§ Amendments reported (according to order.
§ Drafting Amendment in Clause 1 agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF MAYO moved an Amendment to limit the evicted tenants to be reinstated to those whom the Commissioners should approve "before 1st November, 1907." The reasons for this he had stated in Committee. He was aware that the number of tenants to be dealt with had been limited to 2,000, but he thought it would considerably help the Commissioners in settling this matter if the Amendment were adopted. He was quite ready to put the date further back, and if the noble Earl the Lord President would accept 31st December, 1907, he would substitute that date for the date in the Amendment. They desired to see some finality in the matter, and the longer the operations under this Bill were extended the greater would be the drag on the working of the Act of 1903, as a great many of the officials who ought to be dealing with that Act would be engaged in transactions connected with the restoration of the evicted tenants. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would accept some such limit as that proposed.
In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'considered,' and to insert the words 'have prior to the first day of November one thousand nine hundred and seven determined.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
§ * THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)
I hope noble Lords opposite will not press this Amendment. The noble Lord at a later part of the Bill has put an Amendment on the Paper limiting the time during which the Act should be in operation. We are not prepared to accept that Amendment as he has moved it, but we are prepared to set a limit to the operation of the Bill. Noble Lords have already inserted in the Bill a limit of numbers, and I should have thought that this would show that the duration of the Bill could only be for a limited time. The House may remember that when this matter was raised before, I pointed out that in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, they could not be absolutely 1516 certain, if this particular kind of limitation to individuals was inserted in the Bill, that there might not be a few hard cases with which they might not be able to deal in a given time. That is a state of things which they naturally do not contemplete with pleasure. I really think the limitation already inserted by the Committee, and the further limitation to which we are prepared to agree as regards the operation of the Bill, are a sufficient guarantee that the matter will be dealt with without delay. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I fully recognise the desire he has shown to meet us by putting the date somewhat further back, but, in spite of this, for which I thank him, I trust he will not press the Amendment.
§ LORD BARRYMORE
expressed his regret that the noble Earl was unable to accept the Amendment. This Bill had been brought in to settle, and to settle quickly, what was supposed to be a burning question. Surely it was in the interest of the Government, of the Commissioners, and of everybody concerned to get the matter settled as quickly as possible. The Chief Secretary in another place said on the Third Reading that the Government bad ascertained the dimensions of the problem and knew the acreage that would be required, and the only question was whether they ought to apply compulsion. He hoped the noble Earl would reconsider the matter.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I only wish to say that I take note of the Lord President's suggestion that we should rely upon the limit of numbers which has already been inserted in Clause 2. I interpret the noble Earl's words as an indication that we may look to the support of His Majesty's Government for the retention of that particular limit.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
Perhaps I ought to explain. I expressed a preference, as the noble Marquess will remember, for a limit of area. The Committee, however, had an equally strong preference, on which they pronounced by vote, for a limit of numbers. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in arriving at an agreement on that matter. I personally still think that a limit of numbers is a somewhat dangerous one, but it certainly 1517 is not a matter upon which His Majesty's Government would insist beyond a certain point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
had an Amendment on the Paper to amend Subsection (3) of Clause 1, by inserting after the words—No tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Act applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district"—the words—other than any boycotting or intimidation directed against the owner or occupier of such land, and which has not been caused by reprehensible conduct on his part subsequent, in the case of the owner, to the last eviction of such land, or in the case of a new tenant, subsequent to the commencement of his tenancy.He explained that he did not propose to move this Amendment as the drafting was not considered quite satisfactory. His next Amendment, however, adopted the words used in Committee by the noble Earl the Lord President, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. The object of the Amendment was to substitute for the words "the cost involved" the words "the cost of acquiring the land, including the cost of compensating the tenant thereof (if any)."
