IRISH LAND BILL.

HC Deb 17 September 1909 vol 10 cc2467-543

Order for the Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

In rising to move that this Bill be now read the third time, it has borne in upon me by such Parliamentary instincts as I possess, that I ought, in making this Motion, also to make a speech which should be conciliatory, explanatory, and short. It should be conciliatory, because I think it is right in any violent controversy that some allowance should be made for ebullitions of temper. I think, however, that there is an enormous amount of common ground between us in all parts of the House in regard to the problems with which this Bill is concerned, and I am sure that many hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to help me, so far as they can, with this very difficult task, as I am sure I should be ready to help them had my task devolved upon them. My speech must be explanatory, because I agree that there are some parts of this measure which have not received proper, or indeed any, Parliamentary discussion. I should be short, because this Session has been unduly prolonged, and I know that there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are desirous of taking part in the discussion. For these reasons I shall endeavour to be conciliatory, explanatory, and short.

This Bill is one to amend the land laws of Ireland, and more particularly the recent Act of 1903. Happily, no one can put to me the question, "Why not leave it alone?" because I cannot leave it alone. Everybody agrees as to that. It would be impossible to leave this subject where the law now leaves it. The reason for that is that the financial basis of the Act of 1903 has been irretrievably smashed beyond repair. It has gone, and gone for ever, and therefore it is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to produce a measure of some kind. In the discussion of 1903 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Ritchie) took no active part, and he rarely opened has mouth. He was perfectly right, because the bargain which had been made with him had been made elsewhere than in this House between him and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and he felt the seductive powers of the right hon. Gentleman and the effect of his personality. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer made some references which made me a little uneasy this morning since I read them, because he seemed to imply that the Treasury only yielded to strong personality, irrespective of the particular merits of a cause, whilst they were able to turn a deaf ear to representations made by a weak personality. I confess that I wriggled uncomfortably in my bed this morning as I read those words. At any rate an arrangement was made between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) and Mr. Ritchie. Mr. Ritchie did on one occasion open his mouth during the Committee stage of that Bill, and I have always regarded the observations he made as having much of the quality of locus classicus in regard to the finance of that measure. He said on the 6th of July, 1903:— If this money could not be raised at 2¾ per cent. this Bill would not work. That is exactly what has happened. The money cannot and never has been from the beginning to the present day raised upon terms of decent finance at 2¾ per cent. The amount of stock that has been raised up to the present time amounts to £41,201,000, and that vast sum has been raised on an average at 88. To-day's price is a little over 85, but the average price during the years this Bill has operated is 88. The sum of £41,201,000 has been issued, producing £36,226,000 cash, of which £32,325,000 has been allotted to the land purchase fund, and £3,901,000 to the fund for bonus. Those figures tell their own tale to anyone who listens to them. Under the provisions of the Act the landlords are paid not in stock but in cash. They have a bonus of 12 per cent, on the purchase money, and this, too, is paid in cash. Both the purchase money and the bonus are raised from the pockets of the British investor upon the credit of the British Government. Owing to events which the right hon. Gentleman opposite perhaps could not have foreseen, and which everybody were powerless to control, the money market, which was bad at the time, has not improved, but has got rather worse.

The result is that Mr. Ritchie's hypothetical case that unless the money could be raised at 2¾ per cent. the Bill would not work has proved true. The Bill has not worked for that reason. What provision did the Act make for the contemplated loss which must have been in Mr. Ritchie's mind? Unfortunately, I think, for the success of the Bill, Mr. Ritchie had between him and doom the Irish Development Grant; a grant which, in my opinion, has done no good to Ireland, because, for the most part, the things put upon it are things the Treasury would have otherwise had to put upon the Votes. Mr. Ritchie had between him and doom £160,000 a year, because the Development Grant, although £185,000, was subject to two Parliamentary charges. I have not got it. He no doubt foresaw that this Apollyon would cross somebody's path, but he doubtless reflected it would not cross his path. There was, at all events, a reasonable spirit and a very sanguine temperament, and I have no doubt it was believed quite honestly by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) himself that this £160,000 a year was an ample fund to meet this loss. However, the Act went on to provide what was to happen if the grant which was assigned to it as being the fund upon which this enormous loss on flotation was to fall failed. Then there was the Local Government Grant and the Irish ratepayers were to step into the breach and take upon their shoulders the burden of this excess stock. Every £100 you paid the landlord for purchase money or bonus could only be raised in the state of the market by raising stock over £112; and, although the tenant has with admirable punctuality and good faith fulfilled his obligations, those obligations only extended to the £100 which the landlord obtained, and in no way extended to the extra stock which the Treasury had to issue, and on which it had to pay interest and provide sinking fund extending over a period of 65 years. The Act, therefore, went on to say that if the period arrived when this fund was exhausted, the Irish ratepayer, through the medium of the local taxation grant, was to bear the loss. I know, of course, we have been told that, although that Clause was in the Act of Parliament, it was never meant to be acted upon. It was simply put in by some arrangement with the Treasury out of abundant caution, and nobody contemplated that it should be given effect to. But there it is staring me in the face as an obligation on the Irish ratepayer, and it has become operative. I do not need to go into the incidental charges. Everybody who has read Mr. Runciman's Report knows exactly what they are. Those charges had not got the benefit of a charge upon the Development Grant, and they have already in some cases actually fallen in and become chargeable upon the Irish ratepayers. Therefore, as I say, and that is the only reason I refer to it, I had to introduce this measure. It is all very well for people to criticise. I am told if I only had the instincts of a statesman I could see this was a golden, opportunity to solve this difficult question.

I notice the word "golden." It is a very good word to use. I ask the House now to consider how I have endeavoured to deal with this problem. Look at Clause 6 before you say the Treasury have attempted to do nothing in this tremendous business. We have, so far as all existing contracts are concerned, and they extend, as everybody knows, to a great many millions— £52,000,000 or thereabouts—to deal with them on the terms and on the footing of the present law. As the Act now stands, all the obligations with regard to this vast sum, whatever it is, the Development Grant being exhausted—at all events, it will be exhausted after the very next issue of stock is made—will have to be borne by the Irish ratepayers. The whole of that and also all the incidental charges, are being assumed by the Treasury, or arrangements are being made whereby they will not arise.

Consequently I now ask the House to consider this golden opportunity of mine, what it means and how far it can be called golden under the terms of my Bill. The bonus under the Act was limited to £12,000,000. That £12,000,000, with the excess stock of £2,000,000 thereupon, amounts to £14,000,000. The new bonus added by the Schedule has been calculated very carefully, and I am sure the calculation has not been extravagant in the interests of the Treasury. It will certainly add £3,500,000 to that original £12,000,000, and unless there is some very great alteration—and I do not think anybody can look for any great alteration in the price of Irish Land Stock, at all events for a good many years to come, although I do look forward to a great improvement in it before the work is done—it will amount, with the excess stock, to another £4,000,000. Therefore, the bonus will, under this Bill, cost £18,000,000 instead of the calculated £12,000,000 which was supposed to be enough. I have also to take into consideration the excess stock on future advances made after the Development Grant has been exhausted.

I quite agree that there I am more or less speculating, because my notions as to how much may be required depends upon how much land may be sold under the operation of the Land Purchase Acts. I am, however, quite sure nobody can put that figure at less than £7,250,000, and I, therefore, find that the obligations assumed amount to £25,250,000. Then it must also be borne in mind that the Treasury have to provide cash for compulsory purchases. There will, at anything like present market prices, be a loss of at least 5 per cent, on the money raised by the new 3 per cent. Stock. I think it is a mistake to suppose for a moment that the new 3 per cent. Stock will command par. There will, therefore, be no inconsiderable loss upon the provision for the compulsory sales which require the landlords to be paid in cash. I cannot, of course, say exactly how much that will be, but there will probably be, so long as present prices continue, a loss of at least £50,000 for every million issued. That does not take into consideration the incidental expenses the Treasury assume for floating stock, including the bonus dividents or the increasing cost of the Estate Commissioners' staff, which already costs something like £200,000 a year. Not only do I see no chance of reducing that, but it will undoubtedly have to be increased if land purchase is to be prosecuted at the increasing rates we all of us have at heart. Then, there is the expense of improving congested estates in non-congested districts which may, under the provisions of this Bill, fall upon the Exchequer. I, therefore, have no hesitation in saying that the burden which the Imperial Exchequer takes upon itself is increased very materially indeed; it is more than double the estimate put upon it when it was supposed that, as far as the free gift was concerned, £12,000,000 would be the outside limit. It is really ludicrous to suggest — and I do not think anybody will make such a suggestion on this Motion for the Third Reading, with these figures before them— they would not suggest, at all events, to a British audience that the Treasury have been regardless of the interests of land purchase in Ireland, or that they have repudiated the obligations imposed upon them by the law; because, so far from repudiating them, they have altered them so as to relieve the persons bound to pay under the law, as it stands, of the whole of the burden, with regard to the whole body of what are called "pending" agreements. We have stood by the Act of 1893 to the lass farthing, and, not only that, but we have done more; we have assumed with regard to agreements honourably made under the terms of that Act a liability which the law as it stands does not put on the Treasury. I really do hope we shall not have repeated here to-day any allegation of breach of faith on the part of the Treasury. Remember we had no Minute telling us what we were to do. We had only an Act of Parliament to guide us, and we should have been liable to impeachment if we had disregarded the terms of that Act of Parliament. We now come here and ask the House to sanction an alteration in the law which will impose on the British Treasury a, heavy burden, in order to carry out the wise policy inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to everything which has been done under the provisions of this Bill.

But can anybody blame us, so far as the future is concerned, for doing what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was willing to do and would have done had the opportunity been afforded him; will anyone blame us because after having incurred these vast obligations we endeavour to put land purchase in Ireland upon something like a sound financial basis? The main question is what is the price to be paid? Anybody must see that Ireland cannot have British credit at a price which does not represent the market value of British credit. That, indeed, would be a demand which I do not think has been made by the Irish party or by anybody else. But if land purchase in Ireland is to be placed on the basis of British credit, we were bound to proceed, having regard to existing contracts, to consider the terms on which money is to be raised, and to secure that for the future this tremendous loss which I am afraid must follow on the issue of this stock shall not recur. The Bill provides for that by arranging for the issue of a new 3 per cent. Stock, and requiring the landlords to take it at its face value. Although I have on more occasions than one referred to the subject, I do feel it is desirable, now we are considering the Bill as a whole, to take into careful consideration the obligations—entirely fresh obligations— which this new stock imposes on the Treasury, and the method in which for the future we hope to carry out, it may be under disadvantageous circumstances, having regard to the methods pursued in the last few years of not offering either landlord or tenant such good terms. We are responsible to the Treasury, and I cannot believe that that responsibility, by whomsoever incurred, would not have been met in the same way as we have done. Making allowance for all my defects and for the great disadvantages under which I have laboured, I confess I am not dissatisfied with the result. On the contrary, if I had any vanity in my composition, I would really think that, considering all these disadvantages, I have not done so very badly. I am content to challenge the opinion of the vast hordes of Members behind me. [Laughter, the benches being almost empty.] Before I pass away from the financial side of this Bill I ought not to omit, in considering the Treasury performances on this matter, what they have done with regard to the Congested Districts Board. That Board has a statutory income of some £80,000 per year. Under the provisions of this Bill that income has been increased to a quarter of a million sterling per annum. I have met some Members who think that in this matter the Treasury have behaved with too lavish a generosity, and that they have been only too willing to endow the Congested Districts Board with this great sum. That is not an argument which I put forward. I am, indeed, most grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because whatever difficulty I may have had with regard to other parts of the Bill, I have had none in respect of this additional endowment of the Congested Districts Board. It was not a matter of pressure or personality or anything of that kind. I had no difficulty whatsoever with the right hon. Gentleman, and, in fact, he met me with such generosity and such readiness that I began to wonder whether I could not have got a little more if I had only had the courage to ask for it. Therefore, considering the treatment with which I have met on this important question at the hands of the Treasury, I must place on record my gratitude for their action in granting this large amount—I do not say that in my opinion it is too large—but in granting it without demur and without bargaining to the Congested Districts Board. As I am on the Congested Districts Board may I say I am glad we have had no differences of opinion with regard to the work of that Board. We had an interesting discussion on that part of the Bill, and I was pleased to find that in all parts of the House it was spoken of with affection. I believe it to be common ground between us that the Congested Districts Board, as at present constituted, while it has some lamentable defects, has done a great work, and nobody has given expression to any dissent as to its increasing value. Everybody who knows any thing about the work of the Board realises the great importance of the addition of two paid members. Anybody what knows anything of the work of the Board knows perfectly well that its arrangements were lamentably insufficient and inadequate to secure anything like continuity of work and operations. That was owing to the position of Mr. Doran on the Boards I have expressed my opinion upon that very freely in Debate, and I do not thinks any useful criticism can possibly be directed against the addition of two paid members to the Board.

I was glad I mentioned the names of the two men we have in mind to fill these positions if this Bill becomes law, and I was glad to notice that both those names were received with respect and consideration by everybody who has any knowledge of either of the two gentlemen. Of course Mr. Doran was inevitable. If there was to be a paid member at all of that sort to leave out Mr. Doran, or put anybody over him, would be simply ridiculous, and nobody would think of it for a moment. The other gentleman was working at, the Local Government Board, and he is a man of great capacity and energy, who was himself connected with the Congested Districts Board, and loves its work; and I think, all things considered, he has noted very pluckily in expressing his assent to the notion that he should become one of the two paid members. I do not believe anybody adequately acquainted with the Board, and who knows its work, will any that the addition of two paid members, is a very good thing.

Then we come to the popular element, and that I know is highly controversial In this House. It has been debated very strongly. I expressed my views upon it as well as I could in the course of the Debate, and therefore I will not repeat them now. The notion has got into people's minds that these nine nominees of the county council, representing nine districts, will hold very strange and exaggerated ideas. But everybody is always so suspicious of what people will do that really one hardly knows where one is. These nine gentlemen will not be all Mr. Fitzgibbons. That, I think, would be a very considerable draft upon the capacity of Ireland, and you must bear in mind that there will not be nine Mr. Fitzgibbons of Roscommon. They will represent different individuals. There will be Roscommon, but there will also be Clare, and is anybody going to say that the representative of county Glare is going to sit mute and silent on the Board? Not in the least. Clare will be vocal, and so will Skibbereen and other places, and these members will represent localities and the interests of particular localities in a way which I think will be most desirable. What is the complaint made against the present Board? The complaint is, that because it contains a very distinguished bishop and a devoted parish priest and two or three capable members of the Board, each coming from a particular pant of Ireland, that particular part of Ireland gets more than its fair share of the advantages of the Congested Districts Board. In a sense that may be true, because people always speak best about things they know most about and are always able to push the claims of districts and parish committees about which they know with far greater force than the claims of districts and parish committees of which they know nothing. That was the only criticism of any substance, and there was not very great substance in that, against the present Board. It was that the interests of particular portions of the congested districts were over-represented on the Board. I say that these locally nominated gentlemen of the county council will be able to throw all their ideas, energy and knowledge into the common stock, and the notion that they will all combine together to outvote, even within the limited powers conferred upon them by the constitution of this Board, the minority, is, I really think, an exaggerated idea and an unworthy fear of local institutions.

I do think the one thing that Irishmen may say is that they of all men have no reason to be afraid of local representation. There is nothing in the facts which justify anybody in making that observation. It is unworthy. They are prejudiced, they have their own likes and dislikes, and so has everybody else in the highest sense; but I think the capacity which the Irish people have shown for local administra- tion is a very remarkable fact, and one of which everybody should be proud; and therefore I think that any idea of being frightened of these local representatives of the nine areas included in the Congested Districts Board is really somewhat unreasonable and unjustifiable by the actual facts. I adhere to the views which I have expressed on this subject, and I will not repeat them, because I think the House by this time is acquainted with my opinions on the subject. Then with regard to the question of dealing with the sons of farmers, who have been referred to as "landless men." When you talk about landless men the term seems to suggest to some people that you are going to get drapers' assistants from Dublin and all sorts of strange places who are going to go back to the land, a thing which I cannot understand anyone wishing to do, and to leave their town pursuits. Landless men is. I think, a somewhat biassed expression, and I would rather call them sons of farmers, but I cannot put a colloquial expression into a Bill. I often wish we could. The persons we have in mind as competitors for untenanted land with those who are more properly called "congests," are the sons of farmers, strong men, eager to remain on the land, and the notion that they do not know one end of the plough from the other is, in most oases, an entire mistake.

