§ (1) No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of a holding if the tenancy was created after the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight.
§ (2) This Section shall not apply to tenancies created by the Land Commission or by the Congested Districts Board.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
moved to leave out the words "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight," and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine."
This is an Amendment I have put down at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long). I did not know what I was letting myself in for, and I did not contemplate at the time what it would mean, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have availed themselves of the right to treat this as a substitute for the Report stage, in which all the Clauses in their turn would have come up for review. However, I promised 2218 I should do it, and I am. The Clause provides for 1st January, 1908; it is represented to me that this would be a hardship in the case of some tenants, and I therefore move to leave out "1st January, 1908," and to insert "15th of September, 1909."
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I do not know on what ground the Chief Secretary appeared to make a complaint in regard to the action of hon. Gentlemen. It is more remarkable when we remember and when we realise, as we are entitled to do, that although the suggestion came from me, not on my own account but as representing people who would have been in their judgment unfairly treated if the Bill had remained in its original form, although that suggestion came from me, it must have appeared to the Chief Secretary and his colleagues to be a necessary and just alteration, or they would not have made it. It was not suggested it was made as a concession, or granted to me, and that they did not believe it to be right. I have already expressed my obligations to the Chief Secretary and to complain of my 2219 hon. Friends who took this legitimate occasion to put before the Committee the cases which are not covered by this Amendment is, I think, a most unreasonable proceeding. Everybody knows that when Bills are recommitted it is open to those who are not in favour of them to raise the questions dealt with. When it is remembered, as it must be, that we are acting under strict Closure Resolutions, which prevent Debate for any reasonable time, and which operate in this particular case so as to send this Bill out of this House practically undiscussed as regards most of its Clauses, it is unreasonable and unjust to complain of the action we have taken.
§ Mr. JOHN CULLINAN
I consider this Amendment of the Chief Secretary to be a most extraordinary one. We have now got the admission from him that he has put it down on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, which removes all astonishment which was in our minds as to the insertion of such an Amendment. It is extraordinary when the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to such insults from the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway this evening in return for the Amendments he has made. We had the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore) thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the concessions and improvements he made on the Clauses dealing with the labourer question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman takes to himself the whole credit in order that it will appear in the "Belfast Newsletter" or some other paper, notwithstanding the fact that the Irish party had its first Amendment dealing with the question. Of course, hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway change one way and the other as it suits their purpose. I certainly say in connection with this Amendment that the Chief Secretary would be perfectly justified, after the action that has been taken by hon. Members above the Gangway, in withdrawing this Amendment, because there is no Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman could possibly put down which would cause greater dissatisfaction in Ireland. You had in the Land Bill of 1903 restrictions with regard to tenancies established since 1901 and in the Evicted Tenants Acts in order to carry out the proper working of the Act of 1903, you had to get compulsory powers inserted in that measure in order to try and acquire the untenanted land of Irelad for the benefit of the evicted tenants and the de- 2220 velopment of uneconomic holdings. What was the consequence? Notwithstanding that you got compulsory powers, the majority of the landlords of Ireland, by every means which it was possible to adopt, did everything to prevent the Estates Commissioners from getting any untenanted land for the benefit of the evicted tenants or to make economic holdings.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General know very well of the difficulties placed in the way of the Estates Commissioners getting untenanted land, and the main body in Ireland who put the impediment in the way of the Estates Commissioners were the parties who went and took possession of those un-tenanted lands since the passing of that compulsory Act. To my own knowledge evicted farms have been taken by those particular persons, notwithstanding that the Estates Commissioners were negotiating for the purchase of those places at the time. I know myself that friends of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have been trying to distribute those people on untenanted lands in order to cause us trouble. Hon. Members below the Gangway may laugh, but I know it very well, and that the trouble in Ireland—the recent troubles—have been caused by the fact of those parties taking the evicted land and lands which might be made available for economic holdings. If you have cattle-driving and trouble in Ireland it is due to this fact, and here now is the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General, who have been questioned day after day about outrage in Ireland caused by those men planted by the loyalists to give trouble— here now you have the Chief Secretary playing into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin by giving a reward to the very parties who have tried to make his government of Ireland impossible. I certainly think it is one of the most extraordinary cases I ever heard of, and not very creditable to the Chief Secretary, to say that he would allow himself to be got into this trap. We had the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway a few moments ago denouncing the Government, asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain the meaning of the word "occupier" and every little "fiddle-faddle." Those Gentlemen want to throw ridicule on the Government benches, but on this Amendment they will gladly support the Government, because they are giving their pets a reward by the 2221 Amendment put down. I think it is the most outrageous Amendment that could possibly have been proposed, and that it is a gross injustice to the evicted tenants and to the uneconomic holders and the ratepayers at large. We have day after day put questions from these benches with regard to the cost of extra police in Ireland. I myself made explanations here with regard to extra police in my own county and as to extra taxes on that account. What has placed those taxes upon the ratepayers? It is these parties who have come in to defeat the Land Act of 1903, to defeat the Evicted Tenants Act, and to defeat the Estates Commissioners in getting untenanted land. I unhesitatingly say there could not be a more outrageous piece of weakness upon the part of the Chief Secretary, and one which would cause greater dissatisfaction in Ireland. And I warn the Attorney-General he may find it necessary to put the engines of his law and legal power into force against us. And if you do consent, on the suggestion of hon. Members above the Gangway, to insert such a Clause, then let the consequences be on your own heads.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CONOR O'KELLY
The Chief Secretary, in moving this Amendment, said that he did not know that it would arouse the opposition that it has provoked. If he made a promise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to introduce this Amendment without knowing how far-reaching the Amendment might be, and seeing how far-reaching it is, I do not think that it would be at all humiliating to him to withdraw it. I was very much surprised when I saw this Amendment on the Paper, and at first I was under the impression that it was rather a vote of censure upon the Estates Commissioners in Ireland, because, as the Attorney-General must know, the Estates Commissioners for the past six or seven years have been strenuously opposed to the creation of bogus tenancies—that is to say, that in the case of all estates where bogus tenancies were created they have refused to make the Act of 1903 applicable to them. I do not know that any Irish Member asked the Chief Secretary to introduce this Amendment. I do not believe that the Irish party was consulted as to the introduction of this Amendment, and if the Irish party had been consulted upon this Amendment, I know very well what the answer of the Irish party would be. I would ask the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to tell us whom this 2222 Amendment is intended specially to bring within the purview of the Act? Who are the new tenants whom it is intended to bring within the purview of this Clause if it be not those bogus tenancies which were created for the purpose of frustrating the intention of the Act of 1903? To illustrate the objections we have to this Amendment, I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a case which occurred in my own Constituency of North Mayo. After the Act of 1903 was passed the owner of the property in question, which was partly tenanted and partly untenanted, expressed her willingness to sell under that Act, but the representatives of the owner said, "Before I sell to you I shall myself distribute the grazing land upon the property. I shall parcel the grazing ground into holdings, sell the holdings to the highest bidder, then create tenancies and sell under the Land Act of 1903." It is