In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'involved' and to insert the words 'of acquiring the land, including the cost of compensating the tenant thereof (if any).'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
said the Government had given no pledge as to the words. They merely explained the effect of the word "involved." The Government were unable to accept the words which the noble Earl desired to insert, chiefly because of an insuperable objection to the drafting. It was inaccurate to describe the cost of "acquiring" the land as including the cost of compensating the tenant.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said he withdrew his Amendment on the former occasion on the understanding that the Government appreciated their 1518 objection to the word "involved." The word "involved" could cover the cost of police protection.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
The question is purely one of interpretation. We are advised that the words "the cost involved" can only include three things—the cost of purchasing the land, of compensating the new tenant who goes out, and of equipping the holding for the tenant who succeeds. Therefore we consider the word "involved" sufficient.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ *LORD EVERSLEY moved to modify the proviso inserted in Clause 1 in Committee, on the motion of Lord Robertson, that planters who had purchased under the Act of 1903 or were bona fide tenants cultivating their lands as ordinary farmers should not be compulsorily disturbed, by inserting the limiting words, "except under special circumstances and with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant." The object of his Amendment was, he said, to insert the compromise which the noble Earl the Lord President proposed in Committee on the Amendment moved by Lord Robertson. The noble Earl admitted that as a general rule a man who had been in occupation as a bona fide tenant, cultivating the farm in a proper way, should not be subject to compulsory removal; but at the same time he stated that there were exceptional cases where, in the interests of the peace of the district, it might be necessary to remove the planters with a view to reinstating the evicted tenants. Lord Robertson and other speakers on that side of the House had somewhat exaggerated the character and the motives of the planters. He had said that the planters were induced by public spirit to take up holdings on the Plan of Campaign estates, that they had answered the appeal made by the Government, and that they were a meritorious and well-to do class.1519
§ * LORD EVERSLEY
said he did not think he had unfairly stated the general effect of what was said by speakers in the debate on Lord Robertson's Amendment. He did not mean to attribute this entirely to the noble Lord. But there was another view of these men. It was said that these were men of no substance, who were tempted to take farms on the Campaign estates not for public motives, but for purposes of gain. Very large offers were made to them to induce them to do so. Their rents were to be much less than those of the tenants who had been evicted. They were given, as a gift, the tenant-right in their holding, which was often equal to the value of the landlord's interest, and they received considerable sums from the Derelict Farms Association for the purpose of stocking their holdings. Many of these planters were not genuine farmers at all; they were nondescripts of various kinds. He spoke from experience, because he visited, many years ago, two of the Campaign estates in the possession of planters and inquired into their condition. He interviewed many of the planters, one of whom was in occupation of no fewer than 20 farms.
§ * LORD EVERSLEY,
continuing, said that one planter whom he intervened occupied no fewer than twenty of the evicted farms, the extent of which was 900 acres and the rent £370 a year, which was 30 per cent.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
was sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this was no part of the Bill. These two estates had been settled and the evicted tenants restored a long time ago.
§ * LORD EVERSLEY
said he was merely taking this as an illustration of what the planters generally were. His impression, on visiting the estates, was that the planters as a rule were not substantial people. It was true that arrangements had been come to between the owners and the Estates Commissioners, and that the tenants on the greater number of these estates had been reinstated; but there remained two Plan of Campaign estates in respect of which no arrangement had been made—the Lewis and the Clanricarde estates. He understood that there were thirty-five tenants evicted from the Lewis estate, the owner of which had since leased the whole of the estate to her two sons, who were now in possession and carrying on the farms in a bona fide way. If the Bill had passed in its original form the only difficulty, in effecting an arrangement between the Estates Commissioners and the owner, which had been that of price would be removed. The owner and her sons were quite ready to sell and to make way for the evicted tenants, but the price they asked was excessive, and the Estate Commissioners had not thought it right to agree to it. If the Bill had passed in its original form the evicted tenants could have been reinstated on the payment of a reasonable price under compulsory purchase instead of the excessive price asked. But under the clause as it had been amended it would not be possible to deal otherwise than by agreement with the two tenants. They would have a veto on the transaction just as they now had, and therefore the Bill would have no effect in that case. He thought their Lordships would be of opinion that if these thirty-five tenants were to be reinstated, it was better that they should be reinstated upon the estate in which their former holdings were comprised rather than upon other land purchased compulsorily from some other landlord. The Clanricarde estate was of a similar type with this difference, that the owner in that case had never been willing to sell to the Estates Commissioners. He did not wish to enter into any of the circumstances affecting that estate. He did not think it would be desirable to do so, but he thought most people would agree that it would have been better for the peace of the district and for the whole of Ireland if that estate had been expropriated twenty-five years ago; 1521 and no doubt if this Bill should pass in its original form it would be expropriated. On the Clanricarde estate there were 125 evicted tenants, whose places were taken by thirty-five planters, making one planter to every four farms. But there were many planters on the estate who had in their occupation eight or ten farms from which the tenants had been evicted, and the same difficulty might occur there as in the case of the Lewis estate—namely, that the tenants who were in possession might refuse their consent to sell, and under the clause as it now stood it would not be possible to apply compulsion to them, because he believed that in all cases it was admitted that the planters were now occupying the farms and cultivating them in the manner contemplated in Lord Robertson's Amendment. He thought their Lordships would also agree that in that case it was desirable that the tenants should be reinstated on the estate where they had their former holdings. There were something like 1,800 other cases of evicted tenants not connected with Campaign estates which would come within the purview of the Bill, and it was in respect of those cases that his noble friend had said there might, and probably would, be some exceptional cases in which it might be desirable to apply compulsion.