They have desires, and nobody can say it is a wicked thing for them to have such desires, and it is not contrary to the principles of the Act of 1903 that the sons of farmers should wish to avail themselves of any opportunities they can legitimately seize for acquiring small farms. Why should not they do so? It is well for them, perhaps, that they do not take another view and go and seek their fortunes, as many Irishmen have done with great success, in other lands, and come back in their old age, as Scotchmen are sometimes reported to do, though not so frequently, we have always understood, as Irishmen, to their own land. But you cannot shut your eyes to the fact that there are a number of these men in Ireland who are anxious to obtain land and who are well competent to till it. Therefore there must be competition as between sons of farmers who wish to pursue their avocation on small farms of their own, and the "congests." Our first duty is to the "congests." We are charged with a duty to perform to them, and this vast grant of Parliamentary money is for that purpose. Therefore I urge the claims, and will always continue to do so, so far as I can, of the "congests," but you have to take a fair view of this matter. You cannot take "congests" from distant counties. You must confine your migration within comparatively narrow limits, and even within those narrow limits you will find it impossible to carry out every beneficent intention, unless you have power to deal boldly with this problem with some consideration for the superior claims of the "congests." You cannot do that by force. No one can do it by force of the sword, and that is another reason why I adhere to my view. It is all very well to criticise these portions and say they are a paper constitution; I do not think they are, because there is nothing in a paper constitution which has the power of the purse-strings, and the most the nine gentlemen can do is between themselves to bring before the Board the fullest knowledge as to the respective claims, the advantages or disadvantages of particular estates, or the like, within their districts, and to give advice as to how that money should be expended. Over the control of the money they have absolutely no power. I pass to the distinction which we have struck between the power of furnishing money within the congested districts and outside them. Everyone agrees that there should not be two public bodies competing with one another within the same area, and there has been no difference except that some have thought the one purchasing power should be the Estates Commissioners, and that they should have exclusive jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, while we think it is desirable to divide the functions and give the Congested Districts Board exclusive power over the congested areas, and confine the powers of the Estates Commissioners to dealing with those estates which the Congested Districts Board do not want, and estates outside the congested districts area. One or two hon. Members would no doubt like to abolish the Congested Districts Board altogether, and to make the Estates Commissioners the one purchasing power throughout the whole of Ireland, and to transfer the work of the Congested Districts Board to the Board of Agriculture. That I ruled out, because I could not do it. I do not know that I wanted to do it, and I could not have done it if I wanted to, and there is an end of that.

Then we come to the question of compulsory purchase. That has to be divided into two distinct branches, compulsory purchase within the area of the Congested Districts Board, and compulsory purchase outside. I do not think there ought to be much difference of opinion as to the necessity of compulsory purchase in certain cases within the limits of congested districts. I admit two things—first of all, that voluntary purchase in Ireland still goes on. Landlords are still in that sense willing to sell in the great majority of cases, but there are certain cases where they will not and where nothing will induce them, and where they set themselves dead against every proposal that Parliament can make, and to frustrate, upset, and render nugatory the intentions of both Houses of Parliament. It sometimes happens, for one reason and sometimes for another. Those connected with Irish administration — Lord Macdonnell, Mr. Doran, or anyone else—who cannot be said to look at this matter at all through party spectacles, but solely from the point of view of administration, and in the endeavour to bring about as soon as possible— it will be a long job at the best— the termination of this vast enterprise that we are engaged upon, are all, I think, of one accord that within congested areas the Congested Districts Board should have compulsory power which, when you regard the terms under which it had to be carried out, they are under no temptation to abuse. It is much more their interest to get voluntary sales than to compel compulsory sales. The conditions of the one are much easier for them than the conditions of the other, and no one who has tried the dodge once will try it on a second time. It will always be a difficult and expensive task, and we have no reason to suppose people will enter into it with a light heart. I therefore do not think there can be much said with any great force against investing the Congested Districts Board with the power of compulsory purchase.

We now approach the Estates Commissioners. There again I have to make the same remark that, of course, if you are going to assume that the Estates Commissioners are going deliberately to put in force their compulsory powers when there is anything like a chance of their voluntary powers, being operative, of course you advocate the policy of despair, because no public authority which has ever been invested with compulsory powers-seeks to use them unless that is the only means to secure the end they have in view. If a railway company can secure land by-voluntary agreement they will not incur all the costs of the Lands Clauses Act. They will be only too glad to give rather more than the fair value of the land in order to avoid the expense, irritation, litigation, arbitration and all the rest of it connected with compulsory purchase. I think, therefore, it is exaggerated to attribute to any body of men this passionate desire to exercise these very disagreeable powers, and we may rule that out. Then you have the fact that outside the congested areas there are congested estates. I do not say there are many, but the same difficulty occurs, and there are delays, bad temper is generated and there are all sorts of annoyances and cost to Ireland and to the Imperial revenue which are occasioned here and there by obstinacy. It is very easy to make a good man obstinate if you go the wrong way to work with him. These cases do arise, and every Chief Secretary regrets that they do because they add to the trouble and cost, and also cause injury to Ireland. I was much struck with some observations made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham). He was speaking with regard to the vexed question of untenanted land, and he rather agreed with what was my state of feeling on the subject. I spurred on my right hon. and learned Friends to find restrictions and limitations which would do good and not harm. I tried to do it, and I could not for the very reasons which were urged in Debate. But what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the real way of tackling the question is to have clearly in mind the occasions and the purposes for which the Estates Commissioners put in force compulsory powers. That is the true way of getting rid of difficulties which are in people's minds. I have in my mind quite clearly the purposes and the ordinary occasions on which these compulsory powers should be put in force. I found the same difficulty—I daresay I am a shocking bad draftsman—when I came to enumerate these occasions, simply for the reason that in matters of this kind you always wind up with a general clause. You do so for the reason that you cannot feel satisfied that you have exhausted in your mind all the occasions. There is always the etcetera clause at the end, then litigation arises, and the opinions of the court are taken as to whether the etcetera clause includes things which are ejusdem generis or whether they start out in a new direction. I therefore feel in this matter, though it may seem a feeble thing to say, and it may seem to reflect on my intelli- gence and skill as a draftsman, that it may be better to run the risk of giving a vague power than to seek to interpret it, because if you have a strict and very rigid interpretation the only effect of that is, having regard to the necessarily technical decisions of the law courts, to really destroy the power. But my mind is with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wyndham). I think that the Estates Commissioners ought to have in their minds for what purpose they seek to exercise these compulsory powers. I think these considerations will be forced upon them by the inconvenience and expense of the delay which is occasioned by the exercise of these powers. I, therefore, still think that the case for compulsory purchase in both districts is made out. I was very glad that we had no difficulty about the tribunal, because that, of course, is a difficulty which often wrecks, schemes of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Campbell), who is not a man of an excessively conciliatory temper on a subject of this kind— [Laughter.]—

Sir E. CARSON

Oh, oh!

Mr. BIRRELL

Then he is a man of an excessively conciliatory temper on a subject of this kind. I rejoice at that, and it is a matter of comfort to me to hear that he was convinced that if there was to be a tribunal a better tribunal could not be found than that suggested in the Bill. After all, it is the fixing of the price that is the thing. The right hon. Gentleman himself has always said that he favours land purchase in Ireland.

Sir E. CARSON

It is a question of price.

Mr. BIRRELL

And a very good price, too, you get—you will get a far better price for an acre in Ireland than for a corresponding acre in England. Under the Act of 1903 half of the agricultural and pastoral land of Ireland has been sold, and is it to be supposed that the other half is not going to follow suit? Therefore this tribunal is a price-fixing tribunal, and it is a matter of great comfort to me—for that is often a crucial point in matters of compulsory purchase—that there was an agreement as to this matter of fixing the price. In these respects the Bill may be fairly and properly commended to the favourable consideration of the House.

1.0 P.M.

On the land purchase part of the Bill I will not now go into the question of the zones, which have already been fully discussed. There is an unfortunate difference of opinion about the value of the character of the Clause I have introduced in the Bill. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that it was a terrible thing, that it was abolishing the zones. I do not intend to do that, but I do contend that it is most necessary to strengthen the powers of the Estates Commissioners in certain cases, because facts have come to our knowledge more and more during last year regarding that matter. Of course, in the early years everybody was glad to see land purchase through, and the consequence was that there was not criticism and examination of a great many cases. Now we are alive to the fact that a great many things have been done under the beneficent Act of 1903 which ought not to have been done. There were fraud cases, and lawyers say that fraud vitiates everything. So it does, but, at the same time, there are transactions which are obviously delusive, insidious, colourable, and in which you cannot, either in the Court of Chancery or in a court of common law, produce the necessary evidence to procure conviction, and when you are dealing with people of this sort there is nothing will do except conviction. Their characters they do not care much about. These are cases with which it is no use to deal, from the point of view of law, unless conviction follows. In nine cases out of ten they were bound to come to the conclusion that a conviction would not follow. These are the very cases where the Estates Commissioners, moving with greater alacrity, are able to draw their own conclusions without giving the reasons for them. Whatever their power in the past— I regret they have not had the power from the beginning—they have the power of striking some blow in the future, even if they cannot revoke the transactions of the past, which will have a beneficial effect on land purchase and on the morale of persons connected with these transactions. Of course, everyone knows that the longer the time that elapses the more difficult it is to obtain evidence and secure convictions against persons who have been guilty of wrongful transactions.

There are one or two points which I want to mention with regard to the new bonus Schedule which appears on the Paper. Of course, the first bonus Schedule made a distinctive difference, which I will not now argue, about altering the method from the 12 per cent, on the purchase money to a variable bonus according to the number of years' purchase to be paid. Of course, about that there may be differences of opinion. I know the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) adheres to his opinion that the bonus of 12 per cent., or whatever the bonus might be, was much better calculated on the amount of the purchase money. I differ from him in that respect. I cannot understand why the largest amount of money should be given to those landlords who were most ready and willing to sell, and whose estates might probably with advantage be left over to the very last of these transactions instead of being, dealt with at first. But even assuming that the right hon. Gentleman's policy was the right one, the first half of the land of Ireland has been sold, and the last half which remains includes the most difficult parts, the parts which have resisted hitherto the pressure of sale, and obviously those cases are the cases in which the rate of purchase for the most part is comparatively low, and those persons, if anyone, should have the advantage of the increased bonus. However, in my new Schedule I have, as I was absolutely bound to do, differentiated between first and second term rents. First term and non-judicial rents are, of course, higher than second term rents. The average price given under the Act of 1903 is, in the case of second term rents, over two years' purchase more than what was given in the case of first term and non-judicial rents, and therefore I have made two years' difference between the two. In the new Schedule in the graduated scale of bonuses the scale for second term rents begins two years' purchase higher than in the other class. In that way I do the best I can to distribute the bonus with an equal hand according to the merits of the case. I do not make any distinction between first term and non-judicial rents, because from our experience there is very little difference between them. The average number of years' purchase under the Act of 1903 up to date is substantially the same-for first term and non-judicial rents. The-average prices so far as the Commissioners have tabulated them are Second term within the zones, 24.7 years' purchase; first term within the zones, 22 years' purchase; non-judicial, 21.9 years' purchase. It may be said by mathematically-minded persons that I do not give precisely the true differentiation between first and second term rents. I cannot do it. It passes the art of man to do it without a knowledge of decimals which I do not possess. Exceptional cases are not provided for. It must be remembered that while second term rents are nearly 20 per cent, lower than first term rents on the average for the last 13 years, yet they vary so much that in some cases there is a reduction of 30 per cent., while in others it is 10 per cent., and in other cases it is nothing at all. Therefore, it is impossible with mathematical accuracy to devise a Schedule Which will completely satisfy all cases. So what I have done is to give justice between the two classes. Obviously it is absolutely necessary to import that distinction. I think that the effect of the new Schedule will be to add probably 3½ millions to what is left of the bonus of 12 millions, and I think it will operate fairly. At the top of the scale, of course, with the greatest number of years' purchase, there will be no bonus or a very small bonus, but at the lower end of the scale, which includes the kind of estates that we have now to deal with to a greater and greater extent, I think the bonus will be found to have the same beneficial effect, the same somewhat dubious advantages, but real advantages, which were conferred upon landlords by the original bonus.

It has been a very difficult task financially and legally, and politically and socially. All these differences have pressed very heavily on me. I know I have been told that I have conceded far too much to Gentlemen below the Gangway. I am told I am subservient to their interests. Of course, every Chief Secretary for Ireland is exposed to accusations of that kind. He is either a landlords' man or a tenants' man, he is a loyalist or a rebel, and he is exposed to hard names. And when his salary is voted he knows all about it Therefore I do not complain of what is said on that point, but I do say, in self-defence, that I have never conceded anything to hon. Gentlemen in this House unless my reason has been captured first. It is perfectly true that I may have a predisposition in favour of a certain class of representation. I cannot argue against that. It may be so, because though I am neither a landlord's man nor a tenant's man, being wholly unconnected with the land, with no prejudices one way or the other on the subject probably, yet I have been obliged, during the last two years, to make a pretty close study of what may be called the evolution of Irish land reform, and the result of that study has been to convince me of this—that if there had been a Member of this House unfortunate enough to have been alive during the last sixty years, being an Englishman, and knowing nothing about Ireland, and he had a talk in those early days in the Lobby with those who may fairly be called representatives of the tenants, and said, "I know nothing at all about it; I will not go into the merits. I am incapable of understanding it, but I will vote for the tenants' movement," and had done so, there is no question that 40 or 50 years later, on a retrospect of his life, he would feel that they had been right. He would have found that things which would have been refused 30, 40, or 50 years ago, when the House was dominated by other ideas, are now embodied in the Land Acts as they stand, and he would find that the tenants' representatives, the people representing what may be called popular rights—although popular rights do not enter very much into the questions in Ireland concerned with land tenure, and even the landlords in Ireland—had done what was right, and that he would have done right in casting his vote with Gentlemen of that character rather than with the representatives of the other class interests in society. Therefore, I take no shame to myself that I have found myself to a very considerable degree in sympathy with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in framing this Bill. I do not deny it. I have to be in sympathy with somebody. I cannot revise the land laws of Ireland out of my own head. Of all the pedantry conceivable that is the most contemptible, the idea that a man can, sitting in his office, devise a scheme founded on his ideas of abstract justice to regulate things as between man and man and disregard the living inhabitants of Ireland, landlords and tenants. One cannot do it, and. therefore, I take no shame to myself to say that you will find in our Bill many clauses which commend themselves far more to the minds of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway than to the minds of hon. Gentlemen above. But all I say is I have never entered into any bargain with anybody as to any clause. I have considered each clause on its own merits, and, although we are open to arguments pro and con, from both sides, yet this Bill represents my best judgment on the difficult problems that it deals with, and I commend it to this House.

Sir E. CARSON

moved to omit the word "now" and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) that I shall not spend any of the time at my disposal in going into any personal matter whatever, and I do not think it even required the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman to let us know that all his sympathies were with hon. Members below the Gang way—

Mr. BIRRELL

No.