obvious that the people who are able to pay fines for untenanted land are not the people it was intended to reach by the Act of 1903. Only those who could afford to pay fines would be able to get the untenanted land, and consequently the congests on the property would be entirely shut out from the benefits of the Act. It is now proposed, for the first time, by this Amendment to legalise and regularise those bogus tenancies. The Estates Commissioners themselves, in their Report for the year ending 31st March, 1906, say in regard to proceedings of this kind:—Since our Report was submitted a few applications have come to the notice of the Commissioners which they have refused to grant, namely, where the vendor has parcelled out untenanted lands in his occupation into holdings, put them up to auction to the highest bidder, subject to an assumed rental, and then proposed at once to sell, under the Act of 1903, the holdings thus created to the auction purchasers, who in some instances were large farmers and graziers who already possessed extensive farms. While uneconomic holdings exist in the neighbourhood which require enlargement, and there are tenants evicted from the property who have not been reinstated, the Commissioners, being of opinion that to declare the lands comprised in the application in such cases an estate would be to frustrate and not to carry out the purposes of the Act, have refused to declare the lands an estate. Such owners, in the opinion of the Commissioners, have no claim to a bonus of State money in addition to the auction prices in order to encourage them to carry out transactions which it was the intention of the Act to discountenance.It was the intention of the Act to discountenance proceedings of that kind. The Commissioners insisted on discountenancing them, but the Chief Secretary now brings in an Amendment which will countenance and legalise these transactions, which are opposed to the spirit and the letter of the 2223 Act of 1903. I think "fraud" is not too strong a word to use in describing such transactions. In my opinion, it can be applied without any straining of language. All this is being done on the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long). Who instructed him? I venture to say that the gentlemen who influenced the right hon. Member for South Dublin were three Irish landlords. If we really want to get rid of congestion, and to make the grass lands available for the congests, why is it that Amendments of this kind are introduced, defeating the whole purpose we have in view? This Amendment is perfectly reactionary and unjust. The Chief Secretary did not attempt to defend it; in fact, there was in his countenance almost an appearance of apology for even introducing it. Now that he sees how indefensible it is, I sincerely trust that he will have the grace to get up and announce that the Amendment, which ought never to have been suggested, and, when suggested, ought never to have been entertained, will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. KILBRIDE
I think we might naturally expect some support from above the Gangway in our opposition to this Amendment, and I shall be surprised if the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) votes in its favour. Over and over again when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing his Bill of 1902, and again in 1903, when he successfully carried his Land Purchase scheme through Parliament, we heard him say how sorry he was that to deal with this question of congestion in Ireland generally, there was not enough land to go round. He declared that all the available untenanted land in Con-naught, if acquired to-morrow by the Estates Commissioners, would not be sufficient in quantity to relieve the congestion of the West. As the right hon. Gentleman was anxious at that time, and I presume is so still, to see the "rotten and wretched" communities of the West, to use his own phrase, improved, I shall be surprised to see him vote in favour of this Amendment, the effect of which must be to defeat the beneficent object he had in view in 1903. In the Bill of 1902, which was not persevered with, there was a provision that any tenancy created after the introduction of the Bill should not be purchased under the contemplated legislation. Speaking from recollection, I believe that in introducing the Bill of 1903, and during the passage of that measure 2224 through the House, the right hon. Gentleman over and over again stated that he did not contemplate that tenancies created after the introduction of the Bill should come within the possibility of purchase when the Bill became law. For these reasons, knowing the political consistency of the right hon. Gentleman I shall be surprised if he supports this Amendment. I look upon the introduction of this proposal by the Government as a gross betrayal of every pledge which the Liberal party has given to Irishmen on the question of land reform. I could well understand an Amendment like this being moved from the benches above the Gangway, or even the right hon. Member for Dover having such a provision in his measures of 1902 and 1903. He, however, never went this length, and now we find a Liberal Government, who profess to be supporting the interests of the Irish people, going infinitely further in the interests of Irish landlordism and Irish fraud than the landlord party themselves dared even to contemplate in 1902 or 1903. If this provision becomes law, it will be useless to set up the Congested Districts Board. The work of that Department, as far as the relief of congestion by means of adding land to uneconomic holdings is concerned, will be at an end. By accepting this Amendment you are not alone throwing dust in the eyes of the Irish people, but you are defrauding the congests of the West of what, in my opinion, is their natural right. What will happen as soon as you pass this provision into law? I presume that the Chief Secretary will be as easily impressed on the question of dates in this matter as he was earlier in the afternoon in another matter. What guarantee have we that in this respect the 15th of September will remain in the Bill? Suppose the Government extend it to whatever was the future date the right hon. Gentleman indicated he was willing to accept in connection with pending agreements? Every Irishman knows that by that date there will not be a perch of untenanted land in Ireland where bogus tenancies will not have been created. Bogus tenancies will have been created by that date. Then the Government tell us that they are going to reform the Congested Districts Board, to add an elective element to it, and to increase its annual income to something like £250,000 a year! There will be no land to be bought. It will be all in the occupation of bogus tenants bought under the Land Act of 1903. Then, as my right hon. Friend said, I sup- 2225 pose we are expected in Ireland, those of us who have been engaged in this land war more or less actively for the last 25 years, to take it "lying down," because it comes from a so-called Liberal Chief Secretary! All I have got to say is this—and I say it in all seriousness and all responsibility—speaking entirely for myself; that so far as I am personally concerned, if the Government accept this Amendment, and if things occur as I anticipate as the result of this Amendment, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Cherry) can just apply to his hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor-General for Ireland, and can brighten up his old rusty weapons for use, and can prepare for active work in Ireland. Because, so far as I am concerned, I shall do everything I can, I shall bring all the pressure I can, to quote the phrase in a letter of Sir Michael Hicks Beach when he was Chief Secretary of Ireland, "Either within the law, or without the law," to defeat the object of the Amendment. Now, the right hon. Gentleman does not desire, I suppose, to face something like the enactment of coercion, or such an act as resurrecting again the Act of Edward III., and seeing it walking abroad from one end of Ireland to the other. I heard it said that it was the ordinary law of the land, but we know how it is in Ireland. It is put into force in a different manner to what it is put into force in England. I do not believe the hon. and learned Getleman has any stomach for that work in future in Ireland. But let him not live in a fool's paradise. He will have to face it if the Government enact this Amendment. He will have to face such a state of things in Ireland, especially across the Shannon, that neither his Government nor any previous Government had to face. Since these Land Purchase Acts were introduced in 1902 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, the people of Ireland, especially the people of Con-naught, have been told that the day of their salvation was at hand; that the object of land purchase was to remedy the state of things in many of these counties. Our hopes were raised to the highest pitch. Here, after the exertions of the Nationalist forces in Ireland, after having brought this House of Commons to consider this question from this particular economic point of view, and after having brought this House to believe in the principle, and to assent to the proposition that the natural relief for congestion was to in- 2226 crease uneconomic holdings—now, so far as I can see, without any special reason at all, the Chief Secretary, for Ireland practically by a stroke of the pen, by placing on the Paper this Amendment, tears up all previous arrangements. He mutilates his own Bill. When this provision is inserted in the Bill I will never vote for the third reading of it. The insertion of this in the Bill damns this legislation. I say this deliberately, and I say it in the best of good faith to my colleagues, that even should they, after due consideration, think it better to accept the Bill with this provision, than that the Bill should be rejected, that the Irish people will not accept the Bill, neither across the Shannon, nor in many of the Leinster counties. To accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South County Dublin will mean that as soon as you like you can increase your military forces from 40,000 to 80,000.