By way of illustration he would quote a case which came under his own observation. A tenant was evicted from a farm—not on a Campaign estate—under circumstances which the people of the district considered to be harsh and unjustifiable. A meeting of the local branch of the Land League was held, and a neighbouring farmer, who, he believed, had a holding next to the one in question, moved that the farm should be boycotted and that any tenant taking the farm should be subject to the boycott. Not long after it was rumoured that this very man had gone behind the backs of his fellow farmers and taken a lease of the farm. He was summoned before the Land League and questioned, but he strongly denied the report. Later it was found that it was actually the case that he had taken a lease from the owner at a low rent in consideration of the farm being boycotted. Thereupon he was ejected from the League and himself subjected to the boycott as a 1522 planter, a sneak, and a liar. This man, finding that he was boycotted, came to terms with the police, and went about accompanied by the police to various shopkeepers in the adjoining town, and when refused supplies he prosecuted these men and got them sentenced to imprisonment for conspiracy to boycott. He need hardly say that a case of this kind caused considerable odium in the district. That man was for many years boycotted and was the cause of much disturbance. That was the kind of case which might have occurred in other parts of Ireland. There were cases where men had been boycotted in respect of evicted farms for no less than twenty years, and it was desirable, in the interests of the district, that there should be a compulsory withdrawal of these men and that the tenants should be reinstated. The object of the Amendment was to enable the Estates Commissioners, with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant, to apply compulsion in these very exceptional cases, but it would leave intact the provision that, as a general principle, if the planter were cultivating his land in a proper and reasonable way he should be left in possession. Their Lordships had gone a long way in admitting the principle of compulsion. They had admitted it in the case of the landlord, and it did not seem to him a very great step to extend it in some of these exceptional cases to tenancies.
In page 2, line 23, to insert, after the word 'manner,' the words 'except under special circumstances and with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
* LORD CLONBROCK,
referring to the Lewis estate, said that when the Mathew Commission was sitting, it was stated in the evidence that there were forty-six evicted tenants. Twelve were reinstated voluntarily before the Report of that Commission was issued, and twelve more had been reinstated since then, leaving twenty-two. Yet now it was announced that there were thirty-five of them to be restored. That showed the extraordinary way in which evicted tenants grew in number as time went on. So far from the sum asked for being exorbitant, the offer of the Estates Commissioners to Mrs. Lewis 1523 for the two farms held by her sons, which they refused to increase, amounted only to eighteen and-a-half years purchase on the rent, entirely leaving out the occupation interest; and eighteen and-a-half years purchase was three years less than the average years purchase of first term rents in the county of Galway. It could not be said that declining to accept such an offer was holding out for exorbitant terms. He could not speak of the Clanricarde property from personal knowledge, but he understood that the planters had worked their farms well and laid out money on them
hoped their Lordships would not be diverted by any of Lord Eversley's anecdotes from the terms of the Amendment, which would really do away with the whole effect of what they had already decided. The second of its remarkable qualifications was the more interesting from the events of the last few days. The consent of the Lord-Lieutenant was required—he presumed when the Lord-Lieutenant was not occupied with his Parliamentary duties. He could not suppose that even the most credulous would regard that as a very efficient protection. He would like to pay a tribute to his old Parliamentary colleague in the House of Commons, Lord Eversley; the generous sentiments that prevailed in that other place enabled him to say that there was no more diligent and successful discoverer of mares' nests.