Sir E. CARSON

That, I think, will be accepted without any statement on his part, and so far as I am concerned there is nothing surprising in the fact that his sympathies are with hon. Members below the Gangway. They are now ordinary Members of his party, and in party Government the sympathies of a Minister are generally with his followers. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the somewhat unusual course of making a speech in moving the third reading of this Bill. Under ordinary circumstances one would have been surprised and asked oneself the question, "Why has the Minister thought it necessary to make his second reading speech upon the occasion of the third reading?" I think that the justification for the course that the right hon. Gentleman has taken is to be found in his earlier remark as regards the conduct of the Government in relation to the procedure upon this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, "The Bill has not received adequate discussion, and I do not seek to defend or justify the course that has been taken." I hope that the admission will be noted by everybody who takes an interest in the conduct of the business of the British House of Commons. The procedure upon this Bill shows an absolute break-down of discussion in this House under the methods by which the present Government are conducting business. Does anybody suppose that this Bill does not raise the very largest and most important issues that can be raised by any Bill in regard to Ireland? The truth of the matter is that finance, involving millions of the money of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, has become purely an executive act. It has not been discussed in this House; it cannot be discussed in the other House, and therefore I say that finance, by which millions are voted away, becomes purely an executive act, entirely under the will of the Government who happen to be in office for the moment. When this Bill was before the House on its second reading—may I say, in passing, very much in the same shape, though not absolutely in the same shape as it is at the present moment—we were promised as far back as the month of March most ample time for the discussion of this Bill. It was the request of the hon. Members below the Gangway and of the Leader of the Irish party himself, that this Bill should be kept in the House in order that there might be ample time for discussion and that we might come to some determination as to what ought to be done under most difficult circumstances. We were promised ample time for discussion. What has become of that promise? We have all sat here up to the middle of September, and we are now told that there has been no adequate discussion at all, and that the Minister in charge of the Bill cannot justify the procedure in regard to it. I should like to know why it was that hon. Members below the Gangway, who were just as keen to have ample time in order to discuss all the questions that would arise, abandoned in the course of the Session their anxiety for discussion? I am inclined to think that the cutting short of discussion on this Bill—and to my mind it is a matter which gives cause for very grave reflection—was part of a bargain to pass the Budget. The Budget, let me say, whatever may be the opinions of people in England—and one hears various opinions expressed on both sides—is absolutely detested among every section of the Irish people, whatever their politics may be. I do not remember since I came to this Home, about 17 or 18 years ago, any other occasion in our political discussions on which I have had the honour of having my post inundated with resolutions of national bodies of all kinds in Ireland, who generally—I do not complain—ignore my existence; but for some reason or other, upon this occasion, they thought I might be able to give some time and help in joining forces with hon. Members below the Gangway, who had unfortunately run away, to prevent some of these burdens being imposed. Do let us look at the whole of what has happened in relation to this Bill. Out of 70 clauses 60 clauses and schedules were all put, without any discussion, under the guillotine.

Mr. BIRRELL

It was not my fault; it was yours.

Sir E. CARSON

You say it was mine?

Mr. BIRRELL

To some extent it was— not yours personally.

Sir E. CARSON

We will see in a moment. There was not a single clause, so far as I remember, which was discussed in detail. There was a general discussion on some of the clauses, but there was not what is called a Committee discussion on Amendments. What was the time allowed? The right hon. Gentleman said it was my fault.

Mr. BIRRELL

Partly.

Sir E. CARSON

My own part in it was of a very meagre character; there were others who knew the subject much better than I did, and, therefore, I was willing to leave the matter to them. But the whole thing was treated by the Government as a farce. They gave us eight Committee days on 70 clauses, many of them bristling with the most thorny questions in relation to the land and in relation to land purchase. Eight days; yes, but four of these days were Fridays. Why was the Bill set down on Fridays? In order that the Irish Land Bill, involving 180 millions of money, according to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, might be made the occasion for jaded Ministers and jaded Members of this House to go to the country and have a rest. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that as being an absolutely accurate description of what occurred.

Mr. BIRRELL

I do not know how my colleagues spend their time.

Sir E. CARSON

What are the matters left undiscussed under this arrangement; what are the matters which have been treated in this casual, haphazard, and ridiculous way by His Majesty's Ministers? There was the question as to how we were to finance £56,000,000 of agreements already entered into. That is a nice kind of question to deal with. Then there was the question of the terms of payments as regards future agreements, involving 99 millions of money. I would like to know if you went to any business man outside this House and said to him, "The House of Commons have passed a Bill for the compulsory expropriation of landlords, and in some cases of tenants, and not having the time at their disposal to discuss the matter fully put down the Clause relating to compulsory purchase as the last clause on one of the allotted days in order that it might never be discussed" because that is what it comes to, why the ordinary man in the street of business habits would scarcely believe that the House of Commons and His Majesty's Government, and the House of Commons through His Majesty's Government have come to that pass that this House has to send out this Bill with its clauses involving the most vital principles, and the very foundation upon which property rests in this country without having ever received one word of criticism in this House. Then we come to the Report stage. The Report stage was a sham.

Mr. BIRRELL

Not a bit of it.

Sir E. CARSON

Not a bit, the right hon. Gentleman says. Two days given for the Report stage to a Bill, 60 clauses of which were never discussed in Committee, and one whole day taken up by the discussion of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman would have moved in Committee in the ordinary course, if we were proceeding in the ordinary way, and the other day taken up in the discussion of a Clause which everybody admitted did not carry out the intention of the framers of the Bill, and which the Government were unable to alter to such a shape as even to express their meaning on the face of it. I read the other day a description of the procedure on this Ball, given by one of the most respected correspondents who decribe our proceedings, and one of the oldest in the House, and as he never said one kind word, so far as I know, of the party to which I belong, therefore, at all events, he was not the critic for our opinions. I think he gave an apt description of the whole matter when he said:— The Irish Land Bill is going to be dealt with as if it were a transference over the counter of a pound of cheese or half a side of bacon. Let us, after all, go back and try and see the nature of the problem which has to be solved, and let us see how far we have attempted to solve it in the limited time given to our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman has applied this procedure to the solution of a question which he described in commending the Bill upon second reading to this House in these terms:— The crisis by this time, as everybody is aware, in that of a gigantic agrarian revolution. And it is the solution of a "gigantic agrarian revolution" that has been closured in the manner which I have just detailed to the House. Taking the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, what is it that is involved. He told us, in the speech upon Second Reading of the Bill, that £28,000,000 had been already advanced— that is £28,000,000 for which this country has gone security; and there were £56,000,000 of agreements waiting to be advanced, and that there were £99,000,000 to be financed in the future. Therefore, what we were dealing with in reality in this Bill altogether was a sum of £150,000,000, for which, in some way or other, we were going to pledge the credit of this country. Not one single question in relation to any one of these figures has ever been discussed in Committee in this House. The truth of the matter is, I regret to say, because I was one of those who hoped that we might come to some terms to make this Bill a workable Bill, every objection we made at the outset, although some of them were promised sympathetic consideration, every objection we made at the outset, so far back as March, remains just as good to-day as it did then. And our opinion is now, as it was then, that the Bill in its present form, so far from being any contribution to the solution of the land purchase question in Ireland, and we all want a solution, will in its present shape retard, if it does not altogether prevent, the carrying out of the principles of the Act of 1903, for which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Wyndham) was responsible.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) said that this was a Bill to amend the Act of 1903. In my opinion it is a Bill to tear up every important provision that encouraged purchase under the Act of my right hon. Friend. Why do I say that? The whole success of that Act to a large extent depended on three matters, first the voluntary principle and the inducement to the voluntary principle. That was carried out by the zones, which greatly facilitated purchase, and made the Act an enormous success. And also by the question of the bonus. Each and every one of those matters which have led to such a success that you are unable to keep pace in your administration with the success of the voluntary principle, each and every one of those principles are being abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman. To my mind that is a most unfortunate circumstance. In the abandonment of the Bill of 1903, let me see what is the first and most immediate pressing point, and how you nave attempted to solve it, and have you solved it. The first point and the most pressing point must be—I think it was described by the Solicitor-General in his second reading speech as the cardinal factor—what are you going to do to hasten the carrying out of the agreements which have already been entered into by landlord and tenant? Just consider what the position of the parties who have entered into those agreements is. The position is this, that on the invitation of the State those parties have entered into agreements, the landlord parting with his land, and the tenant agreeing to contribute a certain price or annuity every year with a view to getting control of his land. What is happening so long as such agreements are unfulfilled? The landlord, instead of taking his rent, is getting 3½ per cent, upon the money which he ought to be paid, and all the time, in the majority of cases, he is paying 4, 5, or 6 per cent, to his creditors or mortgagees. The tenant, on his side, is paying at a rate higher than the instalment annuity; he may go on doing that for five, six, seven, or eight years, and, paying at a higher rate than under his agreement, he would have paid if the Government had fulfilled their contract at once, and he is making no contribution towards the freehold of his land. That is an intolerable and impossible position.

Mr. BIRRELL

The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that we have gone quicker than anybody else.

Sir E. CARSON

I am not saying in the least that you have not. I admit that you have improved your administration. But you have done absolutely nothing in this Bill to relieve the congestion which has arisen in connection with carrying out these agreements. The right hon. Gentleman says that the finance of the Bill must be on the basis of British credit. I quite agree. But if you proceed by Act of Parliament to carry out an "agrarian revolution," if you proceed to put the whole assets of Ireland into the melting-pot, it is your duty to see it through. If you have announced, as you have in Act after Act, that it is for the public good to put an end to the state of affairs in regard to the agrarian question in Ireland, you have no right to come forward, and, with tears in your eyes, say, "It is costing us more than we expected; we will leave it where it is, and let them fight it out between them, hoping that they will come to some sort of termination in the course of time." That is unworthy of the Government, and it is unfair towards the parties in Ireland.

What is your solution? The solution in this Bill is one which, I think, does credit to the hardihood of the Chief Secretary. He proposes that the landlord should take stock at the value of £85 at the present day, and allow credit to the Government as if it were worth £92. That is a magnificently liberal offer. It means a contribution by the landlord, because he has relied upon the State, of something like 8 or 10 per cent, towards the depreciation of Government securities. I say that that might as well be struck out of the Bill. Not only does it do nothing towards the solution of the problem, but the very fact that it is proposed is a discouragement to anyone to enter into any agreement with a British Government who come forward and say, "True it is that we entered into an agreement to pay you £100 if you would give up your land, but British credit is now in such a condition that we cannot go on paying you £100 unless you wait for years; therefore do help the poor British Government by letting us off £8 or £9 in the £100." When this matter was considered on second reading I had great hopes, from what was then stated, that some conclusion might be come to. The Leader of the Irish party, who has more sense of justice in relation to these matters than even the British Government, said:— If the difficulty with the landlords rests in the figure 92, I cannot conceive that the Government would resist a proposal coming from the landlords, and supported, as it would be, by the representatives of the tenants, to raise the figure 92 so that the terms would be better. We have not even had the opportunity of securing the support of the hon. Gentleman to any such proposal. The Chief Secretary himself said that that was a serious Committee point, and, as I understood, he was quite willing to see whether some better terms could be offered. The whole opportunity for that has gone. Even the right hon. Gentleman, if anything has occurred to him, is not in a position to propose it in another place. I must express my regret that, when there was that desire both below and above the Gangway to settle a difficult question, the Government should have thought fit absolutely to paralyse our efforts by the method of procedure which has been adopted in relation to this Bill. So far as we are concerned, you may take it that there is now nothing in the Bill which in the least degree solves the question I have been trying to argue.

But what about the future? If the solution of the present deadlock is left in a bad way, the position with regard to the future is even worse. The Bill must stop future purchase on any large scale, assuming that you are going to have voluntary purchase, which I understand to be the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I read yesterday the Debate on the second reading, and, as far as I can see, the finance as regards future purchase has been disapproved of by every representative from Ireland. In point of fact, owing to the Land Bill having been made the occasion for holidays for Ministers and their supporters, the Government have narrowly escaped defeat. Here, again, we have not been allowed to discuss details in Committee. We discussed the general principle of the rates of annuity, but as to how the money should be found, or how purchase was to be encouraged, we have not had one moment's discussion since the Bill went into Committee. Nationalist and Unionist Members have warned the Government that the raising of the annuity will militate against purchase. I think it will do worse—that it will create discontent. What do you. think will be the feeling of one man who finds himself paying ¼per cent, more than his neighbour on his annuity? When bad years come he will rise up, and you will have no answer for him. He will say, "I am paying a quarter per cent, more than my neighbour under exactly the same lease and conditions," and you will strike a blow at this purchase settlement, which I think you hardly now realise. What about the landlord in relation to future purchase? What is the encouragement given to him? You say, "Look here, there are already £56,000,000 of agreements, but we will, if you like, enter into an agreement to sell your land. We cannot pay you in cash, but in course of time we will be able to issue to you a 3 per cent. Stock," no matter how the value may have fallen in years to come in relation to that stock. I asked a question on the second reading that I have never heard answered. As regards these future agreements are you going to finance them with this 3 per cent. Stock before this £56,000,000 has been cleared off? There is nothing in the Bill about that, but it is a vital question, not only to the future vendor and future agreements, but to the gentlemen who have signed their agreements for the £56,000,000. Look how unfairly you are acting towards them if you are going immediately to give a 3 per cent. Stock to men who enter into agreements now, while at the same time you tell them, "We can only give you a 2¾ per cent. Stock, which you must take at the value of £85, whereas the real value is £92." The thing is chaos and confusion. On the other hand, if you are going to postpone these-sales until the £56,000,000 is cleared off, which everybody admits will not be for seven or eight years, do you think anybody will enter into a future agreement for purchase where he is to be told: "We can do nothing for you now, but at the end of a period of years you can bind yourselves to take stock; meanwhile hand over your land to the tenant and trust to luck." A more haphazard way of attempting to do business could not possibly be conceived. Then, as regards future purchase. The zones have been abolished. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, practically abolished. Do you think that will encourage future purchase? The bonus has been reduced. Do you think that will encourage future purchase? I appeal again to the Leader of the hon. Members below the Gangway. On the second reading of the Bill he said:— The graduation is wrong, and one of the things which I hope we will do when we get into Committee is to induce the Government so to alter the figures as will increase the additional bonus that will be given to the landlords.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

Certainly; and a new scale has been introduced by the Government.

Sir E. CARSON

We have not had it under discussion. That is one of the matters upon which we were promised discussion. Under these circumstances, and having regard to these facts, to the two points which I have touched upon, past agreements and future agreements, I say you are killing Land purchase by your Bill. While nobody desires more than I do to see the whole of this matter wound up in Ireland at the earliest possible moment, I say there is not a clause from beginning to end, so far as compulsory purchase is concerned, that leads to any solution of this question. I may be in the category of Irishmen whom the right hon. Gentleman thinks unduly suspicious, but I am afraid I can find no other reason for putting the compulsory Clauses in the Bill—I am not talking of the congested districts—except that you are going to compel those who have not hitherto sold their land in Ireland to take terms, in despair, which no man would have otherwise thought of taking under the voluntary system. So far as I am concerned—I do not know that I express any other person's opinions except my own—I think the whole compulsory Clauses of the Bill are an absolute mistake. If I had the power now I should certainly reject every one of them. What justification has the right hon. Gentleman given the House for bringing in compulsion? Why, Sir, he cannot carry out voluntary purchase And he says: "While I am not able to carry out voluntary purchase, in heaven's name give me power to add to the difficulties of the situation by carrying out compulsory purchase." We have gone a long way on the road to interfering with the rights of property of every kind and description, not only in Ireland, but in England; but I do not know that there has been any instance before where compulsion has been asked for, with the admission at the same time that voluntary sale has been absolutely successful. The truth of it is that the moment you pass— if you do unfortunately pass—these compulsory Clauses, you have put an end for ever to any chance of voluntary sale. The thing does not bear argument. How on earth can you have the compulsory system and the voluntary system working together at the same time? The two things are incompatible — absolutely incompatible!

Mr. BIRRELL

Why?

Sir E. CARSON

The right hon. Gentleman asks "Why?" Supposing I had compulsory powers to take away—I will not say the right hon. Gentleman's land, because he is always telling us that he has not got any; perhaps he has about as much as I have—but his watch, at a price agreed upon; if not at the price agreed upon, at a price to be fixed. Does he call it a voluntary sale if I say, "Give me that watch, and I will give you £50; if you do not take my £50 you must give the watch to me all the same, and I will get the price fixed." Does he call that voluntary purchase? The moment you have at your back compulsion, compulsion dominates everything, and there is no such thing as voluntary purchase! There are definitions of liberty and freedom in this House and in this country nowadays which make it very difficult for an old man like myself to understand them. But even if you are to have compulsory purchase; did anybody ever know of compulsory purchase set up in Clauses such as these? I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman or the draftsman has ever given one hour's consideration to them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. R. R. Cherry)

I have given at least 50 or 60 hours' consideration to them.

Sir E. CARSON

If the right hon. Gentleman says so, I can only say, and I do not wish to be offensive, that I cannot congratulate him on the result. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he moved the second reading of this Bill, almost forgot to mention the compulsory purchase Clauses, so completely had they escaped his attention, and when asked about them he said compulsion is not to operate yet. Is the right hon. Gentleman still of that opinion? Where will we find that in the Bill? The passion that this Government has of leaving it to the bureaucracy to legislate, even as regards compulsion, is the most extraordinary development of the so-called Liberal principles of the present House of Commons. There is no one word in the Bill to prevent compulsion being used in relation to every acre of land in Ireland.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. When is this compulsion going to come in? Is it to commence from the date when the Bill passes or is it to wait until the voluntary Agreements have completed?

Mr. BIRRELL

Oh, no!