§ Mr. FLYNN
It is an absolute amazement to us to face the consideration of an Amendment of this character. We hare sat silent all the evening while hon. Members above the Gangway have discoursed on points which have been conceded to them, and here, when we find we are approaching the Report stage of what we hoped to be so far as this House is concerned the almost final settlement of the Irish land question, we are thrown back into the morass of despair. Will the Committee kindly look at the date? This Bill was brought in in the present year, 1909. The Clause as originally framed was so drafted as to put it beyond possibility that any tenancy created practically within 18 months before the introduction of this measure could possibly come within the region of land purchase. Now we find this preposterous proposal introduced by the Chief Secretary, who is supposed to be responsible for law and order in Ireland. During these proceedings we have endeavoured to improve, to enlarge, and to extend the provisions of the Act with regard to future tenants, and to convert them into present tenants. We have gone some distance, but not all the way. We have not gone as far as we could have wished. But after all, the worst that could happen in connection with a position of that kind would be with regard to the yearly sum that would have to be paid to the landlord. But here you come forward with a proposal that the status of a number of men whose tenancies are doubtful, and in many cases of a fraudulent character, 2227 should be changed, and at the expense of the public credit. You will stultify the position. Surely the right hon. Gentle man the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney- General for Ireland, are not unaware of the constant complaints which have been coming from these Benches with regard to the maladministration that has taken place by the Estates Commissioners in the giving away of large farms to men entirely unentitled to them. These cases have been a disgrace. In former years in Supply we would have kept the House ringing with denunciations of Acts of this kind, but here in the light of day, and in the light of past experience, and at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all, is no warm friend of the tenant in Ire land—
§ Mr. FLYNN
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh." I daresay he is as warm a friend of the tenant as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh himself. That would be a very frigid degree of temperature to which the unfortunate tenant of Ireland must look. But do the Government of Ireland seriously recognise the position? We have refrained on these benches in Committee of Supply from raising any questions on the attitude of the Estates Commissioners in order that this Land Purchase Act might, go through in peace and in quietness. If this Amendment is passed surely the last position of things would be worse than the first. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has raised a point of enormous importance. You give away the whole principle in this Amendment, and if it becomes part of the Act of Parliament you will be opening the door for these bogus and fraudulent tenants, and there is the strongest reason to believe, as, indeed, there is the strongest temptation to the landlords in the House of Lords to open the door still wider. This Amendment is a, suggestion of the Government to the House of Lords to do something of that kind. We implore of the Government to reconsider their position in this matter. We are most anxious that justice, but no more than justice, should be given to the landlord, but we are defending a greater and a far more important consideration in all these Debates, for we are defending the interests of the tillers of the soil who buy their land, and who are to be the purchase annuitants in the future. What the Government proposes by this Amendment 2228 is to convert a number of men who are bogus and fraudulent tenants, who were notoriously introduced for the purpose of emergency and not for agriculture, into purchase annuitants, and thereby using the credit of the State to promote disorder and to increase turbulence in Ireland. The Government ought to recognise that in every effort they made to settle this land question they have had the full and cordial and unstinted co-operation of the Irish Nationalist Members in order that their Bills might proceed rapidly and satisfactorily. We refrained even from joining in the Debates, and the Government should realise now that nothing but a sense of public duty and of grave impending danger will induce the Irish Members to take up the attitude they have taken upon this Amendment. I implore of the Government to reconsider this matter, and to withdraw this reactionary proposal.
§ Mr. JOHN O'DOWD
I desire to endorse very fully the objections urged by this Amendment by my right hon. Friends. I think, looking at the matter fairly, and seeing the manner in which bogus tenancies have been created, notwithstanding the safeguards introduced into the Act of 1903 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, we realise the grave danger that will arise from this Amendment. During the Debates under the Bill of 1903 it was the constant wail of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover that there was not land enough to go round. That was true at the time, and it holds good at the present day. There is not land enough to go round, and what are you doing now? You are creating a Congested Districts Board, with proper representation upon it, to distribute land which under this Amendment would go to people who have too much land already and whose claim could not be recognised in justice or in equity. I enter my most emphatic protest against the acceptance of this Amendment. As the representative of an agricultural community, I say if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this Amendment he may as well abandon his Bill altogether, because it will not be accepted by the people, and it will only lead to the renewal of the land war.
§ Mr. JOHN MULDOON
I desire to associate myself very strongly with the protests which have been made from these benches against this Amendment. I sympathise with the Attorney-General, who understands this question thoroughly, and who has had to bear the brunt of this 2229 Debate this afternoon, deserted as he was by the right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for introducing this Amendment upon the last stage of this Bill. The grounds upon which we oppose this Amendment are perfectly well known and understood. A great industry has grown up on account of these Purchase Acts in the creation of bogus tenancies. The Estates Commissioners have reported year after year to this House that their inspectors' time has been taken up with inquiring whether in cases of this kind any tenant was in occupation at all. In all previous Acts passed there was some limitation to the creation of these tenancies, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover declared in his Act of 1903 that no sum of over £500 would be advanced in respect of any tenancy created two years previously. Five years afterwards, when the complaint continually has been that there is not land enough to go round for the "congests," not to speak at all of the landless men, you are going to put a provision in an Act of Parliament that will make it a certainty that there will be much less land to go round in future. Beyond all doubt, if that provision had been in the Bill when it first made its appearance the Nationalist Members would have had to consider very serious whether or not they could support the second reading, and I think beyond all doubt their decision would have been they could not support it, because our view is that unless you make some systematic attempt to stop the creation of these bogus tenancies all your efforts will be in vain. Up to this the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General have been exercising all their ingenuity to prevent tenancies being created which will prevent land being used for the purpose of "congests" and for landless men. And, if that is so, a fortiorari, they should prevent such people getting public money to perpetuate this system. The Act of 1903 contained drastic provisions against tenancies of that kind, and the work of the Estates Commissioners has been very largely devoted to preventing such tenants as these from getting grants of public money. I think we must admire the courage of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, because we can quite understand the amount of pressure he had to resist in 1903 against putting in the Clause which the Chief Secretary has now introduced into this Bill. The effect of this will be largely to nullify the entire benefit, espe- 2230 cially in the West of Ireland, which is about to be conferred by this Bill. As regards Clause 16, I must say that I never liked it, because there is no restriction at all upon the class of tenant that is created, and it seems to me under the Clause as it stood bogus tenancies like those created by Lord Clanricarde could be established. There is no suggestion that the tenant must be a bonâ fide, one, and even in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced there is not a suggestion that the tenancy should be a bond fide one before the tenant gets a grant of public money. We urge the Chief Secretary to reconsider this question, and if he cannot go with us in the matter, I hope he will at least consent to substitute the provision which was put into the Act of 1903.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
It is undoubtedly the fact that under the Act of 1903 there was no restriction put upon the creation of tenancies, and consequently it is a mistake to suppose that tenancies created since that time should not be made the subject of an advance. It is not the fact that there is anyhing in law which prevents the advances being made to tenancies created, since the passing of that Act. The other point I wish to make is this: This Bill was introduced on 23rd November, 1908, with 1st of January in the Bill as the date in respect of which no advance should be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of the holding created the first day of January, 1909. That was notice to all persons concerned that any tenancies created subsequently would be tenancies in respect of which no advance could be made. I was under the impression that, no tenancies had been created since the publication of the Bill on 23rd November, 1908. Such tenancies may have been created, and, of course, if they were absolutely bogus tenancies the discretion of the Land Commissioners is in no way interfered with, and they have complete discretion in the matter. There are such things as tenancies created simply and solely to enable the party thereupon to apply for an advance and come within the benefits of the public funds. There can be no doubt about it that persons have paid large fines to purchase the privilege of availing themselves of the benefits of the Act of 1903. Such cases have been brought to my notice, but they were cases of some antiquity, and I was under the impression that since the publication of the Bill and the date inserted in Clause 16 there was no reason 2231 to suppose that there could be any number of cases of the very kind which we all most sincerely deprecate.