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I earnestly hope that the House will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it seemed to me to be under a slight misapprehension with regard to the manner in which compulsion can be applied under this Bill. He said, "You apply compulsion to the landowner, and why not also apply it to the tenant?" The Bill as it now stands does admit of compulsion being applied to the tenant. What we on this side say is that to the tenants coming within the particular category of bona fide tenants cultivating their farms in a proper manner compulsion should not be applied. That protection Lord Eversley desires to modify, but if the noble Lord is correct in his view of the character and antecedents of the planters to whom he 1524 has alluded, very few of them are likely to receive the protection which the Bill promises. The noble Lord has described them as men of no resource, nondescripts, people who had taken up cheap land for sordid reasons, and he applied that description to the planter generally, basing his statement upon personal experience derived from one of those voyages of discovery which the special commissioner and the amateur detective are so fond of making in Ireland, sometimes to discover those interesting objects which Lord Robertson has referred to. That description of the planter as a class is, I venture to say, a most unjust one. I do not say these men took their farms from motives of pure patriotism, but as a class they are industrious men desiring to pursue an honourable vocation. They took land which other tenants had thrown up, at a rent which other tenants had refused to pay, they cultivated the land, many of them with great success, and I am happy to say that many of them are established safely and beyond the reach of this Bill, having acquired their farms under the Act of 1903. But there are some who are not yet in that position, and to these we desire that this moderate measure of protection should be given.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, I need hardly say that I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend, because it is couched in precisely the terms which I suggested in Committee. My noble friend gave certain instances, which seemed to me of an extremely conclusive character, of what would probably be the result if this Amendment is not carried. Noble Lords opposite, I think, were quite right from their point of view in making no allusion to the particular instances named by my noble friend, because they would have found it exceedingly difficult, if they had attempted to examine them, to sustain the line of argument which they have adopted. What did my noble friend say? He alluded in the first instance to certain estates where, owing to the good sense of all the parties, matters have been amicably settled. But it is perfectly evident that as the Bill stands, without the words which my noble friend proposes to insert, no means would exist of settling the dispute by means of this Bill. It is to meet cases where all the parties do not show good sense in settling disputes that the Amendment is 1525 devised. It appears to me to be quite conclusive that there are a considerable number of cases which ought to be dealt with under this Bill, but which cannot be touched if the Bill remains as it is. I may say perhaps, in passing, that the phrase suggested, I think, by Lord Lansdowne does not seem to be the most fortunate that could have been used. If he had stated "according to the ordinary rules of good husbandry," or something of that kind, the term would have been more preferable than the rather remarkable adjective, new to me, which is found in the Bill. But that is a mere drafting criticism. What we do say is that it will be impossible for the Estates Commissioners to deal with the most difficult cases if the Bill stands as it is. My noble friend mentioned cases in which a whole number of evicted farms had been handed over to one imported planter. He might, and very probably would, come under the description "bona-fide tonant"; but if this question is to be settled, and we all agree it is to be settled, something must be done to meet the cases of those particular evicted tenants, and it will not be done unless the provision in the Bill is thus amended.
§ whether it would not be a negation of everything the Government proposed to do in other cases, if the evicted tenants on the Clanricarde estate were returned to their former holdings. He only knew of the case from public sources, but he understood that there were 160 evicted tenants, and the land they occupied was now held by forty-five tenants, the uneconomic holdings having been enlarged into economic holdings, and all the old landmarks having been obliterated. Was it conceivable that, because the Clanricarde estate had been before the public mind, it would be wise to remove those forty-five men who had been farming successfully, and put others in their place? When there was a Congested Districts Board working in one direction amalgamating holdings, were these men to be put out of their economic holdings because those who had been evicted wished to be put back in their old holdings? In citing this as an instance where it was necessary to go out of the ordinary course, the case for the protection of the planter had been made even stronger than it was before the noble Earl spoke.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 126.1527
|Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Airedale, L.||Headley, L.|
|Allendale, L.||Hemphill, L.|
|Crewe, E. (L. President.)||Castletown, L.||Herschell, L.|
|Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]||Lucas, L.|
|Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)||Courtney of Penwith, L.||Lyveden, L.|
|Denman, L. [Teller.]||Nunburnholme, L.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)||Saye and Sele, L.|
|Carrington, E.||Swaythling, L.|
|Kimberley, E.||Eversley, L.||Tweedmouth, L.|
|Fitzmaurice, L.||Weardale, L.|
|Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)||Haversham, L.||Welby, L.|
|Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)||Cawdor, E.||Malmesbury, E.|
|Argyll, D.||Clarendon, E.||Mansfield, E.|
|Bedford, D.||Cowley, E.||Manvers, E.|
|Richmond and Gordon, D.||Dartmouth, E.||Mar and Kellie, E.|
|Wellington, D.||Dartrey, E.||Mayo, E.|
|Derby, E.||Morley, E.|
|Ailesbury, M.||Devon, E.||Morton, E.|
|Camden, M.||Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)||Mount Edgcumbe, E.|
|Lansdowne, M.||Nelson, E.|
|Salisbury, M.||Essex, E.||Plymouth, E.|
|Feversham, E.||Rothes, E.|
|Bradford, E.||Haddington, E.||Saint Germans, E.|
|Camperdown, E.||Hardwicke, E.||Verulam, E.|
|Carnwath, E.||Ilchester, E.||Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]|
|Cathcart, E.||Lauderdale, E.||Westmeath, E.|
|Wicklow, E.||Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)||Lovat, L.|
|Cheylesmore, L.||Massey, L.|
|Churchill, V. [Teller.]||Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)||Moncrieff, L.|
|Cross, V.||Clifford of Chudleigh, L.||Monteagle of Brandon, L.|
|Falmouth, V.||Clinton, L.||Muskerry, L.|
|Hampden, V.||Clonbrock, L.||Newton, L.|
|Hill, V.||Cloncurry, L.||Oriel, L. (V. Masscreene.)|
|Hood, V.||Colchester, L.||Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)|
|Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)||Collins, L.||Poltimore, L.|
|Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)||Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)|
|Templetown, V||Digby, L.|
|Douglas, L. (E. Home.)||Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)|
|Abinger, L.||Dunalley, L.||Rathdonnell, L.|
|Addington, L.||Dunboyne, L.||Rathmore, L.|
|Amherst of Hackney, L.||Dunleath, L.||Ritchie of Dundee, L.|
|Ampthill, L.||Ellenborough, L.||Robertson, L.|
|Ardilaun, L.||Estcourt, L.||Sanderson, L.|
|Ashbourne, L.||Faber, L.||Seaton, L.|
|Atkinson, L.||Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)||Sherborne, L.|
|Avebury, L.||Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)||Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)|
|Balfour, L.||Forester, L.||Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)|
|Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)||Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)|
|Barrymore, L.||Herries, L.||Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)|
|Belhaven and Stenton, L.||Inchiquin, L.|
|Borthwick, L.||Kensington, L.||Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)|
|Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)||Kenyon, L.||Talbot de Malahide, L.|
|Kilmaine, L.||Ventry, L.|
|Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)||Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)||Waleran, L.|
|Calthorpe, L.||Lamington, L.||Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)|
|Carew, L.||Langford, L.|
|Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)||Lawrence, L.|
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD ATKINSON moved his alternative Amendment to Clause 2, sketched at a former sitting. The three objections that had been made to his previous Amendment were (1) that a Judge of Assize or a Judge of the King's Bench Division was not a good tribunal to decide upon such a question as the necessity of using compulsory powers; (2) that the decision of that question came at the end of the business instead of at the beginning, and that if the Judge ultimately decided that there was no case for the exercise of compulsory powers, the costs incurred, and the various proceedings taken would have been rendered useless; and (3) that such an appeal would interpose delay. He had endeavoured by this Amendment to meet those three objections. The Lord-Lieutenant in Council came in at the beginning of the procedure, and it would be necessary for the Estates Commissioners, before they put in force their compulsory powers, to get the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Estates Commissioners would then be in the same position as every municipality in the three Kingdoms. He had made the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 his model. The Amendment, if accepted, would bring the Bill into harmony with other legislation 1528 affecting cases where compulsory powers were given.
