybody else. Nobody would buy it with a notice in the "Gazette" hanging over it. It is a blot in the title, and the moment the notice is published in the "Gazette" that ought to be the date of the agreement in that case, just as the date of the furnishing of the particulars has, on the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, been agreed to in the proceedings in the land judge's court. What special ground is there for this very invidious distinction? I would ask the Chief Secretary to consider between this and the Report stage whether he could not make the inception of these proceedings by the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act the date of the agreement instead of the conclusion of the proceedings. That is 2196 the chief objection I have to the Clause as it stands, and I hope my suggestion will receive the right hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI have not had much encouragement to recommit a portion of this Bill, or to make anything in the way of concessions. I have followed the point of the hon. and learned Member, and the only thing I can do at present is to say I will consider whether anything can be done.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.