Sir E. CARSON

Then you will have a man who is compulsorily sold out paid off while the man who voluntarily sold and trusted to your honour is not paid at all More chaos and more confusion! The man to whom you had to go and to take by the throat because he was an unreasonable man, and to thrust out by compulsion is to get cash, but the man who is willing to help you is punished for his voluntary sale, and is to get £85 stock at the price of £92. The thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I say again these compulsory Clauses damn your Ball, and, what is more, I do not believe they add anything to it. I do not believe they are necessary. Certainly no case has been made out to prove they are necessary, and in my opinion you would require an overwhelming case before you should ask the. House of Commons for compulsory powers to expropriate anybody.

2.0 P.M.

The other matter in regard to which I wish to say a word is the Congested Districts Board. Everybody has praised the Congested Districts Board, and it seems extraordinary to me that after everybody has praised the Board you should proceed to kill it by this Bill. I have come to the conclusion, after having read this Bill, and after the discussions which have gone on, that the more successful anything is in Ireland the more reason there is for getting rid of it. Of course, the reason in this case is purely political. The reason for getting rid of the old Board is a question of politics in order that you may set up something else, which you call by the same name, but which has that, and only that, in common with the old Board. I object to the abolition of the old Board, and I object to the conferring of the powers that are conferred upon the new Board, and I object to the constitution of the new Board. Let us see how the matter stands and what you are going to do. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make nine whole counties in Ireland, as I understand the Bill, into a congested area—purely artificial—not the congested areas within these counties, but the whole of these counties. Places and districts which are not congested are to be made congested by Act of Parliament, while places that are really congested, but situated in non-congested areas, are to be left outside the scope of the Bill. Just look what that means. As regards these nine counties, as I understand it, this new Congested Board, or corporation, is to have full powers over all the land, not the land merely in the congested areas in these nine counties, but over the whole of the land. What is the object of that? Why are the parts of these nine counties which are not congested to be withdrawn from the ordinary procedure of land purchase in Ireland and taken away from the Estates Commissioners? Look at how absurd the whole thing is. What you are really doing is, you are setting up two sets of Estates Commissioners in Ireland— one set for nine counties and another set for the remainder of the country—

Mr. BIRRELL

That is quite right, and it is by no means absurd.

Sir E. CARSON

The right hon. Gentleman does not think so. Are you to have two standards of prices? Are there to be two absolutely different sets of proceedings? Look at the enormous expense! Over and over again, when I sat on the Government side of the House, as well as when I sat on the Opposition side, I have protested against the multiplication of these tribunals. There is never a Government comes in, to whichever party it belongs, but they set up these new offices, and then, when a question of Home Rule or something of that kind arises, they come down and complain that they have them. What is the necessity of taking away land purchase from the Estates Commissioners and handing it over to the Congested Districts Board? The Chief Secretary said he thought everybody would admit that the two paid Commissioners at £2,000 a year each are a great improvement. I am sorry I cannot assent to that proposition. I entirely deny the necessity for it. I believe the work could be better and more efficaciously carried out by the Estates Commissioners than by those two gentlemen, and I believe nothing but a multiplication of offices and additional expense will result from your procedure.

Mr. BIRRELL

May I point out that the Congested Districts Board now have powers of purchase?

Sir E. CARSON

In congested districts, but not in whole counties. Here you are handing over to them a quarter of Ireland.

Mr. BIRRELL

They have the whole county of Mayo at present.

Sir E. CARSON

They have only got very limited powers—

Mr. BIRRELL

I do not think you would say that if you were on the Board.

Sir E. CARSON

So far as I can see there is no justification whatever for the creation of this vast and enormous expense. Having regard to the state of our finances and the difficulty of providing money for carrying out the agreements already entered into, it seems absurd to suppose that the Department of the Estates Commissioners, although they have had their staff increased during the past year, will be able to carry out all the business which is to be entrusted to them. I once heard it stated that every man in Ireland spent the first half of his life getting an appointment created for himself and the second half trying to get it abolished in order to get a pension. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's position in this matter is. He has set up a Land Commission, the Estates Commission, find afterwards the Agricultural Department, and now he is appointing two more gentlemen with large salaries. I do not say these salaries are too much, because I do not know what class of men they are, but what the justification is for all these changes I fail to see.

There is one other point in relation to the Congested Districts Board which I cannot understand. Why on earth are you introducing the elective element? If there is one thing more than another in dealing with this problem of congestion which has been justified by experience it is that you require a strong central body uninfluenced by local prejudices or local politics, and I believe if you try to deal with this problem in any other way you will come to grief. The elective element will bring in partisanship and politics in a matter which ought to be a purely business affair. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Macdonnell as not being a politician. What did his lordship say about the elective element? He said:— In the result the Board will become a partisan Board; it will cease to command confidence, and sink into the arena of acrimonious discussion.

Mr. BIRRELL

Of what was he speaking?

Sir E. CARSON

He was talking about the elective element. Why should there be an elective element on the Board? They are not dealing with local authorities or with rates, but with money advanced by the Imperial Parliament. If you set up a local representative Board to deal with Imperial funds you lose the absolute control of those funds. No shadow of ground or reason has been put forward as to why there should be set up this unique Department for these nine counties. My view is that the moment you say these Purchase Acts, or any part of them, are to be administered by elective bodies in regard to a matter upon which you have pledged the credit of the taxpayers of this country, you will absolutely lose your whole control in this House over the administration of those Purchase Acts altogether. There is no reason why other districts should not be scheduled as congested areas. You cannot stop here. If this House once lays down that Imperial funds for which the ratepayers of this country have gone security are to be administered by local bodies in one particular part of Ireland you must eventually give the same powers to elective bodies in all the rest of Ireland.

I have stated the main objections which I have to this Bill. There is one more which I shall not say much about, because it would fall upon deaf ears, and it would probably be useless. I should, however, be wanting in my duty to the House and to the people of Ireland if I did not again protest against the policy of giving the Congested Districts Board the power of handing over land to those who are entirely unconnected with it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of farmers' sons, but this Bill goes a good deal further, and it is really throwing dust into the eyes of the House and the country to say that you are only dealing with the sons of farmers. There is no such limit in the Bill. It is true that the farmer's son is specifically mentioned, but after him "any person." may be granted land by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners. I know the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do a good deal to get rid of the very difficult situation in Ireland created by the cattle-driving, which has gone on under his régime for many months absolutely unchecked. It may be a palliative for the moment to hand over land to these men who have no claim to it, and who have had no experience in regard to it—

Mr. BIRRELL

Almost all these cattle-drivers are sons of tenants.

Sir E. CARSON

I am sorry to hear it. I thought that, as a rule, they were not. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are wrong."] I know that when we asked over and over again who they were, and why they were not prosecuted, we were told the Government did not know who they were.

Mr. CHERRY

Hundreds of them.

Sir E. CARSON

At all events they are very few.

Mr. BIRRELL

I do not say they were always farmers' sons; I deeply regret it, but at least in the majority of cases the young men engaged in these nefarious proceedings were the sons of tenants.

Sir E. CARSON

I will take that from the right hon. Gentleman. It only shows how degenerate the Irish people are becoming by the Government's methods of encouragement in yielding to lawlessness when you tell me that the sons of respectable farmers are indulging in criminal processes so that they may compel the right hon. Gentleman to yield to them advantages to which they have no title. That, I think, is a lamentable admission of the way in which decay goes on in the morality of a nation when once you yield to intimidation and to lawlessness. I have said all I want to say on this Bill, and I shall only say, in conclusion, that I deeply regret we have not had an opportunity of trying to come together as regards many of the vital questions that arise under this Bill. So far as I am concerned, while I move that the Bill be read this day six months, I cannot but hope that even after it has left this House the Bill will receive further consideration in another place, where they may, by the rules of their procedure, do what we never can do now as regards a Bill of this importance, and that they will thoroughly sift and examine its provisions. I move its rejection here because, in my opinion, it will be fatal to the Bill if it is passed in its present shape, and I hope they may in another place do what we ought to have done and thoroughly examine the Bill, and try to come to some solution on the problems which we have not been able to consider.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

I shall not imitate either the length or the time of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I suppose those of us who have had a very long acquaintance with his career in this House ought not to be surprised at the speech he has just delivered, but for my part I frankly confess I am disappointed. There have been occasions in the past with reference to great Irish problems when the right hon. Gentleman has put upon one side party bias and party passion, and has assisted in the solution of those problems, occasions-like, in the last Session of Parliament, when on the university question he gave great assistance to its settlement, notwithstanding the fact that many of his associates from Ireland were entirely opposed to it, and I was not without hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have delivered on this question a moderating kind of speech holding out some hope of accommodation. The concluding words of his speech seemed to indicate to me that he did not feel on thoroughly secure ground when, in the opening portions of it, he denounced the Bill root and branch; and, if I could entertain any hope that the consideration of this Bill in the other place would really lead to improvements, then I should with all confidence be sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would be willing there to meet every reasonable suggestion that would be made. Unfortunately we have had bitter experience of what is regarded in another place as improvements on questions of the Irish land law. We have seen two or three, I think, Evicted Tenants Bills, passed during the course of this Parliament with the object of carrying out what was one of the fundamental conditions of the settlement of the Act of 1903, namely, the restoration of evicted tenants to their homes, and although each one of those Bills as they left the House of Commons was effective for its purpose, each one, by the so-called improvements of the House of Lords, has been rendered useless, and you have to come down again and, in the Bill now under consideration, make a further attempt to make this safeguard of the evicted tenants effective. I confess, therefore, that the intensely controversial, implacable, and irreconcilable tone of the speech we have just heard delivered seems very ominous to me.

I will not imitate the controversial character of the speech or its length. What I have to say will be said in a very few moments. I will not stand in the way of the discussion of this Bill by the right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Anything I have to say will be with the object of endeavouring to have this Bill passed into law. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with a sort of preface which keenly appealed to me. He delivered, as he has done more than once in the past, a powerful and unanswerable Home Rule argument. He says the procedure adopted by the House of Commons on this Bill means the absolute breakdown of the Parliamentary machine. It means you have to compress within a few days, and under limitations inconsistent with full freedom of discussion, 70 clauses of a grea£ measure dealing with millions of money, and so forth. Quite so. That is an evidence of the creeping paralysis that has been growing over this House for the last 50 years. It has now culminated is this: that in order to pass any great measure the whole of the Session must be devoted to it, to the utter exclusion of every other measure loudly called for from other parts of the United Kingdom. If there were no great Budget called for this Session, the whole of the Session could be most properly devoted to the discussion of this Bill, as the whole of the Session in an Irish Parliament would be devoted to the discussion of a Bill like this. You insist upon bringing us here and you give your time to great English measures. Then, when an Irish measure of importance comes along, you are forced by the very conditions of your existence either to refuse to legislate altogether for Ireland or to legislate in a slip-shod way. What has been the result? How many land Bills have been passed into law for Ireland during the last 20 years? Each one of them has been found to be defective. The opinions of Irish Members have been overborne time after time, and the Bills have been passed by men, the majority of whom are either utterly indifferent to the question or ignorant of its intricacies. This is the Home Rule argument the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House. He complains that I asked that this Bill should be kept in this House, and should get full time. Of course I did, and I pressed for the longest time I could get; but does he make it a ground for reproach that when I found I could not get adequate time, and that I had to consent to the discussion being confined to 9, 10, or 11 days, or to no attempt being made at all to pass the Bill, I took the least of two evils and said, "Let us deal with the Bill as well as we can." I pass by that protest of his, simply saying he has, as often before, made an irresistible Home Rule argument.

When I spoke on the introduction of this Bill, I spoke in the name of the Irish party. I speak in its name again to-day. I pointed out upon that occasion certain defects in the Bill which we said we would do our best to remedy; but I said, speaking of the Bill broadly, that it was a great and far-reaching measure of reform, and that we would do our best to have it carried into law. I say the same of it here to-day. Let me deal for a moment with the right hon. Gentleman's complaint with reference to this Bill. First, he takes the financial portion of the Bill. He takes the case of the 56 million completed agreements, and he says: "You are giving no relief at all; you are doing nothing to wipe them off."Then he went on to point out that as long as that blot exists so long will the tenants have to go on paying interest higher than the amount of annuity, and so long will the landlord himself have to pay an increased interest, although, perhaps, not so much as it might have been had he borrowed the money on mortgage. But have the Government made no effort to remedy this blot on the Bill? Any one of these pending agreements can be wiped out. Land purchase absolutely must stop. You will not be able to make new agreements, and you will not be able to pay off any of the existing pending agreements, because the only condition on which you can raise money for that transaction is by putting an enormous and intolerable burden on the ratepayers of Ireland. Everybody who has spoken has made common ground with us in saying it is intolerable that this burden should be thrown on the ratepayers. Therefore if this Bill is defeated pending agreements cannot be wiped out, because we will not put the burden on the ratepayers. The first thing this Bill does is to wipe out these arrears to relieve the ratepayers of the whole flotation loss, and thereby enable money to be advanced for this purpose. Let me point out, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all of one change which has been made in the Bill during the Report stage. The pending agreements originally were to be up to last November. Now agreements are to be deemed pending agreements up to the 15th of this month, thereby enlarging the body of transactions to which the annuity of 2¾ per cent., as well as the bonus of 20 per cent., attaches. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to complain that we had not made any very great effort to improve the finance of the Bill. Let me say that my colleagues and I have been urging, with all the vehemence at our disposal, the Amendment of these financial Clauses on the Government. If there have been Amendments in the direction of the landlord's interests put into this Bill—I have already pointed out one, and I will later on point out others—those Amendments have been largely due to the urgency with which we have pressed them on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the interests of the landlords. And small gratitude have we had for that from the right hon. Gentleman. While we have been pressing these Amendments in the interests of the landlords, have they been pressing any Amendments in the interest of the tenants? No; their efforts have been directed to wrecking the Bill, while we have been trying to make it acceptable to them.

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the option of baking stock at 92 does not commend itself to the Irish landlords. He quoted some observations of mine on the second reading of the Bill, in which I said I sincerely hoped that that figure of 92 would be lowered, so that the option of taking the stock might commend itself to a large number of landlords in reference to pending agreements. I extremely regret the Government have not seen their way to do that. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will bear me out when I say that again and again, in season and out of season, we have urged upon him that some compromise might be arrived at on that point. I never heard there was any irreconcilable difficulty about it, and I cannot conceive that if the passing of the Bill into law is to depend on a further concession on that point, I say I cannot conceive that the Government will hold out against it. Technically, they may be in a great difficulty. The House of Lords cannot make an Amendment of this kind, and I am not sure that when the Bill comes back from that House it will be possible for the Government to insert an Amendment. But where there is a will there is a way, and if, as I have always believed, a change in the figure of 92 would not be objected to by the Government, they would, in view of the probability of its leading to a satisfactory settlement with reference to the Bill, find some way out of the difficulty. But not one word has been said by right hon. Gentlemen to the effect that if this concession is made they will accept, or diminish their hostility to, the Bill, If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is really in earnest in thinking that if that concession were made the Bill would otherwise be accepted, I cannot abandon the hope that, as a result of communications between the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends and the Government, some compromise will be arrived at. So much for the reference to pending agreements. I say that, so far as those agreements are concerned, the Government have made a proposal which will lead to the wiping out of them. It has made a concession as to the date, and I believe it will be willing to make a further concession as to the price of the stock. But what about the bonus? The right hon. Gentleman quoted me further on the second reading of the Bill. He quoted the sentences in which I said I was anxious that the bonus should be increased. We demanded that there should be a scale in the bonus, and the Government agreed to that, but they put such a scale in their Schedule that we thought it would amount to a considerable addition to the sum needed which would not be met by the 12 millions available under the Bill. We urged upon the Government by every means in our power that that scale should be changed. The hon. Member for East Mayo, on behalf of the Irish party, put down a scale, and when that was considered by the Government they withdrew their own scale and put down a new scale, which went so very far in the direction of the one standing in the name of my hon. Friend as practically to concede the whole of it. In whose interests was that Amendment made? It is an Amendment obtained by our action in the interests of the Irish landlords to increase the amount of the bonus. As a matter of fact, it represents an addition of two millions of money to the 12 millions provided by the Bill, and I believe that the scale now in the Bill will work out in this way that in the future the average bonus will be something between 7 and 8 per cent, instead of the 3 per cent. which the landlords have been getting up to the pre- sent. Are the Irish landlords going to reject the 7 or 8 per cent. of the average bonus, and remain at 3 per cent. Remember, unless this Bill is carried, there cannot be one additional penny added to the 12 millions, and it will be impossible to increase the figure at which the bonus stands at this moment. Therefore I say that so far as the Irish party are concerned, we have worked strenuously, and to some extent successfully, to obtain better financial treatment for the Irish landlords, and it is rather a poor return for us to find, instead of any acknowledgment of those efforts, that we hear the implacable language of hostility from the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill. Let me pass from the finance of the Bill for a moment to what the right hon. Gentleman said about compulsion. He objects strenuously to compulsion in any shape or form. Compulsion has first to be considered in regard to the congested districts of the country, and, secondly, in connection with the country generally. So far as the congested districts are concerned, I noted with pleasure the eulogium passed upon the Congested Districts Board by the right hon. Gentleman. He approves of their action and of their policy, he has the greatest affection for them, and does not wish them disturbed. Does he remember that since 1895 the Congested Districts Board has been unanimously clamouring for extension of its powers, and that the Board in 1895, when Mr. Gerald Balfour was Chief Secretary and the present Leader of the Opposition was in power, issued a unanimous Report, signed by all those gentlemen, in which they declared that they could not fulfil the duties assigned to them by Parliament unless they got compulsory powers within the limit of their powers, and from that day to this they have clamoured for compulsory powers. Lord Dudley's Commission, which inquired exhaustively into this subject, were unanimous in demanding compulsory powers for the Congested Districts Board, and under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect anybody will attach very much weight to his opinion inside the congested area. Outside the congested area, what is the case of the right hon. Gentleman? No one suggests or hopes that there would be universal application of compulsory powers all through Ireland. The mere existence, and in an unguarded moment the right hon. Gentleman made the argument himself — the mere existence of compulsory powers in the background will lead landlords to come to reasonable arrangements with their tenants.