In page 2, line 25, after the word 'Act to insert the following new subsections:—(1) The Estates Commissioners shall frame a scheme or schemes, setting forth the lands proposed to be taken, and the purposes for which the same are required. (2) More estates or tracts of land than one may be included in any such scheme or schemes in any case where the estates or tracts of land are subject to the same or similar considerations, or where it is apprehended that the proposals of the Estates Commissioners are or may be open to the same or similar objections, provided that the questions likely to be involved are such as may be conveniently dealt with on one application. (3) Advertisements shall be published, and notices given in the manner and upon the persons mentioned in the seventh section of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. (4) Upon compliance with the foregoing provisions with respect to the publication of advertisements and the service of notices, the Estates Commissioners shall present to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, a petition praying that an order may be made confirming the said scheme or schemes. (5) On the hearing of the said petition any person whose lands are proposed to be taken compulsorily may appear at the hearing of such petition, and give evidence upon the question whether lands reasonably adequate for carrying out the said scheme or schemes in whole or in part may not be obtained by agreement on reasonable terms, and whether it is reasonable and proper that the lands
mentioned in the scheme or schemes, or any of of them, should be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same. (6) The Lord-Lieutenant may make an order declaring the limits of the area to be comprised in the said scheme or schemes, and authorising the same to be carried into execution. (7) Such order may be made either absolute, or with such conditions and modifications as he may think fit, so that no addition be made to the lands proposed to be taken compulsorily. (8) The order so made shall be valid without being confirmed by Parliament, and shall, without prejudice in other respects to the provisions contained in the eighth subsection of this section, be deemed and taken to have finally and conclusively determined that the Estates Commissioners are unable to obtain by agreement, on reasonable terms, land for the purpose of the scheme or schemes as confirmed, and that lands may be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of the same. (9) The Lord-Lieutenant may make such order as he thinks fit in favour of any person whose lands were proposed to be taken compulsorily for the allowance of the reasonable costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by him in opposing such scheme. (10) Rules may be framed by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this section, in order to carry the said scheme or schemes into effect.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, the noble Lord's proposition is one of very great importance, and he has explained how he has come to make it. In addition to the intrinsic importance of the proposals contained in the Amendment, I am informed that if the House adopts it, it will have the distinction of having created the longest section to be found in any Act of Parliament. The House will remember that the noble and learned Lord threw out the possibility of proceeding by way of scheme where it was proposed that the Estates Commissioners should acquire land by compulsion. I quite admit the attraction of that idea, and it has received the most careful consideration of the Government with every wish to meet, if possible, the desires of the noble and learned Lord But this method of proceeding by scheme cannot be considered alone. It has to be considered in connection with the subsequent proceedings provided by the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord in Committee; and the effect of the two Amendments must be regarded jointly.
Now, what would actually occur if the two Amendments of the noble and learned Lord were added to the Bill? The proposal is that a scheme should be 1530 framed by the Estates Commissioners, with a number of advertisements and notices, and on the publication of the scheme it would be open to any person involved to petition the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and the whole scheme would be argued on the hearing of the petition at considerable length and in the manner in which a proposition under the Lands Clauses Act is heard before a Parliamentary Committee. All the pros and cons would be gone into, including, apparently, the question whether it was possible for the Estates Commissioners to obtain suitable land in any other place. That would be a long transaction, in some cases it might be a very long transaction, and it might, of course, happen that at the conclusion of the proceedings it was decided that a certain piece of land might be taken compulsorily. Then would follow further negotiations as to the price to be paid for it. That becomes a subject of a second appeal to a Judge, with a possibility of having to hear a great many of the same witnesses over again at a different place, and involving a second long transaction.
I ask, is that a really possible plan of proceeding? I quite admit that if it had been found possible to include the whole transaction in a scheme, including the decision as to what the proper value of the land ought to be, there might much to be said for it. But that is obviously impossible, because it is quite clear that the Lord-Lieutenant in Council is not the authority by whom a question of value of that kind ought to be decided. I repeat that there is a distinct attraction in making all these questions a matter of preliminary dealing rather than of subsequent dealing, but if there are to be two entirely separate appeals, as the noble and learned Lord proposes, I fear that the whole operation of the Act would be so terribly interfered with and hampered that it would become a serious question whether the Act was worth having at all. So that it really comes to this, that if you are of opinion that these extremely elaborate safeguards are needed for all the compulsory transactions under this Bill you cannot have the Bill at all. It is not worth it. As I have pointed out, a very considerable number of transactions no doubt can take place in the course of years by agreement, and if you are not convinced that the matter 1531 is urgent and will not take our word for that, it is useless to attempt to deal with these transactions by the long and complicated procedure which the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
Is it absolutely the case that there are no means of arriving at a fair safeguard for those who are thus expropriated in some other and less cumbersome way? I said on a former stage of the Bill something as to the Government's view of what would be reasonable in the way of appeal. I have not put anything down on the Paper, because the adoption by the House of the noble and learned Lord's first series of Amendments seemed to me to make that undesirable. The character of the Bill has been so much altered by the Amendments made at the instance of the noble and learned Lord, that it seems to me really better that these further Amendments should be inserted so that his whole scheme may be submitted to Parliament altogether. Consequently I have not put any Amendment on the Paper, but, as I think it would not be fair to allow the Bill to leave the House without telling your Lordships something more about the sort of appeal that we do propose, I will very briefly state what kind of appeal in our opinion would be a reasonable one and act as a full protection to those whose land may be taken.