I feel that anything which interferes with a single acre of untenanted land strikes at the very root of the cause, which is very dear to me, of obtaining untenanted land for the purpose of making holdings more economic than they now are. I therefore flattered myself, perhaps unduly, into the belief that so far as bogus tenancies are concerned, they are dealt with by the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, who are under no obligation whatever to declare any land within the Act of 1903 if they are satisfied that it has been unfairly got at and faked up simply for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Act. There are cases which are not bogus under which grazing and untenanted lands are turned into tenancies within the meaning of the Act, thereby reducing the amount of untenanted land, which is a very great disadvantage. It has been represented to me that the number of cases of that kind are exceedingly small. The alteration of the date from January, 1908, to 15th September, 1909, has been proposed in order to bring it into line with the other Amendments. I was under the impression these cases would be few and far between and not worth considering, and that it was only a matter of general equity that the persons should have notice with regard to the dealings with these tenancies, and it should not be retrospective in its operation. I said quite frankly that the Amendment I put down was not out of my own head. The right hon. Member for South Dublin rather suggested, if he did not actually make the suggestion to me, that this was obviously an Amendment I should put down on my own Motion. That is not so. I put down the Motion because he suggested it, and it seems to me I was right to suppose that there would not be a substantial number of cases which would be affected by it. I acceded perhaps too hastily to his suggestion, and put the Amendment down. I am not prepared to run any risk in this matter with regard to the number of these tenancies. I understand it is to be taken as a fact that there are a large number of them, and that this sort of business has been going on for the express purpose of getting out of Clause lo in the hope that these words would be subsequently amended. As they originally stood the words of the Bill I thought were notice to all the world to stop that kind of thing, but if that is not the case— 2232 these are not the tenancies which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he introduced the measure of 1903, and they are not the tenancies intended to turn the genuine tenant into an owner—I am perfectly willing and ready to reconsider this matter. I do not consider myself under any obligation to see this Amendment carried through. If I made the promise hastily, and without full consideration of the facts of the case, and it exposes me, as I have no doubt it will, to a certain amount of criticism and animadversion, well, I shall be quite prepared to stand that; but I seriously say I cannot and will not bring myself to be a party to any proposal which would substantially reduce the amount of untenanted land available, and I shall not in any way press forward this Amendment.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
I have listened with great regret to the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not more than an hour or so since the right hon. Gentle man moved this Amendment. He did so, as I gather from his speech, in consonance with the suggestion which had reached him from my right hon. Friend who at one time was Chief Secretary (Mr. Long), and who, no doubt, thought it would be an improvement on the Bill, just as I am quite sure the Chief Secretary would never have accepted it and put it down in his name unless he had thought it an improvement on the Bill. It really cannot be supposed that a Minister in charge of a large mea sure would casually adopt an Amendment from any quarter and put it down in his name—
§ Mr. BIRRELL
It was pointed out to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) that he could not put it down in his own name.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
Nothing surprises me more than the sudden heat which has been imported into this Debate. Here is the Attorney-General palpitating with anxiety to know why my right hon. Friend is not here. It is because he is at dinner. A most reasonable Amendment was put down by the Chief Secretary at the suggestion of an ex-Chief Secretary, and they had gone away to dine. In their absence a fervour was suddenly exhibited from below the Gangway which filled me with astonishment. The Attorney-General, sitting alone on the Treasury Bench, watched the rising storm, and sent to the Chief Secre- 2233 tary and told him he thought it was best to cut away some of the tackle as quickly as possible, and that has been done. Really, the Opposition are entitled to complain of such proceedings. Here is a Bill which might well be the principal measure of the whole Session, a Bill fundamentally altering and, we think, spoiling an Act to which we devoted a good deal of labour, a Bill which, I believe, is mischievous to the best interests of Ireland, and destroys the settlement, which, to my mind, did credit to all those who were parties to it. A suggestion is made by one of those interested in the existing law, and because a perturbation suddenly boils up in the dinner hour, the Chief Secretary rushes back and says he did not mean it at all. He does not even say that. He says, "If he finds out that the circumstances in Ireland are not what he supposes them to have been during the whole of last Session, then he will not proceed with this Amendment." This is 15th September. When is he going to find it out? The guillotine falls irrevocably tomorrow evening.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
Then there is a further misunderstanding. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to throw the whole thing overboard. I think he said he was going to see whether there had been any creation on a large scale of bogus tenancies, and he qualified that by saying many tenancies created were not bogus. He was going to make an investigation into facts which he thought he might have incorrect in his mind. This is reducing the business of the House to an absurdity. Is it likely many new tenancies have been created in the course of 18 months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I imagine hon. Members have got one or two cases in their minds over which they have been agitated, and they have lashed themselves into a kind of passion. I heard an hon. Member talking of tens of thousands of tenancies created between 1st January in one year and September in the year following. All this is a delusion. The Chief Secretary is being frightened with false fire.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
I am not Chief Secretary, and it is not my business to be in possession of the facts. It is the busi- 2234 ness of the right hon. Gentleman, and I presume he was in possession of the facts when he put down the Amendment. Some hon. Members below the Gangway, moved with passion, tried to draw a distinction between the provisions of the Act for which I was responsible and the provisions in this Bill and as proposed by the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. The provision in the Act of 1903 allows tenancies to be created, but it does not allow more than £500 to be advanced for them in the congested districts. It gives no discretion to the Congested Districts Board to increase the amount in the congested districts, but it does give them a discretion to increase the amount outside the congested districts. The Act of 1903 was in many respects a compromise, and it is dangerous suddenly to depart from a compromise of that character. Section 53 was debated in this House for a long period. Hon. Members who represent some constituencies in the western parts of Ireland were not satisfied with it, but they all made themselves parties to it. It was thought reasonable only six years ago that the ordinary powers should proceed within that £500 limit.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
But the law is that not more than £500 can be advanced inside the congested districts. This sudden passionate outburst has all been about the congested districts, in which it is said 10,000 tenancies have been created in eighteen months and all the land taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said that."] The whole tenour of the Debate was that some appalling obstacle would be created in the way of dealing with the problem of congestion if the Chief Secretary stuck to his guns and allowed ordinary liberty to continue for 18 months longer. Really, for the sake of such speeches as these it is almost madness to interfere with a compromise arrived at after careful debate only a few years ago. It is a great interference not only with the rights, but with the possibilities of good action on the part of individuals. In many cases in Ireland the landlord can come to terms with his tenants, but in order to make a proper arrangement he has to create one or two new tenancies, and he cannot sell his estate in proper shape unless he has that power. Under this Bill you are going to say that he shall be powerless. That is a pretty drastic proposition. It is a mistake to suppose that the Government officials in Ireland are the only persons who never 2235 arrive at a sound conclusion. Why did not the Chief Secretary stick to his guns? I venture to think, as a result of his surrender, the time expended by this House on the Land Bill will prove to be so much time lost.
§ Mr. MOORE
If I were a party man I should be rather pleased than otherwise at the exhibition to which we have been treated on behalf of this great Liberal Government, with its vast majority, in its conduct of Irish affairs. We had a reasoned and considered Amendment put on the Notice Paper by the Chief Secretary, representing the Government, two or three days ago, and the right hon. Gentleman actually moved the House from the Report stage into Committee in order that it might discuss that Amendment. The Amendment is that a certain date is to be advanced by a period of 18 months. I will discuss presently what the meaning of that Amendment is on its merits, but I prefer first to draw the attention of the Committee to the course of the Debate, of which I have heard every word. The Chief Secretary got up and moved his considered Amendment. He put it forward as a Government Amendment, with all the sanctity and respect which attaches to such a production. He then went out to dinner, leaving the Attorney-General in sole possession. Thereupon hon. Members below the Gangway got up and began to bay at this proposal. The loudest bark in the chorus came from the hon. Member for Tipperary, who was carried away by his feelings, and displayed great emotion and passion. The hon. Member told the Attorney-General that if he, representing the Government, attempted to carry this Amendment the blood of this unfortunae Government would be upon their own heads.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MOORE
I am not going to fall out with the hon. Member on that point. I have no desire to misrepresent him. I cannot remember his precise words, but at any rate his threat was blood-curdling. Another hon. Member who indulged in an eloquent peroration declared that if the Government persisted in this Amendment it would become necessary to double, not only the police force, but the Army in Ireland. Next we have the hon. Member for Cork. He did not adopt a militant attitude. He implored the Government to think better of 2236 this. Next came the hon. Member from one of the Divisions of Tyrone, who threatened the Government that if this Amendment were carried dreadful consequences would happen, and what he called the Irish people would not look at the Bill. But there was one singular fact noticeable, and that was that not one of the hon. Members below the Gangway, although they spoke of what would happen in Ireland, intimated an intention to go into the Division Lobby against the Government proposal. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has been unduly frightened. Anyone with any knowledge of Ireland knows perfectly well that the part most affected is that part west of the Shannon, and I do not think I am wronging my countrymen when I express my belief that no Members for any other part of Ireland would refuse any Bill in the world which brought them £250,000. That would be beyond the wildest dream.