It is quite true that the Act has worked so fast that the administration has not been able to keep up with the landlords who are willing to sell. That is not what we want compulsion for. We want compulsion to deal with the man who, of all others in Ireland, it is most necessary to buy out, and whom you refuse to buy out. Look at the scandal of Lord Clanricarde. Here is a case which of all others is admitted should be dealt with by land purchase. You have passed Act after Act to do it, and because there is no compulsion in the background Lord Clanricarde—I take him as a type—and others simply defy this House and insist upon keeping their land to the misery and mischief of the whole countryside. It is for cases like that that compulsion is required, and I beg leave to say that a very great risk would be run by anybody who attempted to get compulsion out of this Bill. The next objection of the right hon. Gentleman was to popular representation. He was a Member of the Tory party—I am not sure that he was not a Member of the Government— that conferred county councils upon Ireland. He has seen the working of the county councils, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) has himself borne testimony to the fact that county councils have worked well. They have their representatives at the present moment on the Agricultural Department, and they have as much power over the finances of the Agricultural Department as representatives of the county councils will have under this Bill with reference to the Congested Districts Board, because while it is quite true that the representatives of the councils on the Agricultural Board have no initiative on the question of money, they have the right of veto, and they can refuse to allow any sum of money to be spent on any scheme they disapprove of. How does it work? The last time this Bill was under discussion the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell) was present, and he gave the most interesting details as to the way in which popular representation had worked on the Board.

No one who is acquainted with the work of all local institutions in Ireland will doubt that the men who will be selected by the county council and sent up to act on the Congested Districts Board will be able men. The right hon. Gentleman said the fear was that there would be nine John Fitzgibbons, and he said that would rather tax the resources of Ireland. I agree with him it would be difficult to find nine men as suitable, or as able, as Mr. John Fitzgibbon, who, as chairman of the county council, conducts the affairs of his own county with efficiency and credit to himself. He is an able man, a devoted man, and I must say that if the Board consisted of nine men of his calibre, sent up from the county council, the Board would be one which would command the confidence of the great mass of the Irish people. I am convinced that that will be the character of the men who will be sent up, and I therefore discount altogether the opposition to popular representation which has been expressed here by the right hon. Gentleman. These were his main objections. I pass by the question of landless men and the cattle-drivers, and so forth. That was not very serious argument, and was simply a relapse on the part of the right hon. Gentleman into the recent unworthy attacks which he has been making upon the Chief Secretary in this House. It was dragged in for the purpose of prejudice and not of argument, and is unworthy of consideration. I say, speaking for Ireland and those who are interested in Ireland in respect to this Bill, that if there was nothing in it except the portion dealing with congestion it would be criminal on our part to put any obstacle in the way of its passing into law. This great problem and blot upon your civilisation which you have attempted to grapple with for years past, now for the first time seems to have a prospect of settlement. A not ungenerous grant of £250,000 a year as the income of this Board is contained in this Bill, and there is nothing contained in the measure to which I attach more importance in regard to congestion that the appointment of two paid Commissioners.

The Dudley Commission suggested three paid Commissioners, the Bill as originally framed suggested one, but we pressed upon the Chief Secretary that the number ought at least to be two, and for my part I congratulate him on having come to the conclusion that two paid Commissioners at least are required. As to the names of the gentlemen or their salaries, I do not intend to delay by alluding to them, but I must say for myself, although an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House apparently knew who they were going to be, I never knew their names until I heard the announcement in this House, although anyone who knew the history of Mr. Doran or Mr. Micks must have known as I knew, that they were very suitable men. The question of appointment was never discussed by me, but the right hon. Gentleman having made his announcement, I tell him that those names will command universal confidence on the part of those who are interested in his problem, and for my part I do not think the salary to be given to them is too much. I do not think you can expect work of this kind, most difficult and delicate work, to be carried out by men of the calibre of these two gentlemen unless you pay them a respectable salary. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we could not put any obstacles in the path of this Bill if there was nothing else in it at all except this question of congestion. If there was nothing in the Bill except this lifting off the shoulders of the ratepayers of Ireland of the liability of £500,000 or £600,000 a year, which is the alternative to stopping land purchase altogether, it would be impossible for us to stand in the way of its passage into law. But there are many other things in the Bill of great value to Ireland. The inclusion of the future tenants amongst those who are entitled to have their fair rents fixed under the Act of 1881, and innumerable other points of that kind, lead me to say that this Bill, amended as we have been able to amend it, with defects in it still, as we regret, because we have failed in other directions, as a whole is a great and wide-reaching measure of reform, which if passed into law will confer a great benefit upon Ireland. It goes now across the Lobby to the other House, and no man can foretell its fate. We know the history of land legislation. We know how time and time again our efforts in this House were defeated by the ignorance or the prejudice of Noble Lords in another place, but we know also that retribution has come upon them and their class for every one of those acts. There is not an Irish Land Bill which was killed or mutilated in that House which has not brought retribution upon those who mutilated it. I do not know whether they have yet learnt their lesson. I sincerely hope they have. For my part I should be most anxious to go any lengths to conciliate opposition to this Bill so long as its vital principles remain in it. I do not know whether Noble Lords in another place will with a light heart take the risks connected with the rejection of another Irish Land Bill. A friend, discussing the matter with me, said it depends on what happens to the Budget, and that if the Budget is passed they will wreck this Bill, but if they reject the Budget they wall probably let this Bill through. There is, perhaps, more in that than would appear at the moment. Another unanswerable argument for Home Rule—that a great Irish measure of reform is to be dependent for its existence not on its merits or the need for it or anything of the kind, but upon the play of English parties here with reference to some other Bill. I do not know a bit what the fate of this Bill will be. All I know is that if it is mutilated or rejected there will be widespread disappointment and irritation and resentment in Ireland. So far, at any rate, as it rests with the National party, we would not be slow to take any steps which were necessary to prevent the Irish people being made the victims of this prejudice and hatred.

Mr. S. H. BUTCHER

This is, in fact, two Bills, and two great Bills, rolled into one. On the other hand, it has for its object the facility of land purchase; and, on the other, the relief of congestion. So far as land purchase goes, I regard the interests of landlord and tenant as absolutely identical. I cannot attempt to disengage the precise amount of interest that the landlord has in one part of the financial proposals and the tenant in the other, but I believe their interests are vitally bound up in that of finance; and, further, on that first head, all are agreed as to what the necessary policy is to make land purchase a success. There is no difference in Ireland on that score. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Redmond) and his party do to this extent agree with us, that the financial conditions of success are not satisfied by the Bill. I know that the Chief Secretary has done all he could for us with the Treasury, and we are grateful to him for his efforts. He has been successful in detail beyond what we expected at the beginning and we sympathise with him, and I hope he sympathises with us, that we have not got what we want. But, looking at the thing now, as it stands, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the financial arrangements, as finally sanctioned, are of a kind which cannot possibly promote voluntary land purchase. As to the second portion of the Bill, the relief of congestion, there, too, we are all agreed that legislative measures are necessary; but, unlike the former case, we are not agreed as to the method of relief, and that problem is by far the most difficult and complicated problem in Ireland. I hope the Government do not regard the measure of time that they gave to the discussion of that problem as a measure of the importance of the problem itself. We were given five to six hours for the discussion of those 20 clauses, which would have been in themselves a great Government Bill for the Session, and in the end we carried the whole thing through by perambulating the Lobbies for 3½ hours. I have said it is, in fact, two Bills, and, as things stand now, what the Government virtually say to us is, "Here are our two Bills. Take both or neither. You may not even have the relief which everyone admits is absolutely necessary for the Irish ratepayer unless you are prepared to swallow the new Congested Districts Board and all its appurtenances." That unnatural binding up in one insuperable whole of two Bills which have essentially different objects seems to me to be without defence.

In the criticisms which I shall offer of the Bill I shall attempt to gather together some shreds of our discussions here. I am net going to examine the Bill from the point of view of either landlord or tenant. It seems to me far too great and momentous a Bill to look upon from that narrow aspect. What I say of the Bill applies to the Bill, not as it might be hereafter amended, but in its present shape; and it has struck me that all through the Bill you see rival principles conflicting and coming into sharp collision with one another.

3.0 P.M.

Let me give some instances. First of all, you have the principle of voluntary purchase, and the principle of compulsory purchase. Which is the Government policy? Is it voluntary purchase or compulsory purchase? I think the Government have told us "Our policy is voluntary purchase, and only in exceptional cases compulsory purchase." If voluntary purchase is the policy of the Government I venture to say that compulsory purchase is the principle of the Bill. I see no answer to the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) that if you run these two principles side by side the compulsory principle must win. The compulsory principle does dominate the whole Bill. The conditions of voluntary purchase are greatly weakened in the first instance by the necessary financial defects, of the Bill, and also by certain other clauses in the Bill which are matters of the mechanism of purchase, and of the administrative details connected with its working. Anyhow, such changes as those connected with the tenant's annuity, the bonus, and the prohibition in the Bill against direct sale over one-third of all Ireland, when taken together do form a formidable obstacle to the continuance of voluntary purchase. Voluntary sale is, of course, legal under the Bill, but it is dilatory, costly, and uncertain, and the shadow of compulsion rests over every transaction. In every single case a man attempting a voluntary sale knows that there impends over him compulsory sale if he does not agree to terms which he does not think are fair. I can imagine, the Government having brought forward compulsion in a very different form. I can imagine, the Government coming down to the House and saying, "We propose within a well defined and restricted area to apply the principle of compulsion. We believe there are portions of Ireland within the congested districts in which voluntary sale turns out to be impossible. Voluntary sale has been there attempted, and has been found to be a failure. We are able to give you specific examples of cases in which voluntary purchase has failed. We propose to exercise compulsory powers within those restricted areas, and for the specific purpose of relieving congestion." If the Government had said that, I do not say that their suggestion would have met with complete acceptance on this side, but I do not hesitate to say that I think they would have made out a case for very grave consideration, and that we should have known in detail of the nature of the instances. If they had gone further and said, "Wherever we propose to apply compulsion within restricted areas we shall allow an appeal first as to the necessity haying arisen for putting the powers in force; and, secondly, an appeal as to the price that is to be offered." That case would have been one worth listening to, but that case has not yet been made to the House. I feel, therefore, that we have nothing in the nature of evidence except the case of Lord Clanricarde. I do not deny that there are other cases. I have travelled in the congested districts, and I have spoken to men who had the best means of knowing the cases in which land could not be got for the relief of congestion without compulsory powers. A few cases were pointed out to me. I think they were cases, not on Lord Clanricarde's land, but on that of some tradesman who had a farm he refused to give up—land which might be profitably divided up into small economic holdings. But I am now speaking with very partial knowledge. The Government ought to have full knowledge, and they ought to give us the facts. We have not got the facts from those who have a right to speak. We have got nothing whatever except the case of Lord Clanricarde. I would point out that whereas the Dudley Commission, which has been appealed to. by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), recommended compulsion only within the area of the congested districts, the Bill applies compulsion all over Ireland. There are no limitations or safeguards of the principle laid down, nor any defined purpose for which the compulsory powers are to be exercised.

Another remarkable difference is that the Estates Commissioners can operate the compulsory purchase powers without any restraints whatsoever. There are at present certain restraints as regards the Congested Districts Board as to the persons to whom the land is to be distributed, but the Commissioners are now to be quite, unfettered in their discretion, so that you have this curious result, that precisely in that part of Ireland where the case for compulsion is weakest the powers of compulsion are most unlimited. Surely nothing can be said for such an arrangement. It is true the Chief Secretary says, "We are not going to exercise compulsion everywhere." But it is the Bill with which we have to do, and the Bill gives universal compulsion.

I come now to another of those inherent antagonisms in the Bill, two methods which, I believe, are mutually destructive of one another; and, though the hon. and learned Member for Watford said he would put aside altogether the question of the landless men and the congests as being a mere appeal to prejudice, I cannot treat it in that way. It is not an appeal to prejudice. It is the crux of the situation, and all the Commissioners who examined this question of the congested districts for years have given expression to that deliberate opinion in the Reports both of the majority and the minority. In whose interests is compulsion to be exercised? I do not think that one can hesitate in the answer. Looking at the Bill as a whole, it is to be exercised in the interests of the landless men. We all know the distinction between the men who have no land and the men who have not enough land to live on decently. The Chief Secretary rather deprecates the use of the words landless men. He would like to call them sons of farmers. But deliberately in his Bill he puts sons of farmers into one category and any person to whom the Land Commission choose to give land into another, and the landless men are in both sets. We cannot limit the landless men in this artificial way, and the Chief Secretary has given us the landless man in the fullest acceptation.

Mr. BIRRELL

Only on considering the requirements of all.

Mr. BUTCHER

But still the landless man need not be the son of a farmer. He may be a labourer or a tradesman. He may be anything you like, and the fact must be faced; and the further fact must be faced that we have here two real and not artificial discordant interests. I remember the first reading of this Bill in its earlier form, in November, 1908, when I think it was I myself spoke of the real difficulties of effecting migration. At that time the Chief Secretary made the remark, which I looked up to-day in the OFFICIAL REPORT, "But if men are willing to go to Canada, why should not they be willing to go into another county?"— a remark which showed ignorance of the real case. The real reason is that it is a more perilous thing to cross the border of a county than it is to cross the Atlantic, and if men knew when they went to Canada that they would have their heads broken they would not go there. That is the simple explanation of this difficulty, which goes to the very heart of this congested districts problem, and there is no use passing it off with some easy jibe. The Chief Secretary, I am sure, has learned a great deal more about those landless men and congests since last November, because only a week or so ago I put to him the plain question, "Who stands first, landless men or congests?" and he answered frankly, "If I was called upon to choose between landless men and congests, I am a congest, and a strong congest." I was very glad to hear it, but it was only a year ago when the Chief Secretary was an unfortunate landless man during the cattle-driving discussions. The cattle-driving was explained, if not condoned, by the Chief Secretary on the ground that those landless men had a right to have the grass lands broken up. He did not confine it to grass lands in congested districts. In Meath and Westmeath—for it was in connection with cattle lands there—they were to be broken up, as well as in the other counties. He explained cattle-driving by pointing out the grievances of the landless men, and added that it was for that reason that legislation was necessary. So that at that time, at least, the landless man was in the forefront of his thoughts and when he told us the other day that it is absurd to imagine there is going to be a flood of landless men rushing for the land, and denied that the Bill would do anything, of the kind, he cannot have studied the clauses of his own Bill. In Clause 17, Subsection (e), we pointed out to him that any person—it is true in a certain order of priority—but any person might be given this untenanted land which is taken compulsorily; and the Chief Secretary put a most extraordinary interpretation upon those words. He said he was not thinking of landless men; he was thinking of mansion houses and mills.