We agreed, by the original Bill, to an appeal on questions of law, and, in the course of debate, we agreed to give an appeal on questions of value, but there are certain other matters which are not probably questions of value upon which we think noble Lords opposite might very properly be met. Those are the questions coming under Clause 7. We are prepared to give a full appeal in any question arising under that clause. With regard to the earlier part of Clause 7, the question whether any land acquired compulsorily under the Act is or forms part of any demesne, home farm, town park, garden, pleasure-ground, or ground suitable for building sites, and so on, is a question of law. On the other hand, the questions in the latter part of the clause, whether the untenanted land forms part of any home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with the owner's residence, and whether the land has been selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of the 1532 owner's property, so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible—those questions could not properly be taken as questions of law; and therefore unless we provide specially for them there would be no appeal.
We desire to give a full appeal on all these matters, and if your Lordships will consider the matter you will see that the scope of the words in the clause is really very wide, and may include, for instance, some questions of sporting rights, which was mentioned by Lord Inchiquin. Apart from the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted, I should have been prepared to maintain that such a matter as that would be subject to appeal on the point that the value of the property might be diminished as little as possible. So also with the series of questions raised by Lord Clonbrock. We believe that the very wide terms of the latter part of Clause 7 would cover practically any kind of unreasonable dealing with land, supposing the Estates Commissioners to contemplate any such thing. It would also, even if you acquit the Estates Commissioners of any desire to act unreasonably, as I am sure your Lordships wish to do, prevent the possibility of their making a mistake by acting in a hurry. We believe that if your Lordships will carefully look at the latter part of Section 7 you will see that a complete appeal on that series of questions will really do all that is demanded by the equities of the case. I quite recognise the great care which the noble and learned Lord has given to the consideration of this question. We are certainly grateful to him for the attempt he has made to solve the problem; but, holding as we do that the procedure would be impossibly long and complicated if we accepted his proposition, we ask your Lordships very carefully to consider whether you will not ultimately be able to agree to the appeal of which I have sketched the outline—namely, an appeal which, we hope, will safeguard the landlord against any possible danger.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I am not in a position to give any details at the moment, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be a full and satisfactory appeal.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said the statement of the Lord President was interesting and satisfactory in so far as it admitted to appeal matters arising on Clause 7. This question of appeal was one of two main points challenged, the other having reference to new tenants. The appeal was necessary to provide against errors of judgment and not necessarily mala fides on the part of the Commissioners. Sporting rights should include fisheries. He did not think the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Inchiquin received adequate recognition from the noble Earl the Lord President at the time it was presented. Under the law the term "sporting rights" included fisheries, and it was possible that the Estates Commissioners might take compulsorily land which abutted on a river. The right of the owner in such a case should be fully safeguarded, and he was glad that the noble Earl indicated that on these points there would be an appeal. The nature of the Appellate Tribunal was left open. It must, however, be understood by the Government that on the Opposition side it was expected to be a judicial appeal, an appeal to a Court composed of independent legal minds. But it was not enough to meet the wants and wishes of the landowners. The new tenants must also be safeguarded. The House of Lords would be deserving of the harshest measure of vituperation that was ever uttered against them if they were satisfied with Amendments in their own favour and left the new tenants, poor men who could not protect themselves, out in the cold. It was a monstrous thing that power should be given in an Evicted Tenants Bill to evict other tenants who might have been in possession of their farms, rearing families and paying their way, for twenty-five years. Were they to be expropriated under the Bill without check, warning, or appeal? The Government were determined that, whatever they did for the owners, they would do as little as they could for the new tenants, because the meaning of Lord Eversley's Amendment was to kill Lord Robertson's Amendment. If that was not its intention it certainly was its direct effect. The words "special circumstances" might mean anything, and the words "in the opinion of the 1534 Lord-Lieutenant" gave no security, for the Lord-Lieutenant, on being appealed to, would probably direct his private secretary to communicate with the Estates Commissioners, and ask what on earth he was to say on the subject. Was it intended to do anything to safeguard the position of these men? He thought it right to say that his own view was that they were covered by Lord Atkinson's Amendment, and as aggrieved Parties they would have the right of appeal. But was it intended by the Government that the new tenants should have no appeal, that they should be left to the mercy of the Estates Commissioners?