It is a pitiable sight that the right hon. Gentleman should have allowed himself to be unduly frightened by these bays, and that he should have made such an abject surrender. It is not the first time that he has surrendered to his fears of hon. Members below the Gangway in matters where liberty of speech, rights of property, and other points are concerned, which are more grave than a mere Amendment of this Bill, although it is a Government Amendment. The Chief Secretary appears to think it a laughable matter. I say it is most pitiable, and those who read the report of this Debate will I believe agree with me. The right hon. Gentleman is put forward in Ireland as the man who enforces the law and who insists on the law being respected, and when the ordinary thinking man sees that, in compliance with these threats of outrage and violence, he capitulates and lies down, how can it be expected that such an administrator of the law will have that respect in Ireland to which his high position entitles him? It has been the most shocking exhibition we have ever had. It is a pitiable surrender, and I trust that, as long as I am in this House, I shall never see the like again. But let us see what the effect of this will be in Ireland. There is an attempt made by hon. Members who mostly come from west of the Shannon, which is not the most aggressive-part of the country, to set a standard and to bring every other district down to the same level. Because they are anxious to obtain land in congested districts, where the conditions are such that do not prevail in other parts of the country, they proceed 2237 to and have succeeded in putting into force, this irrational idea, that what is necessary for them to obtain land west of the Shannon must apply all over the country. This is a free country still, in spite of hon. Members, and I think it is a scandalous thing that when a man has land and wants to sell it, the Chief Secretary should come in with legislation and say, "You shall not sell that land to the man who is willing to give you the highest price for it, but you must sell it to the Estates Commissioners, and once the Estates Commissioners get hold of it they may give it to evicted tenants or to cattle drivers, and you shall not be allowed to sell it to any other person in the world but the Estates Commissioners." I say in a free country that is an intolerable interference with the rights of an ordinary free citizen. What would be said if legislation were brought forward to the effect that the tenant purchaser shall only be allowed to sell his holdings to the Estates Commissioners? Why, there would be an outcry against the tyranny of it. You are not even to be allowed to sell to a tenant. If you have land, your own land, and want to sell it to a tenant, a penalty is put upon you, and you are not to do so.
Why should not future tenants be allowed to buy as well as anybody else? Why should a man if he has two hundred acres of land not say, "I am going to sell it to my tenant." Why should not the tenant be allowed to buy in Ireland, because the Chief Secretary listens to the cries of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who say that land must not be sold in the free market, but is to be handled in order that it may be sold to the cattle-driver. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have admitted from time to time that there are such things in Ireland as bad tenants; suppose the best landlord in the world had a tenant who for political reasons refused to pay rent. Supposing not getting a farthing in rent from the tenant in consequence of what we may call some mistaken idea in his politics, and because the tenant defies him, the landlord, not wishing to make a present of the land to the tenant, evicts him, as he has a perfect right to do. He pays for his improvements and he compensates him for disturbance, and then proceeds to let that same land to another tenant. Is there any crime in that? And yet, that future tenant, under this Clause, will never be allowed to buy up that land. That is the effect of this Clause, and the Chief Secretary, I gather from his interjections, ad- 2238 mits that I have correctly comprehended him. Is that fair in a free country? You are going to try to prevent a man getting rid of an undesirable tenant who courts, eviction, and, if he does so, you are not to allow his successor to buy up the holding. Of course, it is part of his policy that the landlord should be penalised, whether reasonably or unreasonably. I understand that is his attitude, but I say that it is unfair.
§ Mr. MOORE
That is to prevent large transactions; but the Chief Secretary, by the course he is pursuing, is preventing small ones. The Bill prevents small ones and is preventing them all over the country. Of course, if the Chief Secretary has got himself conveniently out of the storm which has been raised, into a state of mind in which he believes that all these future tenancies, created in the last two or three years in Ireland, are bogus tenancies—a matter in which I do not agree with him, and which he did not hold when he moved his Amendment, and it only came home to him when he heard the ejaculations from below the Gangway —that is another matter. I cannot understand, however, why it is suggested that all these tenancies are bogus. Why should a tenant who is willing to come in and put his money down not have the holding sold to him, and why should the landlord have to sell to the Estates Commissioners if he does not want to? The Landlord knows what price he will get from the Estates Commissioners, but he has farmers around him who are anxious and willing to buy. Why should he not carve up his land into 10 lots and sell to them?
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Does the hon. and learned Member mean that you have to create tenancies simply in order that they should buy?
§ Mr. MOORE
You create tenancies as a convenient way of selling your land. The tenant desires to buy it and the vendors desire to sell. That is a transaction which the courts again and again have held to be a perfectly legitimate one. The decisions are under the Land Acts before 1903, but they are all the same. It has been decided that it is not fraud, in any shape or form, to create a tenancy ad hoc if it is a genuine transaction. Take a case in which a man says, "I have 200 acres; I will split it up in blocks, and I will sell 2239 if farmers choose to come forward and put their money down." I challenge anyone to dispute the genuineness of that transaction, and there is no reason why these men, having acquired the land with their own money, should be shut out from the benefits of the Purchase Acts. They will be under this Section, and why is it brought in, because the practice during the last 18 months or two years has been publicly denounced by hon. Members of this House. There would have been some relief to these people if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was accepted. I suppose we shall divide upon it, and I shall be anxious to know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do upon his own Amendment, which he has disowned. But he can bring it up to date now. A Government Amendment cannot be dropped anyhow, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is of great importance, because it does extend and continue for a little longer the freedom which the owner of the land or the farmer, or anybody else is entitled to—the freedom to sell in an open market, in the absence of fraud, tyranny, and coercion, from the branches of the United Irish League. I welcomed the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward for converse reasons to those for which hon. Gentlemen oppose it, and to which, I am sorry to say, the Chief Secretary has so far forgotten himself as to surrender.
§ Mr. DILLON
We have listened to a very fine specimen of Ulster oratory. I think I may call it a characteristic one. The hon. and learned Member made a ferocious assault upon the Chief Secretary, and what was the crime with which he charged him? The crime was that, being a responsible Minister for Ireland, he gave way to the opinions on this subject of the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members.
§ Mr. DILLON
If the hon. and learned Member will pardon me, that is his way of putting it. My way of putting it is that the right hon. Gentleman, having found that the overwhelming majority of Irish Members are not in favour of this Amendment, did not persist in it, What is the crime there? I quite understand that it is a crime in the eyes of Ulster Orangeman or of a Gentleman like the hon. 2240 Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), whose principle of public government is that the minority, and the small minority, must be always supported in trampling on the majority. What is the offence of an Irish Minister who listens to the voice of the representatives of Ireland on a matter which, after all, affects Ireland only, and not this country at all? Is it to be contended that the foundations of the Empire are going to be shaken because Irish land-lords are not to be allowed to create bogus tenancies? The hon. Member drew a terrific picture, in lurid language which I should recommend him for the future to confine to Portadown, where it is likely to be more effective than in the House of Commons, of the tyranny which is going to be practised in Ireland under this Amendment, and he said: "Is it to be tolerated that an Irish landlord is not to be allowed to evict his tenants and put someone else in their place, and then sell to the new man?" I say is it to be tolerated that this House of Commons is to spend hundreds of millions of the credit of the country in turning the Irish occupier into an owner and that the Irish landlords are to be allowed to go on every year adding to the army of evicted tenants? That aspect of the case, even if the hon. Member's arguments are founded upon facts, would be, I think, sufficient argument in favour of this Amendment, namely, that it would prevent eviction. That alone would be a very great recommendation, and if would be an inducement to landlords to come to terms with their tenants instead of pursuing the course which has brought them to the pass they are in at present. But that is not the case at all. The hon. Member has grossly and flagrantly misrepresented the whole situation. Neither this Clause nor the limitation of £500 in the Act of 1903 was introduced to deal with this imaginary case put forward by the hon. Member of the injured landlord who evicts his tenant. They are to deal with a growing evil, which I must describe as a gross fraud, not only on the Irish people, for whom this land is badly wanted, but upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country. Will any man have the courage to maintain that all these great Land Purchase Acts and great advances of public money were voted by this House for the purpose of enabling Irish landlords to create bogus tenancies in un-tenanted land, to put them up to auction and then obtain, by the intervention of the credit of the State, prices which they could not dream of obtaining but for the Bill?