I have heard of windmills being mistaken for men, but I must say in no Act of Parliament where you have in black and white "any persons," it seems to me quite absurd to say that what he had in his mind was a mill or a mansion house. The truth is it is quite impossible for the Chief Secretary to be on both sides. He must choose which side he is on. And even if he halts between two opinions the march of events will go forward, and these men, knowing that they have got a footing in his Bill, will insist on getting their rights and privileges. The truth is that the trail of the cattle-driver was across this Bill. Their spokesmen have been during these Debates silent in the House, but they have been vocal in Ireland, and there they have declared that this Bill gives them the fulfilment of their hopes. One other instance of the struggle between conflicting principles which are in this Bill is the case of the new Congested Districts Board. The setting up of this new Board means that we shall have now in Ireland two new Boards, one of them endowed with a quarter of a million of money operating over one-third of Ireland, and conducted on paternal principles, and the other, the Department of Agriculture, endowed with about half that sum, whose sphere of action extends over two-thirds of Ireland, and which is carried on on the principles of self-help. Here you have again this antagonism) which already exists, and which is now greatly enhanced and increased by the formation of this new Board. I have been taunted with inconsistency. I have said that the Congested Districts Board have done great and valuable work, and I have been asked why I wish to abolish it. First of all, let me point out the Bill proposes to abolish it. The argument has been conducted as if the Congested Districts Board is going on. Not a bit of it. It is a new Board, with an entirely different constitution, a new area, and largely increased new functions. I say that the old Board has done good work, but it is preparatory work; you can only look upon it as the early stage in agricultural education. It is work which is carried out in backward districts and among exceptionally poor people. To abandon suddenly this means of proceeding gradually to a better system would be fatal. This Bill doubles the area of the Board's work, but this spoon-feeding and nursing, though excellent in its way for babies, is not for grown men. My whole criticism is that it is unsound work, agriculturally speaking, and I submit that you ought gradually to diminish the area, unscheduling districts which are congested and encouraging men to grow up under another system. Here you have State aid, without any self-help, over one-third of Ireland. I suppose everyone will admit that the success of Irish land purchase in Ireland depends very largely, not merely on the transfer of land from landlord to tenant, but on the sort of men who are to work upon the land in future, on the nature of the agriculture, and on the vigour, self-reliance, and backbone of the farmers of Ireland. What I want is not that one-third of Ireland should be run on principles which, though excellent in certain stages of training, become disastrous at later stages, but that self-reliance should be encouraged. At present a man is actually paid—whoever heard of such a thing? —so much a day for working on his own farm, and for digging drains on his own land. All I can say is that is not the type of agriculture I desire to see over one-third of Ireland.

Mr. BIRRELL

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is also a great deal of self-help in those districts, and the work of the Congested Districts Board has done much to increase it.

Mr. BUTCHER

I know that the work of the Board was to help to gradually train men to do good work and encourage self-reliance, but this Bill, instead of bringing them forward into the higher grade, is going to keep them down in the lower. These are some of my arguments, and they are all against the Bill as it stands. I do not say that the Bill is impossible to amend; I think it is possible to amend it; but I am criticising it as it is leaving the Commons, and the upshot of my argument is that you have here a Bill for land purchase which either kills or retards land purchase, and promises to turn the existing block into a permanent deadlock. You have here a Bill, professedly for the relief of congestion, which throws over congests by bringing in their rivals, and which perpetuates the perennial poverty of the West of Ireland. Not only so, but it sows the seed of future congestion in all parts of Ireland, where congestion has not yet been known. It seeks to appease the appetite of the moment, but it does so at the cost not only of the congests of to-day, but of the next generation. For these landless men will in turn have landless younger sons who will have learnt the lesson, and who will desire to cut up the farms of their neighbours, as their fathers did before them. Looking at it from this point of view, it seems to me that the Bill as it stands solves nothing; it is no remedy, nor is it any palliative of congestion. Under that part of the scheme no man henceforth can farm in peace in Ireland, not even the tenant purchaser who has bought his land, as argument yesterday made amply clear. It is quite true that it has won the applause of cattle-drivers, but it must fill with grave apprehensions the minds of all who look ahead and beyond the political exigencies of the hour.

Mr. WALTER KAVANAGH

Before proceeding to the Bill I wish to protest against this closure by compartments, and whatever the passing of this Bill does, I hope it will be the end of that method of procedure. I am perfectly certain that if the Government could have foreseen what occurred in the Committee stage they would never have proposed such a procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill said it would kill voluntary purchase. We never approved of the financial clauses of this Bill, but we failed to induce the Government to make any change in them. Now that we are going to vote on the third reading of this Bill, I think we ought to have some explanation of the Government's motives. What is the position of land purchase under the present law, and what is the position it will occupy when this Bill passes?

What is the position of land purchase at the present moment? The tenant pur- chaser undoubtedly only pays 3½ per cent., and the bonus is 3 per cent., and what is material is that it-he whole, of the loss of flotation expenses falls on the Irish ratepayers. That condition of itself is enough to stop land purchase altogether. Under this Bill the tenant's annuity is raised to 3½ per cent., and there is a graduated bonus, and the Treasury are taking the whole of the loss on the flotation and incidental expenses. As a landlord and as a ratepayer I say, putting the two alternatives side by side, I should prefer the position of the landlords under the Land Bill. There is another alternative suggested to us, and that is that we should leave the present position of land purchase as it stands and wait until the Tory Government come into power, and that when they did Consols would immediately jump to par and Land Stocks to a premium, and all the difficulties of land purchase would immediately disappear. I am sure if the Leader of the Opposition would only give us a guarantee of that fact we would consider the situation, but without such a guarantee I personally prefer the bird in the hand to the two in the bush. The whole of the objections to this Bill apparently centre round the word "compulsion" and the compulsory clauses. Nobody likes compulsion. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who would wish to put compulsion into force if they could attain the same ends by voluntary purchase. It is only where voluntary purchase fails that compulsion takes its place. I think anybody who contemplates land purchase over the whole of Ireland must recognise that sooner or later compulsion will have to step in. I do not say for one moment that voluntary purchase has ceased at the present moment, but that there are cases in which compulsion is necessary. As the Chief Secretary said, there are black spots in Ireland which in the interests of all concerned ought to be removed. Those are the cases in which compulsion is necessary now. For my part, I do not believe that compulsion will ever take the place of voluntary purchase. In the vast majority of cases voluntary purchase will go on. There will no doubt be a few cases otherwise, but the minute the landlords—and I speak as a, landlord for myself—find that the price which the State are willing to give by compulsion is a fair and reasonable price, the moment we find that we will accept the situation, and the rest will be voluntary sales. In these remarks I refer to tenanted land, but no doubt in untenanted lands compulsion will be necessary. Even in that case, I think a few cases tried in court will soon find the market price, and the rest will be by common agreement. If we could only put aside the prejudice which arises and which surrounds compulsion, and if we could only realise what is the aim and object of the Government under this Bill, I think we would very quickly come to a common agreement.

In the two-thirds of Ireland now under the jurisdiction of the Estates Commissioners we are confronted with a social problem. That is the case of land which would, if divided up, support the people of the country and keep them from emigration, and whether that land should be retained by the few to meet their own immediate requirements—to meet the wants of the few. I do not think Englishmen and Scotchmen can ever realise or sympathise with this case. They never can realise what in Ireland is a national instinct, that is, the land hunger. They cannot sympathise with the positive craving there is amongst all Irishmen, I speak myself as an Irishman, for the possession or occupation of a little bit of land, but it is so. I have it myself. The other day the Chief Secretary said he was sorry that there was not more land hunger in this country. I quite agree with him and if it were so you could appreciate our case better than you do now, and you could appreciate the feelings of the people who, through want of employment, emigrate to foreign countries, whilst at their very doors they see large tracts of untenanted land put to very little use which, if divided up amongst them, would support them and their families and keep them from emigration. That is really the question of compulsion, and it is a question which will have to be faced sooner or later, and the sooner this House really faces it the quicker will the land question be settled, once and for all time. In one-third of Ireland you are faced with a very definite problem, the relief of congestion, and in that area I say that compulsion is absolutely and immediately necessary. If congestion is to be relieved, and if this eyesore is to be removed from our country, it is absolutely necessary that the Congested Districts Board should have compulsory powers to acquire land for that purpose. There is no use in us talking sympathetically about the relief of congestion and about the relief of the miseries of the poor people in the West if we are not going to make some sacrifice for them. We must do something for them; we must put aside our own prejudices, and I think that the Government are not asking us to do too much in this Bill to relieve the starving poor of the West of Ireland. Some who profess to sympathise say that our recommendations in the Dudley Commission are altogether wrong. That may be so, but what is their alternative? They have not put any alternative before the Government. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Charles Craig) says that congestion has already been relieved by old age pensions. I do not know that the people will agree with him in that view. Sir Horace Plunkett has a large scheme of practically an instruction colony in which all the "congests" are to get trained in better farming. My experience of the "congests" is that you cannot teach them very much. All they want is opportunity and scope for their industry and intelligence, and they will do the rest. I have great admiration for Sir Horace Plunkett and the work he carried out, but I am sorry he put his name to what I can only call a ridiculous proposition. But those proposals have really the object of indefinitely postponing the relief of congestion; we wish to relieve it at once. And I submit that the recommendations of the Dudley Commission are the means to that end. Many Members on the Liberal side of the House, although they approve of this Bill, do not like the word "compulsion." But they must not think that Irish landlords are really being treated differently in the matter of compulsion than English and Scotch landlords. In both countries land is required for the needs of the community. Under the Land Bill the Government go to the Irish landlord and say, "We want this land for the relief of congestion and other purposes; we will buy it compulsorily, giving you a fair price for it." That is a perfectly fair and open proposition which, I think, would commend itself to the majority of the House. In England and Scotland, under the Finance Bill, the Government go to the landlord and say, "We want this land for building purposes, and we will force you to sell it by putting excessive taxes upon it." It is compulsion under another name. The result is the same, but the methods axe different. Speaking as an Irish landlord, I far prefer the method under the Land Bill. I am a strong believer in the policy of a peasant proprietary. You do not want it in this country, but we do in Ireland; and if the Irish landlords would only recognise that under this Bill the Government are only carrying out that policy to its conclusion—the policy accepted by all sides in 1903—I think a great deal of the opposition to compulsion would quickly disappear.

The most important part of the Bill is Part III., which deals with the relief of congestion. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has followed the recommendations of the Dudley Commission in continuing the Congested Districts Board, reconstructing it, and giving it a larger area over which to work. But there is one clause in Part III. with which I entirely disagree. I speak with some diffidence on the point, because I differ from my colleagues in reference to it. Clause 53 gives power to the Congested Districts Board to sell surplus lands to the sons of tenants. To anybody who does not know the West of Ireland that may seem a perfectly fair proposal; but anyone who knows the West of Ireland and what underlies that Clause will know that it is simply opening the door to all the trouble which experience has taught us will happen if this power is thrust upon the Board. I say "thrust on the Board" because I do not believe that the new Board would wash for it. I admit that some such power was given to the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903 and under the Evicted Tenants Act. But those Acts were experimental; we were only feeling our way. We have now gained our experience, we have our eyes opened, and at will be a great misfortune if the Government repeat the very mistake which was made in those two Acts. Quite lately the Congested Districts Board bought a large parcel of land in Roscommon, and they proceeded to bring migrants to at. Immediately there was a meeting in the locality, at which resolutions were passed protesting against migrants being brought into the district from any distance, and calling on the Board to hold their hand—until when? Until the passage of this Bill containing this Clause giving the Board power to sell the land to sons of tenants. The Congested Districts Board have always recognised the claim of the uneconomic holdings in the locality; they have always satisfied it, and there has been no trouble about it. But a new class of claimant has arisen, namely, the sons of tenants, and they say that unless their claim is satisfied first—I emphasise the word "first"—they will not welcome congests into their district. The Government are not without warning from some of their own officials. In the last Re- port of the Estates Commissioners two or three paragraphs are devoted to the telling of the trouble they have had with the "landless men," as they tare termed, under the Evicted Tenants Act. The Dudley Commission also devoted several paragraphs to the subject, and came to the conclusion that if this opposition went on, supported by public opinion, the relief of congestion must come to an end. My objection to the claim of the landless men is that there is not land enough in the congested areas to satisfy both classes of claimants. Yon have to satisfy one or the other; you cannot satisfy both. In support of that statement let me give a few figures. In the congested area there are 180,000 holdings, of which 130,000 are under £10 valuation. The valuation of the whole is £570,000, and the average holding is £4 7s. In order to raise the 130,000 to the £10 standard, which, rightly or wrongly, has been accepted as the lowest economic holding, land to the value of £340,000 is required. There are certain deductions to be made, such as holdings on the sea-board, and holdings which, although less than £10 valuation, are still economic, where the land is good, and the tenants have other means; but after making all deductions, land to the value of £340,000 is required. That is the demand. What is the supply? Mr. Finucane put an interesting paper before the Dudley Commission in which he estimated that there was one million acres of untenanted land in the West of Ireland. From that also large deductions have to be made, for demesnes, home farms, and so on; but after making all deductions, Mr. Doran, who is the greatest authority on these matters in Ireland, claims that there are 280,000 acres available, suitable for migration, the valuation of which is £110,000, or a deficit of £230,000 worth of land for the relief of congestion. Put one against another, supply and demand, and the broad fact remains that there is not land sufficient to relieve congestion in the West of Ireland, let alone the landless men. Outside the congested area I am entirely in favour of the claims of the landless men. There is plenty of land in the Estates Commissioners' area both to satisfy the landless men and to relieve congestion. Inside you have to choose between one or the other. Our first duty is to the congest. I know the Chief Secretary based his argument in support of this Clause on the fact that it was the easier way out of the difficulty— the line of least resistance. I admit that if you are only legislating for the present moment. But this is a trouble which will grow and grow, and which, if you give in to-day, will beat you in the end. The Government have a wonderful opportunity of putting their foot firmly down in this matter, and saying to the landless men within the congested areas, "We would relieve you if we could, and satisfy you if we could, but we have not got land enough. Our first duty is to the congest." If they only do that— put their foot firmly down—I believe they will save an enormous amount of trouble to the Congested Districts Board in the future; and, in the long run, I say it distinctly, they would be backed up by public opinion in Ireland. There are rumours of the fate that this Bill will meet in the House of Lords. I do not know that any words of mine, or any words from these benches, will have the slightest effect with that other place.

But if it is going to be a case of amending the Bill, and not rejecting it wholesale, I would make one earnest appeal: That whatever is done to the rest of the Bill, the compulsory clauses, in the congested areas, will be left in. [An HON. MEMBER: "The whole of Ireland."] I am making an appeal for one part. If hon. Members and their Friends would only read the Report of the Dudley Commission they would see that on this point we were most emphatic and we were absolutely unanimous. We based our conclusions on evidence so overwhelming and so convincing that the late Sir John Colomb, who, when he joined, was one of the strongest opponents of compulsory purchase, became at the end a firm supporter of the policy of compulsory powers for the congested areas.

But there is one occupant of the Front Opposition bench, who, if he were here, would, I believe, lend a sympathetic ear to such an appeal. I allude to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He always had a soft spot in his heart for the West of Ireland. His name is a household word there. He will always be held in affectionate remembrance as the originator and founder of the Congested Districts Board. I hope he will not go back upon that good work. Whatever there is of relief of congestion in the West of Ireland at the present moment owes its birth, and a great deal of its growth, to the right hon. Gentleman. The methods under this Bill are not different from those in vogue when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Board. He was a member for a great number of years. He was in agreement with the policy of migration and enlargement of holdings. He was a participator in this work, and his signature was attached to a resolution of the Board asking for compulsory purchase powers in the Western Districts. I do hope he will not go back on that. I would appeal to him and his friends not to amend this Bill beyond all powers of recognition. I would appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who sit on those benches, at all events, not to do anything to interfere with the peace and prosperity of the West of Ireland.

. J. P. FARRELL

desire to say just one word to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Whatever part of the Bill he consents to abandon as the result of attempted amendment in the House of Lords, I ask that he will stick to the compulsory clauses. From the point of view of those of us in the Midlands, in Meath, Westmeath, and Longford, in which there are large areas of untenanted land side by side with areas of congestion, I say that if this Bill is not passed in its present form —if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to accept Amendments which will keep out these counties from the operations of the Bill—so far as I am concerned, as one of the Members for Leinster, I would just as soon see the Bill dropped right away. Take my own Constituency, North Longford. It is absolutely on "all fours" with any congested area in Cork. On the western side, amid the bogs and the mountains, there are holdings of £4, £5, £6, and £7 valuation—900 of them. On the eastern side you have hundreds of thousands of acres of green grass land in the occupation of three or four grazing landlords. Are these men, I say, to be left in the possession of all that land while the sons of farmers of county Longford have no other alternative but the emigrant ship? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University sneered at the landless men. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman who has spoken last to speak about the congest getting the preference over the landless men. Who is the landless man? The son of the farmer. Is he not entitled to a foothold on the land? Is he not entitled to some other chance than the emigrant ship or the pick and shovel in New York or Brooklyn? I am not speaking one word against all that has been said in favour of the utmost possible generosity to the congested areas. Why should I? They are as much a portion of our country as that in which I live. I would like to see them getting every possible help and assistance under this Bill.

But this question of congestion, notwithstanding the Report of the Dudley Commission, notwithstanding all that has been said about congestion, this question is not solely confined to Connaught. We have hundreds of districts throughout Leinster where the people were as ruthlessly evicted and driven from the soil, driven to the bog and the mountain, as in any other part of Ireland. Are these districts to be passed over because we have a number of big — some of them rich — landlords, who are able to buy big stocks and stock their ranches to the exclusion of small farmers? There is one case that I could mention in my own Constituency, a Mr. James W. Bond, a well-known Conservative landlord, and a well-known figure on Unionist platforms— and it is a remarkable fact that where you find a big grazier and a big landlord, whether he has been an evictor, or holds evicted land, you will find that he is a prominent figure on Unionist platforms. This gentleman has 4,000 acres. It would take a day to drive through it. Not far away there are people huddled in the bogs and mountains, most of them in a state of semi-starvation, and most of them truly on non-economic holdings. Is there to be any relief for these men? I have almost exhausted the vocabulary putting questions to the Chief Secretary about these different cases, and I say most emphatically that if such men are not brought inside the provisions of this Bill you will have cattle-driving again in the county Longford, and plenty of it—and perhaps I may be there myself. I am not afraid or ashamed to say I was a cattle-driver, and will be again if the occasion arises; and I tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I tell the Gentleman above the Gangway, that if they come back to power after the promised General Election and this question is still unsettled, they will find cattle-driving to deal with, and a good deal of it. In the days of the Plan of Campaign, when the present Leader of the Opposition was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was compelled, notwithstanding his Coercion Act, to come down to this House time after time to propose remedial Land Acts, and it was not for love of the Irish tenant farmer that he did it, but it was to try to find a way to restore peace and order from the disorder which his Government, by their policy, had created. The same thing will happen again if this Bill is rejected. Let there be no mistake; the men who fought coercion in those days, and who stood up both inside this House and outside it against coercion, will not be afraid to do the same again if by the action of the House of Lords the present beneficent action of this Government is destroyed. I do not personally want disorder or turmoil if it can be avoided. Here you have without any loss to these Noble Lords, or ignoble Lords, the full value of their land offered to them in bright golden sovereigns. And, after the experience of the last 25 years, these people are still so difficult to teach, that both by innuendo and insinuation and by direct statement the House of Lords are invited to destroy this Bill and plunge Ireland into more trouble. If they wish to do so, let them; but I tell these Gentlemen and their representatives that if they refuse to accept the olive branch which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary holds out to them, and if their Noble Friends across the Lobby reject this Bill and refuse to give some chance to our poor country, then upon their heads be the responsibility. If they do so, then as long as my voice is raised in politics, and so long as I occupy a seat in this House, and so long as I have a chance of influencing my countrymen, I shall do all that in me lies to endeavour to make the future of British rule in Ireland as impossible as ever it was in the past.

Captain CLIVE

The hon. Member who has just spoken has proclaimed himself an advocate of the cause of the landless man. I wonder what will happen in the next generation, suppose the case of the landless man is taken up and satisfied in this generation. We have heard there is not enough land to go round. There may be sufficient for these men now, but the land of Ireland, like other land, is inexpansive, and you cannot go on satisfying the sons of farmers for ever. If you did you would soon return to the same state of things that existed in Ireland at the time of the famine. As regards this Bill it seems to me that at a time when the business of Parliament has brought us into the middle of September there is no excuse whatever for pressing forward a large portion of it. One thing which is urgent is the relief of the financial congestion which has arisen in connection with the carrying out of the provisions of the Act of 1903. There is a block in land purchase. Agreements have been entered into for the transfer of about £56,000,000 worth of land, but no money has been forthcoming, and consequently there is necessity for the readjustment of the financial regulations of the Act of 1903. This Bill does very little to relieve these defects, and does very little to accelerate the settlement of the £56,000,000 of sales agreed upon. The financial proposal in this Bill, by which the landlord is to accept Land Stock, will prove very unacceptable. If it should prove more acceptable than some of us think it will, it will be injurious in another way. The landlords who accept Land Stock will be bound to put it into the market, with the result that Land Stock will be further depreciated, and greater losses still will result from flotation, and less, money than ever will be available in the future for land purchase.

There is absolutely no urgency for the compulsory powers and for the Congested Districts proposals in this Bill. As regards these compulsory purchases, in no country but Ireland could such a. proposal be seriously made. The only cause of the difficulties that have arisen is not any indisposition on the part of the landlords and the tenants to come together, but the want of money to enable the transactions to be completed. The present voluntary purchase transactions have already got seven or eight years ahead, and what possible reason can there be in these circumstances for introducing and forcing through the House under the guillotine at this period of the Session these compulsory powers?

As regards the Congested Districts Board, one hon. Member bore eloquent testimony to the work which the Leader of the Opposition did in instituting that Beard. We have had from all parts of the House testimony to the good work it has done, and certainly no case has been made out in the latter part of September for introducing a proposal for entirely revolutionising the work of that Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Butcher) said rightly that the policy which we ought to bear in mind as regards the Congested Districts Board is that their work should be only temporary and no part of Ireland should be required for ever to be spoon-fed. It may be necessary that there should be a complete readjustment of the conditions in some parts; of Ireland, and that may be justifiable; but the final method of governing those parts should be more the method adopted by Sir Horace Plunkett and the Board of Agriculture in Ireland than that of making permanent the work of the Congested Districts Board. I cannot see that this Bill is going to do anything as regards the important question of removing the block of £56,000,000 which exists in Ireland. I do not think anything has been said as to the hardships under which landlords are suffering whose property is still waiting completion of sale. I will give the figures of one property with which I am acquainted. The immediate result to this particular landlord of selling is that his net income has been reduced by 28½ per cent., while the results to the tenants is an immediate reduction in their rents of 19½ per cent., which will be increased as soon as the purchase is completed. The estate I allude to has no mortgage on it, but in the cases which have mortgages on them the difference will be all the greater. The effect of this policy is that those landlords who have not sold are still enjoying the same income under second term rents as they enjoyed before, whilst their tenants are not getting the benefit of the Purchase Acts. I suggested a method of dealing with this difficulty in a clause which I put on the Paper providing for the payment of the bonus immediately the sale agreements had been completed. That would have relieved the landlords of this injustice, and it would have had the effect of stimulating future sales, because there is no doubt that sales at this moment are not going ahead as they ought to do, because landlords may not face the absolutely uncertain interval during which they would have to wait before the payment of the purchase money. This seems to me one of the urgent matters which ought to have been dealt with under this Bill, and which has not been dealt with. It is one of those things which it is wholly impossible under the guillotine to bring forward. The mere fact that the Bill has been so drastically guillotined that on the Report stage not one single clause has had one word of discussion affords ample reason for its summary treatment in another place.

Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM

I think it is necessary for me to take some notice, however brief, of the speech made by the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. Farrell); but, for the purpose of the argument I wish to address to the House, it will be sufficient for me to make two, and only two, remarks on that speech. The first is that the view enunciated by the hon. Member on behalf of what, for the sake of brevity, I will call the landless men, cannot be reconciled with the views declared by the Chief Secretary, or by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), or the views which have come from other Nationalist Members sitting below the Gangway. The second is that the Bill of the Chief Secretary, as it is drawn, covers the policy of the hon. Member for North Longford as completely as and even more clearly than it interprets his own. I shall be guilty of no disparagement to the Chief Secretary—and I am sure he will agree with me—if I express my opinion that by far the most interesting contribution made to our Debate to-day by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who means to vote for the third reading of this Bill is to be found in the concluding remarks of the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. I find much of interest not only in what he says, but also in the quarter to which he addressed his remarks. The Chief Secretary has been twitted with having made, a belated second reading speech. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford made a premature speech. It would have been more germane, perhaps, to the matter in hand if it had been delivered when we were considering the Lords' Amendments. He said he was prepared to go any length towards a compromise that was compatible with his principles. If he goes any length, however short, towards a compromise, it will not be this Bill, and what we have to consider to-day is this Bill in this House, and not another Bill in another place. We stated our objections to this Bill in March last. I may say we re-stated them, because this Bill is almost identical with the Bill introduced last year. We were, in some of our objections—speaking, as I do, for the regular Opposition—happy to find ourselves in harmony with hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, but none of the objections, either those on which there was a unanimity of opinion or those on which opinion was divided, have been met. We have made three grave objections to the Bill. The first objection has been, and will be, that it does not deal adequately with pending agreements. I need not labour that point. Anybody who was fortunate enough to hear the impressive and unanswerable speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) will agree that I should be wasting the little time at our disposal if I said another word on that point. It is true the hon. Member for Waterford en deavoured to make the best case he could upon the other side—

Mr. BIRRELL

But for this Bill they would not get a penny.

Mr. WYNDHAM

On the contrary. The hon. Member joined my right hon. Friend in expressing regret that the question as to the price of stock—put at 92—had not received consideration, and he even uttered the hope—it seemed to me a somewhat desperate hope—that by some alteration of the Constitution that financial question might still be reconsidered. We live in days when politicians of a certain type think very lightly of making fundamental alterations in the Constitution. But, for my part, I cannot help abiding by the older and more constitutional view, and if the Government were really prepared to deal in a more adequate manner with this blot of pending agreements they should have come down to the House and done so under the ordinary Rules of procedure which govern Debate in this house. Our second grave objection, which has not been met, is that the provisions of this Bill place almost prohibitive conditions upon future agreements for purchase. My right hon. Friend stated that point and I need not restate it. But I was a little surprised not to hear more from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on the point that in all future agreements the purchasing tenant will have to pay 3½ per cent, instead of 3¼ per cent, for the advance he receives. I daresay at the beginning of this year it may have been felt by some hon. Members below the Gangway that the mere appearance of the blessed word "compulsion" would fill the Irish tenant with such joy, that although he received no benefit, and might on the contrary, sustain great injury from the compulsory clause he would be prepared to pay £3 10s. instead of £3 5s. in the way of interest. If that opinion were ever entertained it must be dispelled by now.

The purchasing tenant in Ireland sees no reason why he should pay this greater sum, and I believe the great majority of those tenants in Ireland hold a like opinion, and will resent priority being given by compulsion to others when they are denied the terms on which purchase was agreed upon in this House years ago. My conclusion is this, and it is the conclusion we arrived at in March, that if Part I. of this Bill dealing with the blot, as it is called, on. future purchase stood alone, it would have satisfactory results. But a departure has been made from the agreement come to two years ago, so far as the financial side of the problem is concerned. We then fought the matter out. I think I may rest content with the arguments and figures I then adduced; no doubt the Chief Secretary will rest content with those he advanced. But from his point of view I am incorrigible in this matter, and from my point of view he is equally incorrigible. The reasons he puts forward seem to be bad. One is that a higher price has been paid than was expected. My reply is that the average price which has been paid is the expected price. As to the reasons not given, hidden or veiled, they are worse. One is that the Chief Secretary contemplates buying out every acre of un-tenanted land in Ireland that comes under the widest possible description that can be given of "untenanted land." Moor and bog land, grass land, the land right down to the shingle on the beach, will have to be bought if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman is to stand. I am not led by the right hon. Gentleman's financial argument to the belief that it is wise to abandon an act of policy—not of finance—which all parties in the House agreed to, because as I admit it is far more difficult to carry out that policy now than it was at the time it was initiated. Voluntary purchase by Part I. of this Bill has been handicapped, and there is a reversion to the two difficulties which prevailed prior to the year 1903. It must arrest voluntary purchase in Ireland, as there is the reversion to less financial aid and to more opportunities of litigation. That will apply to Part I; and in Part II., this Clause 14 if it does not abolish the zones, it certainly invites all the litigation which under the zones had ceased. Under Clause 20 all those dry and academic questions as to the value of the tenants' improvements and the inherent capabilities of the soil that we tried to get rid of by the Act of 1903 are all to be brought back. On the second reading I pointed out that Clause 22 had brought back all those evils which rendered rent-fixing a curse instead of a blessing, and the Chief Secretary intervened and said, "if you want to strengthen the precautions against unnecessary litigation we are perfectly prepared to consider the matter." Has that been considered? The Clause has never been discussed. There has been no discussion as to whether financial aid is adequate or whether the large importation of opportunities for litigation has not been of such a character as to import another grave handicap which will wound, and which may perhaps kill, voluntary purchase.

If Part I. of this Bill stood alone we pointed out that the Government are under this measure starting a new policy which must, in our deliberate opinion, compete with the old policy, whether in respect of the abolition of dual ownership or in respect to the proper, speedy, and legitimate cure of congestion, where congestion exists. After handicapping voluntary purchase by withdrawing financial assistance and bringing in litigation, you bring in a competitor, and while you handicap voluntary purchase you give to compulsory purchase the immediate attention of your staff, and pay cash instead of stock. That is not a fair competition, and those who watch it as it is set up cannot be accused of rashness if they say they know which horse the Government will back. Even the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who is such a passionate and sincere advocate of compulsion—even he has seen that the compulsion of this Bill has been framed in a form which must prove detrimental to voluntary purchase, and it has occurred to him that there ought to be no bonus for compulsory purchase. Of course, that is absurd, but it does make good my argument that the hon. Member sees that in this competition only one competitor can prevail. Why is compulsion brought in and started? Not because voluntary purchase has failed in any general sense. I doubt whether any case can be made, and I assert no case can be made for saying that voluntary purchase has failed in particular instances. I read the other day an article in a paper which is usually found to be in conformity with the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon)—the "Freeman's Journal"—reciting the cases in which the Estates Commissioners have offered sums of money to landlords for their estates. The conclusion was that the percentage of cases in which the landlord had not accepted the money offered by the Estates Commissioners was a very low one—I think only 3 per cent. Upon the case that voluntary purchase, as a general rule, as a success no argument is made, but we are told that there are particular cases where voluntary arrangements fail, and that those cases are so important that they ought to have special attention. If in those cases you can deal with 97 out of every 100, why are the three with which you cannot deal to be given priority over the rights of all the landlords and all the tenants in Ireland whose needs are just as great? For the life of me I cannot understand. We object to compulsion because it is a dangerous competitor to voluntary purchase, and if there is to be compulsion it ought at any rate to be defended by argument. The only argument that we have had is that there are some particular cases which can only be dealt with by compulsory enactment. Why do you not cite those cases? Why do you not legislate for those cases from your point of view? I said last night that the Government must continue to fail, as they failed conspicuously yesterday, to draw any clause which made sense if they attempted to define untenanted land, and I said, "If your views are what they are you can only proceed with any hope of success by laying down quite clearly by legislation what it is that you want to do and when you think yourselves entitled to do it." I gathered from the Chief Secretary that that was what was in his mind. I asked him why he had not put it into his Bill. I venture now to give a reason why, if that is in his mind, it would have been better to put it into the Bill. It is that what is in the mind of the Chief Secretary is not in the mind of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

We have had every shade of opinion upon this question, from the speech of the hon. Member for Longford up to the disclaimers of the Attorney-General, who says, "When I say you may buy any land and soil it to any person, I do not mean that, bless your soul. I mean that you are to give it to a farmer's son here and there. Dismiss the apprehension that the Bill means what we mean. We mean what we say." I ask you to print it in the Bill, because what you mean and what you say in. this House is not what is said, and certainly not what is meant in certain parts of Ireland. The Bill covers all these views, however extravagant. It covers an obligation which is general. What is the use of our debating about compulsion in the abstract or whether in certain concrete cases compulsion may be permissible or even laudable? This is not the Bill before us. The Bill before us erects a general machinery for expropriation of landlord and of tenant applicable to any land at the instance of any person throughout the whole of Ireland. It does what Clause 40 says, and that is a monstrous proposal, and that is the only proposal before us now on the third reading, when we have consistently since March, and even in the autumn of last year, said any such proposal was not only novel in the legislation of this country, but unknown in the legislation of any country in any age. There is not a word of qualification or defence to be found from one end of the Bill to the other. The view that the Bill does mean that, can be defended by anyone who will read it, and that view is confirmed by the financial estimate of future purchase which the Chief Secretary has laid before the House, because unless he does contemplate buying all the land to be found anywhere under any circumstances and reselling it over again, he can not arrive at that figure.