2241 Supposing these Purchase Acts had been recommended to the House with such an avowed purpose as that, would any Member of the House of Commons have voted in favour of them? No; and this system, which has existed under previous Purchase Acts, has been a gross abuse, and, instead of objecting to the present limitation contained in Section 16, which on a previous occasion I described as one of the most valuable Sections of the Act, that limitation ought to have been in force from the first day the Purchase Acts were passed. The Purchase Acts were passed, and these great sums of money were voted for the purpose of turning the occupying tenant into an owner, and also for the purpose of relieving the congestion of the West of Ireland, and for the purpose of distributing grass lands to bonâ fide farmers, and not for the purpose of allowing landlords to pursue this system of creating bogus tenancies, and thereby extracting prices out of all proportion to the market value of their property. I myself could give cases which are absolutely ludicrous. I remember my attention being drawn within the last two years to a case in county Tyrone of a perfectly fraudulent transaction of this character, whereby something like 40 years' purchase of the fair rent was obtained by the landlord by collusion with a friend of his own. He put this man into the farm and the man agreed to an enormous rent, and the transaction was put through, with the result, partly through failure on the part of the Commissioners, that an absolutely preposterous price, well over 30 years' purchase of the fair rent, was obtained. These cases are going on All over the country. In many cases where this thing has been attempted on a large scale by landlords, it was only checked by popular agitation and by boycotting. Are the people of Ireland to be told that the law is not to put a stop to this fraud, and that they must take their own measures to stop it—a fraud which it is equally in the interest of the peasantry and farmers of Ireland and the taxpayers of the whole country to put a stop to? A more outrageous and scandalous attack I have never listened to.
These cases of the creation of bogus tenancies have gone on all over the country. I remember one case in which a father lent a piece of land to his own son, and that has been done on several occasions. He created a tenancy for the purpose of drawing a large advance of public money. If that father and son had gone to a bank they would have to pay 2242 4 or 5 per cent. for their loan and to pay off the principal afterwards, but by this collusive operation, under the law as it stood, without these limitations, they were able to obtain a loan of £4,000 or £5,000 from the Exchequer? and not only did they thereby inflict a great injury on the public taxpayers and a grave abuse on the whole system of land purchase calculated to discredit it, but there was a direct bribe and incentive to the landlord to withdraw a large area of land from the use of the farmers of the country for the relief of congestion. The entire charge made by the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) against the Chief Secretary resolves itself into this: that having been fully informed of the facts of the case by the representatives from Ireland, and having it brought to his notice that the overwhelming majority, numbering 82 Members out of 102, object to the Amendment, he, being the Irish Minister, says they will not press the Amendment. It is a form of crime which I wish very much had been practised by his predecessors more abundantly, and if it had we should have avoided a great deal of trouble and confusion.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I claim for myself two advantages in taking part in the discussion that has arisen on the action of the Government to-night. In the first place I am a party man, and in the next place I am glad to think, and I shall be always thankful for the fact, that I have never from the day this Bill was introduced asked the Chief Secretary either to put anything into his Bill or to take anything out of it; therefore I am free from any prejudice or bias, except what perhaps is incidental to my position as a party man. The Chief Secretary, in his long and varied career, has had his triumphs and disappointments, but this much I venture to prophesy, that no matter how long his position may be extended, he will never touch a lower depth of humiliation. I regret very much that a good many of the Members who are now present were not here when the incident occurred we are at present debating. I venture to say there is no man in the House who has any spark of courage, political or otherwise, who will not feel that this House to-night has seen an instance of political infirmity such as it has probably never witnessed before. What are the facts? The Amendment promised by the Chief Secretary on Clause 16 was almost consequential on two Amendments proposed by him and already passed ort Section 12 of the Bill. Let me remind the 2243 House what occurred under Section 12 which draws a distinction between future purchase agreements and pending purchase agreements. The distinction becomes necessary because future purchase agreements are dealt with on a different scale as regards bonus and other matters as compared with pending purchase agreements. Accordingly it was necessary to draw a line in the matter of dates so as to define what were to be treated as future purchase agreements and what were to be known as pending purchase agreements.
In the Bill as it originally stood the right hon. Gentleman had taken, for some reason best known to himself, 1st March, 1909, as the date up to which all agreements lodged were to be deemed pending purchase agreements, and after that date they were to be considered future purchase agreements. That date occurs twice in Section 12—the first time in respect of advances by the Land Commission, and on the second occasion for the purpose of sale to the Congested Districts Board. On the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite two Amendments were passed to-night by this Committee almost without Debate, and certainly without remonstrance from hon. Members below the Gangway, by which the date for pending purchase agreements was pushed forward from 1st March to 15th September, with the result that every agreement lodged before 15th September of the present year is to be deemed a pending purchase agreement. What, then, did the right hon. Gentleman do in order to carry out what he had already done in Section 12? He put down to Clause 16 an Amendment to leave out the words "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight," and to insert the words "fifteenth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine." These Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman showed a concerted plan. They showed that he wanted his Bill to be symmetrical, and the suggestion that he introduced the Amendment on Clause 16 owing to the persuasion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) is ludicrous to anyone who looks at the Amendments already passed in re-respect of Section 12. I am sure the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will forgive me if I am wrong, but it did occur to me as peculiar tactics that he came into the House, not having heard any of the Debate, except the speech of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), and produced a sheaf of notes. I think it 2244 can be said that there must have been some bird in the air which gave the hon. Member a hint as to what had taken place.
§ Mr. DILLON
There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. I had not the faintest notion of what had taken place until I was told when I returned to the House.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I do not think the hon. Member for East Mayo has denied my statement, nor can he deny the fact that as he walked up the floor of the House he produced a sheaf of notes from his pocket.
§ Mr. DILLON
Strange suspicions seem to arise in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not produce a sheaf of notes from my pocket. I scribbled two or three words on a sheet of note-paper while listening to the burning eloquence of the hon. Member for North Armagh.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, but nevertheless the coincidence was remarkable. I come now to what the Chief Secretary has done. I made several attempts on the first and second readings of the Bill to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of Clause 16. I never got any. We did not reach it in Committee, and therefore although there were Amendments down in the name of some hon. Members below the Gangway, and an Amendment in my own name which would have deprived the Clause of some of its injustice, no opportunity came for discussing the Clause. This Clause has always been represented as aimed at preventing the creation of bogus tenancies for the purpose of getting advances under the Land Act of 1903. Hon. Members below the Gangway have had the courage to say that during the past 12 months there were tens of thousands—one hon. Member said hundreds of thousands—of such cases. I know as much of the operation of the Land Act as any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and this much I will say, that I have only known of a single case of an attempt to manufacture a bogus tenancy. In respect of that one case, until a few days ago there were 20 of the inhabitants of county Westmeath in jail under the orders of the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having brought the facts to light. To suggest that as regards tenancies created in Ireland since 1st January, 1808, up to the present day there has been 2245 any substantial percentage of bogus tenancies in the true sense of the word is perfectly idle and delusive. It is quite true there have been a few isolated cases of attempted fraud, but is there any Act of Parliament of this kind, either in this country or in any other country, which has ever been administered without attempts being made, successful or unsuccessful, to commit fraud? Anyone reading the newspapers knows what goes on with regard to bogus claims of every kind, and I do think that it is hardly as patriotic for hon. Members below the Gangway as they claim to he, to be always coming into this House and getting up and saying that their countrymen are of this character, and that the whole country is over-run with fraud and attempted fraud.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
They are very ready to make those reflections, but I ask them to reflect that, after all, it is their own countrymen they are speaking of. [An HON. MEMBER: "The landlords."] A landlord cannot create bogus tenancies unless he has got tenants to accept them, and if there are tens of thousands of these tenancies being created all over Ireland, all I can say is that it speaks very badly for the persons whom hon. Gentlemen, particularly from the West of Ireland, represent. The fact is, it is an exaggeration. It was all a mere parade to bring down the man of straw. They knew quite well that those arguments were good enough for the Chief Secretary. They knew perfectly well that all they had to do was to fire a popgun and down he corners. They did not produce facts or arguments. All they wanted to do was to utter threats, tell him he would have to double the police and the military, and that the blood of the Government would be upon their own heads if they introduced this Amendment. That was quite enough. In fact, it had such a startling effect that the Attorney-General at once sent out to curtail the rather mild and limited period which the right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself for his dinner meal. He came rushing back into the House and said: "I was foolish in putting down this Amendment. Not having heard the allegations that have been made, being in the House of Commons dining hall. I am satisfied from what I did not hear that I was entirely misinformed when I put down this Amendment"; and, with charac- 2246 teristic courage, the right hon. Gentleman said: "Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not hear of it. They will not have it. They say my blood will be upon my own head. They threaten me with having to have an extra force of police. It is quite enough for me." Down comes the Chief Secretary and gives up his gun. That is done by one of the responsible chief Ministers of a Government whose boast it is that they have the strongest majority behind them that has been vouchsafed to any Ministry or Government for many years. It came with all the strength of his battalions, numbering something like 120 in the Division Lobby to-night, and a sturdy phalanx of 40, 50, or 60 Irish Members below the Gangway is quite enough to scatter all these forces and to bring about the surrender of the right hon. Gentleman under circumstances which, I venture to say, will never reflect any credit either on himself or on the Government which he represents. This Clause 16, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is an extremely drastic clause. It is unjust, per se, because it not only accomplishes what the right hon. Gentleman says it is intended to accomplish, but it does something more—a thing which, I venture to say, he never intended to accomplish—it destroys for all times if it becomes law in Ireland the landlord's power and right to eject his tenant for any misconduct or any breach of statutory conditions. It does not do so in any statutory language, but it does so by saying in respect of that holding from which the tenant has been so evicted there is never to be any advance made for the purpose of enabling the new tenant to purchase under the Land Purchase Act. I am, however, consoled by the reflection that, notwithstanding the cowardly surrender of the right hon. Gentleman, the fact that he has introduced this Amendment and proposed it stands on the records of this House, and the fact will not be forgotten, and those hon. Members below the Gangway who are rejoicing in having coerced the right hon. Gentleman, who did not require much coercing, will find their mistake if they think that the surrender will result in placing upon the Statute Book the 16th Clause, at any rate, in the form in which it stands at present.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 30.