Now, I ask, who is going to win in the scramble? Who is going to capture the machinery which has been erected? Who is going to get hold of the lever? Not the congests. Those who know the congests of Ireland know that they are underfed and ignorant, and that they are hardly aware that there is a Chief Secretary. I remember driving with a party through a congested village and an old lady who ran out of her house said she thought we were Americans. She was expecting the return of some relations from the other side of the Atlantic, and when she found that we were not Americans her interest in the Chief Secretary and the Congested Districts Board completely vanished. The downtrodden congests are not the people who will be able to put their hand on the lever. Even if you put compulsion at the disposal of the congest he is unwilling to move. He fears taking a larger holding than he has already. It is only by paternal and loving care that you can get the congests to move. This race will be a quick race, and the pace of the congest is slow. It has been said it would be better to have an economic change in Irish farming—that there should be some form of mixed farming. Of all things that are slow to change the agricultural habits of a people are the slowest of any recorded in the history of economics. The man who will win in this scramble—I wish to avoid the use of any offensive word—is the smartest man, and the smartest man is what I would call the orthodox grabber— the man who takes land in accordance with the prevailing view, or even the temporary view, of the agrarian millennium. He takes the view which may prevail among Irish farmers. He is, to use the words of St. Paul, "all things to all men." He coquettes with al) men in turn. He coquettes with one set so long as their opinions prevail, and then, when the Old Guard have gone, he coquettes with another. I remember that 22 years ago the battle was over the leaseholders and the large farmers. Anybody then who would not tear up leases was an enemy of the Irish people. These were the views of Mr. Parnell, but they are not the views of the present Irish party. Now we are told by some it is the small farmer, or the son of the small farmer, and we are told by others in the vigorous and passionate invective of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Farrell) that it is not the farmer at all.

That constitutes the fundamental case against the compulsory powers in this Bill. They are bad in their structure; they are so wide that I doubt whether they are capable of amendment. On that I pronounce no opinion. Having stated our views and the fundamental objections to the Bill, I will not delay the House repeating arguments used by others against the constitution of the Congested Districts Board. But I will ask the Government this question: Why do they think, if three gentlemen can carry out land purchase over two-thirds of Ireland, that it requires 19 gentlemen to carry out land purchase over the remaining one-third of Ireland? And I ask this further question: Will they ask the three Estates Commissioners if they think their operations would be assisted by the aid of 16 gentlemen to help them in carrying out the difficult task that they have before them? This policy is really an indefensible policy. If you are going to carry out land purchase, even if you are going to add compulsory provisions to land purchase, you must act through competent officials responsible to a Minister who is responsible to this House, and those officials must carry out the law which you have laid down, and afterwards it must be open to us to say that the law has not been carried out. With these precautions the matter might be arguable, though even if it were argued and good reasons were adduced on those lines we should still be forced to say that none of our objections had been met, that this Bill does not give adequate facilities for removing the block of pending agreements—in that all Irish Members concur—and that we object to compulsion not in the abstract but as competing with the voluntary purchase which has succeeded, and we say that for such a form of compulsion as is to be found in your Bill there is no defence, and no defence has been made, and that with it the Bill in this House must go by default.

Mr. CHERRY

I heard with very great regret, and I think every Member from Ireland and every Irishman in this House must have heard with very great regret the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He referred, as the House may recollect, to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond). My hon. and learned Friend in a very strong statement said that he was prepared to go any length towards compromise in order to secure, if possible, some satisfactory settlement of this agrarian problem which is before us now, as it has been before us for the last 30 years. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman with great power—I do not know whether he was speaking for himself alone or was speaking for his party—distinctly repelled the advance towards compromise made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. WYNDHAM

I did nothing of the kind. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to quote me I would prefer that he would use my words: if there was any approach towards compromise it would not be on this Bill.

Mr. CHERRY

I must protest against this interruption. I will repeat it again and again that the right hon. Gentleman repelled the approach to a compromise. If there is to be a compromise everyone knows it must be a compromise on this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "In this House? "] I did not say in this House. I was not referring to that. I repeat again that the approach towards compromise made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has been repelled. It was stated that compromise must not be upon this Bill. What does that mean? Do not we know that this must, and can, only mean that this Bill is to be rejected in another place, and that if we cannot have a compromise on this Bill this Bill must go? If this Bill be rejected, where is the opportunity for compromise? We know how difficult it is to secure time for Irish measures, and it will be almost impossible to find any time next Session, even if we were desirous of doing so, to introduce another Bill on the subject. We are told that there is to be no compromise on this Bill.

Mr. WYNDHAM

If the hon. and learned Gentleman appeals to me, that is not what I said. It is not an interpretation which my words will bear. In this House I was speaking against this Bill, and it is this Bill that we reject.

Mr. CHERRY

The right hon. Gentleman has put it in a very different way. He is not dealing with the other House, but only with this House, but he has rejected compromise in this House. We have passed the Committee and Report stages, and we are now on the third reading, and it is at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to take up time by saying there is no room for compromise. Of course not, on the third reading, the statement was a mere platitude. What the ultimate fate of this Bill may be in another place I do not know; but, if it be rejected, the responsibility will rest with those who take action. We put this Bill forward as our solution of the agrarian difficulty in Ireland, and as being necessary for the settlement of the agrarian dispute. If it does not pass into law, I repeat that the responsibility for the consequences which will follow in Ireland during the coming winter must rest with those who advise its rejection. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three main objections to the Bill. One was that it does not deal with pending agreements. Why is it necessary to deal with pending agreements at all? We have been told again and again in the course of these Debates that the Act of 1903 was absolutely perfect. If it was so perfect, why is it necessary to deal with those agreements? The only necessity for dealing with the subject at all is owing to the complete breakdown of the financial provisions of the Act passed in 1903. His second objection was to the provisions as regards mutual agreements on the ground that the annuity rate is raised to 3½ per cent. Where is the money to come from if it is to be left at 3¼ per cent.? Hon. Members opposite are keen in asking for this and for that, or for a "Dreadnought" to be built, but when they are asked where the money is to come from there is not to be a tax on land, on liquor, on licences, or on motor cars. Yet where is the money to come from? It is absolutely necessary, owing to the present state of the market, that the rate should be raised if these agreements are to go through. We have only raised the rate because necessity compelled it. In regard to the third point, that compulsion is not necessary, again and again my right hon. Friend and myself have stated what was the reason of the necessity for compulsion. We are asked, What is the necessity? The answer is simple. It is that sales take place in the wrong parts of the country and among the wrong classes of people. They take place among the rich owners in the East of Ireland, who sell willingly to rich and prosperous tenants. But when we come to the West of Ireland, to the congested districts and places where poor tenants have bog holdings and bad land, there the system has broken down.

It is because it is necessary to extend the system of land purchase in parts of the country where it has failed at present that compulsion is necessary. Compulsion is not necessary in the parts of the country which are rich and prosperous. We know the whole of the county Wexford has been bought and a great portion of Kildare and a great many of the Ulster counties, but when we go west past the Shannon there you find the difficulty arises, and you find large tracts of grazing land which have not been put at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners, and will not be placed at their disposal voluntarily—it is for those compulsion is required, where the landlords have refused to sell—or at a reasonable price. As regards the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), the right hon. Gentleman delivered a very powerful attack on the Government, and immediately after he had delivered his speech he walked out of the House. He did not wait to hear the reply made by the Government or by any person to the remarks he had made. I think really hon. Members might listen to me a little more. There are constant interruptions and interjections from hon. Members on that side on the back Benches and on the Front Benches also.

Mr. WALTER LONG

I rise to a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has charged the Front Bench with making offensive interruptions which have reached him, and which, I presume, have reached the Chair, but with regard to which there has been no reproach. We are quite innocent of having made those offensive remarks.

Mr. SPEAKER

I did not catch any offensive interruptions. There is not much time now left, so I hope the Debate may proceed without any interruptions, offensive or otherwise.

Mr. WALTER LONG

There have been no interruptions at all.

Mr. CHERRY

I distinctly heard a very offensive interruption in the last few minutes. I will not refer to the question again. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) devoted the greater part of his speech to discussing the question of what is commonly called the guillotine resolution. He said that inadequate time had been allowed for the discussion of this Bill. He said that only ten clauses had been discussed in Committee. If he is right in his statement I presume that in the eight days each of those clauses was properly and amply discussed, so that for the seventy clauses you would require eleven weeks of Parliamentary time to discuss the Committee stage of this Bill. He considers that is necessary. Is it suggested all that time should be given; and if it is what is to become of all English legislation? If it is given it must be that the whole time of Parliament is to be given to the discussion of the Irish land question. Then he went on to make a more serious charge against the Government, dealing with the apportioned time. He said we had in dealing with the time deliberately apportioned the clauses in such a way as to prevent the more important clauses from being discussed. That was a very serious charge to make, and I have no hesitation in saying that that charge is absolutely without foundation. We apportioned the clauses as much as possible to allow full and adequate discussion on every important clause. He said that the subject of compulsory purchase was not discussed at all. He mentioned that on one of the appointed days the last clause set down for discussion dealt with the subject of compulsory purchase. That is quite true. But he did not mention that there were scattered through the Bill six or seven clauses dealing with that subject.

Mr. MOORE

On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when we came to Committee we were not allowed to discuss the question of compulsion.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. CHERRY

The two most important clauses dealing with the subject of compulsion are Clauses 61 and 62. They deal with the lands which are the subject of compulsion, those which are included, and those which are excluded; they deal with the machinery for acquiring those lands, with the important subject of fixing the price, and with appeals. We carefully arranged that those Clauses should be the first two put down for discussion on one of the allotted days. On the seventh allotted day, which was not a Friday, but a Thursday, those Clauses were purported to be discussed the whole day, from four to eleven o'clock. How were they discussed? As a matter of fact, the whole discussion was on one Amendment. As it might be thought that that was a very important Amendment, I will remind the House what it was. The first Sub-section provides that in any case where the Estates Commissioners propose to acquire compulsorily any estate or untenanted land, they are to publish a notice in the "Dublin Gazette." If there is anything the House would be agreed upon, I should think it would be that. It was an unimportant Sub-section in every respect, and one in regard to which one would have thought it impossible for there to be any difference of opinion. The sole Amendment moved was to leave out "any estate or," the only effect of which would have been to prevent a notice being published in the "Dublin Gazette" when the Estates Commissioners proposed to acquire an estate, while still requiring it to be done in the case of untenanted land.

Mr. WYNDHAM

And yet you discussed the same point yesterday, and said you could not arrive at a conclusion upon it.

Mr. CHERRY

During the whole day this utterly unimportant and frivolous Amendment was discussed, and at the end the Mover applied for leave to withdraw it. During the whole seven hours not a single word was said about any of the important matters dealt with in those clauses. Therefore, I say deliberately that if the subject of compulsory purchase was not discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, it was entirely due to Members of the Opposition, and not to the Government. That precedent was followed on other days. On almost every day a frivolous Amendment was moved at the opening of the proceedings, and the discussion continued on it during the greater part of the day. If the Bill has not been discussed, it is not the fault of the Government. We allowed ample time for its discussion. The Bill' is now going to another place. I hope hon. Members will recollect when the time comes as to how many days are taken for consideration in Committee in another place. I hope if it turns out when this Bill goes to another place, and is "adequately and fully" discussed, it may be in three or four days in Committee, it will not again be said, when it comes back here, that sufficient time has not been allowed here for discussion.

Mr. JOHN DILLON

It is impossible, in the few moments left, to go into details in the matter or to attempt to reply to the speeches which have been made from those Benches. Taking the situation now in force this Bill is by universal admission, taking one aspect of the Bill alone, the first serious attempt that has been made to deal with the congested problem in the West of Ireland and in other parts of Ireland by any English Government—the first attempt made to apply an effective remedy on a large scale to that problem which has been the source and root and origin of all the land wars in Ireland. I ask the attention of those Benches to the fact that in all the long, dreary succession of speeches which have come from those benches; fastening upon minute and pitiful Amendments, for—as the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has truly said—the purpose of wasting time, and to prevent discussion of the real issue—not one single Member on those Benches has attempted to propose any alternative method of dealing with these problems. There has not come from the Opposition Benches one practical alternative proposal to this Bill. If this Bill were to be rejected or mutilated—and let hon. Members recollect that the mutilation of this Bill in another House means the rejection of the Bill—it is abundantly manifest that those Gentlemen on the Unionist Benches have no remedy to propose. They talk about this Bill interfering with the progress of land purchase. This Bill makes land purchase possible in Ireland, whether it be west of the Shannon, in the poverty-stricken districts who are sick with waiting and sick of repeated promises made by this House, and broken, or whether it be in the more prosperous, in the South and the North of Ireland. If this Bill is thrown out, either by rejection on the second reading or mutilation in Committee in the House of Lords, land purchase will stop in Ireland, because the ratepayers in Ireland will not tolerate a continuance of land purchase in such a form as to pile on their shoulders an intolerable burden. When the right hon. Member for Dover talks about the Government assuming the responsibility of obstructing land purchase and tearing up his settlement, I tell him that the present crisis has arisen solely from the total breakdown of his Act in its financial arrangements, and that unless the remedy is applied land purchase must come to a stop. With these few words I most heartily recommend this Bill to the adoption of the House.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 51.

Division No. 681.]	AYES.	[5.0 p.m.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Alden, Percy	Harrington, Timothy	Nolan, Joseph
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hart-Davies, T.	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Ambrose, Robert	Haworth, Arthur A.	Nuttall, Harry
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Hazleton, Richard	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)
Barnard, E. B.	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Beauchamp, E.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Doherty, Philip
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Hodge, John	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hogan, Michael	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Boland, John	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Dowd, John
Boulton, A. C. F.	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Jackson, R. S.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, M.)
Branch, James	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Malley, William
Brodle, H. C.	Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Joyce, Michael	O'Shee, James John
Bryce, J. Annan	Kavanagh, Walter M.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Keating, M.	Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Kekewich, Sir George	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Power, Patrick Joseph
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Kilbride, Denis	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Radford, G. H.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Laidlaw, Robert	Rainy, A. Rolland
Clancy, John Joseph	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Reddy, M.
Cleland, J. W.	Lamont, Norman	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Clough, William	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, William (Clare)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cooper, G. J.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lundon, T.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Crean, Eugene	Lupton, Arnold	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Crosfield, A. H.	Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Cullinan, J.	Lynch, H. B.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Dalziel, Sir James Henry	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Scanlan, Thomas
Delany, William	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dillon, John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	M'Kean, John	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Erskine, David C.	M'Micking, Major G.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Everett, R. Lacey	Mallet, Charles E.	Snowden, P.
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Soares, Ernest J.
Farrell, James Patrick	Marnham, F. J.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Ffrench, Peter	Masterman, C. F. G.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Field, William	Meagher, Michael	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Waring, Walter
Flynn, James Christopher	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Menzies, Sir Walter	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Gilhooly, James	Mooney, J. J.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Ginnell, L.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Young, Samuel
Glendinning, R. G.	Muldoon, John
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Murnaghan, George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Norton and Sir E. Strachey.
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gardner, Ernest
Balcarres, Lord	Clark, George Smith	Gordon, J.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Clive, Percy Archer	Gretton, John
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Haddock, George B.
Bull, Sir William James	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Craik, Sir Henry	Hill, Sir Clement
Carlile, E. Hildred	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.	Keswick, William
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William
Castlereagh, Viscount	Fell, Arthur	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Cecil, Lard R (Marylebone, E.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Renton, Leslie
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Moore, William	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Morpeth, Viscount	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lowe, Sir Francis William	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount
M'Arthur, Charles	Percy, Earl	Valentia and Marquess of Hamilton.

Resolution agreed to.