|Division No. 667.]||AYES.||[9.45 P.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Grayson, Albert Victor||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Gulland, John W.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Dowd, John|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harrington, Timothy||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Barker, Sir John||Harwood, George||O'Malley, William|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Haworth, Arthur A.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Healy, Timothy Michael||O'Shee, James John|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Helme, Norval Watson||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Partington, Oswald|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hogan, Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Hooper, A. G||Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)|
|Bell, Richard||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Philips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Jardine, Sir J.||Pointer, J|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Black, Arthur W.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Radford, G. H.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Joyce, Michael||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Rea, Rt. Hen. Russell|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Keating, M.||Reddy, M.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Kekewich, sir George||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Kelley, George D.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Kilbride, Denis||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Laidlaw, Robert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lambert, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Clough, William||Lamont, Norman||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Clynes, J. R.||Lardner. James Carrige Rushe||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Schwann, Sir c. E. (Manchester)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Seely, Colonel|
|Corbett. C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lewis, John Herbert||Shackleton, David James|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lundon, T.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cowan, W. H.||Lupton, Arnold||Sheehy, David|
|Cox, Harold||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Cullinan, J.||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Snowden, P.|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Macpherson, J. T.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Delany, William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Dillon, John||MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal, E.)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||M'Kean, John||Summerbell, T.|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Dunne. Major E. Martin (Walsalt)||M'Micking, Major G.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)||Mallet, Charles E.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Essex, R. W.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnle||Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marnham, F. J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Falconer, J.||Meagher, Michael||Walsh, Stephen|
|Farrell. James Patrick||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Montgomery, H. G.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Ffrench. Peter||Mooney, J. J.||White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Field, William||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Fiennes. Hon. Eustace||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wiles, Thomas|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Muldean, John||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Fuller. John Michael F.||Murnaghan, George||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Fullerton. Hugh||Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Gibb. James (Harrow)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Gilhooly. James||Nicholls, George||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gill. A. H.||Nolan. Joseph||Young, Samuel|
|Ginnell, L.||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Gladstone. Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Norton, Captain Cecil William|
|Glendinning. R. G.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Du Cros, Arthur||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Moore, William|
|Bowles. G Stewart||Fletcher, J. S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Forster, Henry William||Ronaldshay. Earl of|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Gordon, J.||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hamilton, Marquess of||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Clark, George Smith||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Lonsdale and Mr. C. Craig.|
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I desire to say a word in reference to the position in which this Clause now stands, and the position in which the Committee stands. The Chief Secretary has properly indicated to the Committee that I was responsible for the Amendment which he put on the Paper.
As the Clause was under consideration by the Committee in terms of remit by the House, it is necessary formally to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and on that Question discussion may arise. In this particular instance an Amendment was moved, and a Division taken. The Clause has to be reaffirmed by Committee "to stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Can an Amendment which has been disposed of be discussed on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
Practically that would be re-opening and re-discussing what the Committee has already determined by a decision of the Committee, and could not be in order.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
The hon. and learned Gentleman intervened on the point of Order before waiting to hear what it was I wished to raise. The Amendment which the Government proposed and abandoned was, as the Chief Secretary said, placed on the Paper in response to a suggestion which came from this side, but in regard to which, apparently, he and his colleagues knew so little that until the Debate took place here they were not aware what would be its effect. The suggestion has been made that the Amendment involved a concession to the Opposition. I entirely deny that suggestion. What are the facts of the case? The facts are that no Member of the Opposition had any chance whatever of putting that Amendment on the Paper and securing for it discussion during Committee. It was only possible to secure it by its being placed and by its being accepted by the Government. I put the case before the Chief Secretary, and I only made myself responsible for what I believed to be the facts of the case, namely, that the Amendment was one desirable in the interests of fair play, and it was accepted. Now what has 2250 happened? The Clause has been adopted without the Amendment, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend—
§ Mr. MOONEY
On a point of Order. I. wish to call your attention to the fact that the Motion on the Paper is that Clause 16: shall be recommitted in respect of the Amendments. The point I want to put is this. No Amendment has been made by the Committee, and, as Clause 16 has already been considered in Committee by ibis House and passed by this House, whether it is in order to discuss that the Clause stand part of the Bill or not.
"That the Clause stand part of the Bill" was moved in Committee, but since then the House has recommitted the Bill, with certain Amendments, to the Committee, and the Committee, dealing with the Bill in that way, it is for the Committee again to reaffirm the Bill as unamended, because the matter has been reopened by the recommittal of the Bill.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
I was reminding the Committee that the Government had adopted this Amendment on my suggestion, and that it was an Amendment which, apparently at all events, it was desirable, in the opinion of the Government, should be inserted in order that the Clause should not work unfairly. I was calling the attention of the Committee to the further fact that this has been referred to as a concession. It was not a concession at all in any sense of the word. It was impossible, as I have already pointed out, for anybody on this side to move it, or to secure consideration of this question at any later stage than this. It could not have been raised on Report stage, and, as the Chief Secretary knows quite well, it was necessary for him to recommit the Bill, not in respect of this Amendment, but for other purposes of his own. It would have been impossible to secure the alteration of the date upon Report stage. It can only be done in Committee after recommittal, because, as the House knows very well, the House has always felt that Amendments of this kind which vary the charge are Amendments in regard to which we claim very strict privilege. Therefore the only way in which it was possible for me to secure consideration of the question was to secure the consent of the Government. That the Government did. The Chief Secretary accepted the Amendment and moved it in a speech in which he 2251 explained its nature. He subsequently received his orders from below the Gangway, and withdrew it, and now we are asked to pass the Clause without this Amendment standing in the name of the Government. The Government have voted against their own Amendments, and have had as tellers in their Division hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side, not even having adopted the procedure fully open to them of asking leave to withdraw their Amendment, and if that was refused then they could take certain action. Not one word which fell from my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Campbell) was too strong to describe the view that will be taken by everybody outside this House of what has happened on this occasion. I venture to say that both inside this House and outside of it this incident is so instructive that everybody who follows it will know how to appreciate it, and that it is not likely soon to be forgotten.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I think it is clear to every hon. Member who follows this discussion what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) suggested to me to put down two Amendments, one to Clause 12 and the other to Clause 16. I agreed to do both. But when I replied to his letter promising to put down these two Amendments, I did not fully appreciate the difference that existed between the two. They were both of them alterations of date to the same date, 15th September. Clause 16 had the date 1st January and Clause 12 had 1st March, 1909. I did not, it is quite fair to admit, give the consideration to the second Amendment which I think I ought to have done, but to say that I had given way to 40 votes below the Gangway, and language of that sort, I was perfectly well able, if it had gone to a Division, to have carried it—I could have done so—therefore I do not think there is any occasion to speak words about cowardice and timidity. I can imagine a person being frightened if it appeared that he would be, beaten, but I cannot imagine it if he knows he will not be beaten. At all events, if hon. Members chose to think I did this because I was frightened they are at liberty to do so. My mind was clear, my intellect was clear, and my conscience was as plain upon this matter as it ever was before. Under no duress and under no intimidation, I was no more frightened of Gentlemen below the Gangway than I am of Gentlemen above it. What was brought home to me not merely by the Debate which we had this after- 2252 noon, but by other considerations and other particulars before me, made me exceedingly doubtful as to whether I had not acted too hastily in accepting the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and the only reason that operated to my mind was the dread, the well-founded dread, that by the variation of this date I should decrease the amount of untenanted land available for a great and important purpose. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I do not care whether they believe me or whether they do not, I do not in the least care one atom whether they believe me or not in this matter, I was only acting in the course I have described, a course by no means pleasant, because I am certain if this Amendment had been adopted it would have been an injury to the cause which I have at heart.
§ Sir E. CARSON
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that at all events as regards one statement he has made I believe him. He has stated that he is not the least frightened as regards hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I entirely believe it. His own phrase is, "Minorities must suffer."
§ Sir E. CARSON
Of course there is nothing in the voting power of Members above the Gangway in the least to frighten him. That is not what we complain of. We complain that he was frightened by Members below the Gangway. He bullies the Members above the Gangway. That is his privilege and prerogative, and his method of carrying out discussions in this House. A bully is always frightened, and the right hon. Gentleman is frightened by Members below the Gangway. He now says that this is an inadvertence. In following has-speech I had great difficulty in seeing how the inadvertence occurred. He said that after he had put down the Amendment he had had discussions or information which led him to doubt whether he ought really to go on with the Amendment. He says that matters of great importance were brought to his notice; but, notwithstanding that and the fact that his attention had been directed specially to the subject, he moved the Amendment and asked the Committee to accept it. How could that be an inadvertence, unless he was all the time playing the hypocrite and only pretending to move the Amendment, never meaning the House to accept it? I think hon. Mem- 2253 bers will find it difficult to understand bow a Minister, having put an Amendment upon the Paper, and having had his attention specifically called to its effect, then being himself in doubt as to what he ought to do, can get up and move the Amendment and afterwards vote against it. Look at the result of the right hon. Gentleman's curious frame of mind. We are allowed two days for the Report stage of the Bill, and on one of those days the right hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment which gives rise to two or three hours' discussion, all the while not intending, according to his own story, that it should be accepted. This explanation of inadvertence is becoming a commonplace of the Government. We have it every day now. Amendments are put on the Paper and Amendments are taken off, and the only explanation given to the House is that it is an inadvertence. In the present case, having regard to the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill, and taking the Chief Secretary's own defence, I think the inadvertence is most unfortunate.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
I think that one of us ought to make a protest against the kind of language which has been used during the last hour or so. The right hon. and learned. Gentleman who has just spoken has brought the language to something like a climax. He has had what I must call the courage to apply the epithets "bully," "coward," and "hypocrite." That kind of language can only do harm to the man who uses it. The only fear I have been able to detect in the Chief Secretary is the fear that he might do injury to the people of Ireland by withdrawing from them the land to which they are entitled.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
The hon. Member who has just spoken, not content with his party's giving directions to the Government as to what their policy should be, has
|Division No. 668.]||AYES.||[10.14 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Curran, Peter Francis|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dalziel, Sir James Henry|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Davies, David (Montgomery, C.)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)|
|Barker, Sir John||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Byles, William Pollard||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Barnard, E. B.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Falconer, J.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Beauchamp, E.||Clough, William||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Bell, Richard||Clynes, J. R.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cooper, G. J.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Corbett C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Gill, A. H.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Cowan, W. H.||Glendinning, R. G.|
§ thought it necessary to deliver an address on deportment. Without asking for ample opportunities to discuss this Bill, I suggest that he should try to arrive at a businesslike decision without caring about the degree of eloquence which distinguishes all those who take part an our discussions. If hon. Members bad been present throughout the whole of the incident which they are asked to criticise, they would have heard a great deal of strong, even impassioned and lurid, language from hon. Members below the Gangway. They would have seen the Attorney-General for Ireland, left alone on the Treasury Bench, sending in his extremity to the Chief Secretary, and they would have seen the Chief Secretary come back and surrender the position he had occupied. That is what happened. Under the conditions under which we are asked to carry on our discussions, none of the explanations which have been given will serve. The Chief Secretary did not, in the first instance, say that he was going to make a complete right-about-turn. He said, "I will inquire, and if I find it to be the case that a number of tenancies have been created in these 18 months, then I wall make my right-about-turn." But the pressure continued, and round he went in an instant. What is the use of discussing this Bill? I overheard an aside from one of the Whips: "We will not give them another day." Who expects that we shall be given another day when we are not even allowed to discuss the Bill on the days that are accorded to us?
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 35.
|Glover, Thomas||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Seely, Colonel|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Macpherson, J. T.||Shackleton, David James|
|Gulland John W.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||M'Micking, Major G.||Snowden, P.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Marnham, F. J.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Harwood, George||Middlebrook, William||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Montgomery, H. G.||Summerbell, T.|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morrell, Philip||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Nicholls, George||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jardine. Sir J.||Norman, Sir Henry||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Partington, Oswald||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Kekewich, sir George||Pointer, J.||White. J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Kelley, George D.||Radford, G. H.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lambert, George||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Lament, Norman||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Roe, Sir Thomas||Young, Samuel|
|Lupton, Arnold||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Du Cros, Arthur||Moore, William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Fletcher, J. S.||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Gordon, J.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hamilton, Marquess of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Valentia, Viscount|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)|
|Clark, George Smith||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Arthur, Charles|
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
|Division No. 669.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Clancy, John Joseph||Gilhooly, James|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Clough, William||Gill, A. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Clynes, J. R.||Ginnell L.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John|
|Ambrose, Robert||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Glendinning, R. C.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cooper, G. J.||Glover, Thomas|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Barker, Sir John||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Gulland. John W.|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cowan, W. H.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cullinan, J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Curran, Peter Francis||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Harrington, Timothy|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dillon, John||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Bell, Richard||Dobson, Thomas W.||Harwood, George|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Donelan, Captain A.||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Duffy, William J.||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Black, Arthur W.||Dunne. Major E. Marton (Walsall)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Boland, John||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hogan, Michael|
|Bramsdon, Sir T. A.||Everett, R. Lacey||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Falconer, J.||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Farrell, James Patrick||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Fenwick, Charles||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea).|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Ffrench, Peter||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Field, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Joyce, Michael|
|Byles, William Pollard||Flynn, James Christopher||Kavanagh, Walter M.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. w.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Keating, M.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Fullerton, Hugh||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Kelley, George D.|
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 40.
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Kilbride, Denis||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Nicholls, George||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Lambert, George||Nolan, Joseph||Seely, Colonel|
|Lamont, Norman||Norman, Sir Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Sheehy, David|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Snowden, P.|
|Lundon, T.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Lupton, Arnold||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||O'Dowd, John||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Summerbell, T.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||O'Malley, William||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||O'Shee, James John||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|M'Kean, John||Parker, James (Halifax)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Partington, Oswald||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|M'MicKing, Major G.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Philips, John (Longford, S.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Meagher, Michael||Pointer, J.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Radford, G. H.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Middlebrook, William||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Reddy, M.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Montgomery, H. G.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.B.)|
|Mooney, J. J.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Young, Samuel|
|Morrell. Philip||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Muldoon, John||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Murnaghan, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Du Cros, Arthur||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Moore, William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Fletcher, J. S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gordon, J.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hills, J. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||Keswick, William||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale John Brownlee||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Arthur, Charles|