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I should like to understand what the noble and learned Lord is driving at. Does he mean to ask me the question whether, if Lord Robertson's Amendment disappears from the Bill, as an alternative an appeal would be given in this matter? As the Bill now stands, with Lord Robertson's Amendment in, I suppose the planters are regarded as being perfectly safeguarded. At least no other Amendment has been moved from the opposite side of the House to safeguard them.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said the noble Earl in his speech on Lord Eversley's Amendment made no reference to the new tenants. That silence made it necessary to inquire what were the intentions of the Government in reference to these unfortunate new tenants.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
The new tenants are practically taken out of the Bill by Lord Robertson's Amendment.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said that that Amendment applied only to new tenants who were recognised to be bona fide tenants, but there was another class, said to be of the category of caretakers, who had no protection. Moreover, the provision in Lord Robertson's Amendment required to be safeguarded by an appeal. Supposing the Estates Commissioners made a mistake and declared that a farmer who came within that category was not a bona fide farmer, who was to decide that? Should not that man, who would otherwise be expropriated, be given a right of appeal? By what method of reasoning could it be suggested that in justice he should not have an appeal. Section 23 1535 of the Act of 1903 only enabled the Judicial Commissioner to consider such questions of law as were stated in their own words by the Estates Commissioners. It was no appeal; the Judicial Commissioner could not examine witnesses, and could not go into questions of mixed law and fact. It was, therefore, useless to point to Section 23 as adequate for the purpose. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated on a previous occasion that a writ of prohibition might be obtained by the tenant on a violation of the provisions in Clause 7. In his opinion he could not. The question in such cases always was, Did the inferior Court act in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction? It might honestly be mistakenly held that land which formed part of a demesne did not so form part. That would not be a question for a writ of prohibition. If the Estates Commissioners said that though the land formed part of a demesne, home farm, town park, etc., they would expropriate it, then it would be a question of law and a writ of prohibition would come in. But that question would not arise. They were told that at some point there was to be an adequate appeal tribunal, composed in such a way that the noble Earl the Lord President thought all objection entertained by noble Lords on that side of the House would be removed. He awaited a further explanation from the Government on the point, and he hoped they would also have a clear statement as to the position of the new tenants.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)
I had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but I will endeavour shortly to answer the noble and learned Lord. There is nothing I detest more than getting into conflict on points of law with any noble Lord who has legal experience. My opinion is that in the event of the land of any new tenant being taken contrary to the provision inserted by Lord Robertson, as the Bill stands, the Court would be able to interpose an estoppel.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The Bill says that no land which is described in the clause shall be acquired compulsorily. Accordingly it is outside the power of the Estates Commissioners to acquire 1536 that land, because the statute says that that land shall not be acquired. There is no direct appeal allowed, but if the Estates Commissioners do anything that is ultra vires, they can, I believe, be estopped by a Court of law. That, I think, is the answer to what the noble and learned Lord has said.
§ LORD ATKINSON
said he would follow a good example, and not express any opinion on the Government's proposal before he had seen it. In the meantime, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I think the course which my noble and learned friend has suggested is that which clearly is most convenient for the House. We are put rather in a difficulty, because we had most of us hoped that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill would himself have laid before us, in outline at any rate, the manner in which he proposed to deal with this question of appeal. The noble Earl complained rather that my noble and learned friend's scheme was somewhat too abundant and copious in its form; our complaint of noble Lords opposite is the converse of that; we have no written suggestion from them, and the general explanation which has been offered to the House by the noble Earl, although up to a certain point reassuring, stopped short of that which we had ventured to hope for. Nevertheless, I hope that I am not wrong in thinking that His Majesty's Government are really prepared to give us that for which we ask, and to which we attach so much importance.
I understand that we are to have a full appeal on the question of value, to begin with. Then I understand the noble Earl to admit that there are other questions outside the question of value as to which a similar full appeal is to be granted, and he named, as a case in point, questions arising under Clause 7. As to that, he told us that we might look for a full appeal on any question arising under Clause 7. I regard that as a very satisfactory statement on the part of His Majesty's Government. But I very much desire to emphasise what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne as to the omission 1537 from the noble Earl's statement of all reference to the case of the planters. I am quite ready to take it from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they are already adequately protected under the Bill but I hope there can be no room for misapprehension as to what is or is not adequate protection; and I have no doubt that when we have the whole of the proposal of His Majesty's Government before us, they will then be able to explain exactly the extent of the protection which will be afforded to the now tenants under their scheme.
I wish to express one other hope. I trust the noble Earl will consider very carefully whether he cannot incorporate in his proposal provisions analogous to, if not identical with, those which are to be found in the first three sections of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson's Amendment. Those sections provide for a procedure under which the Estates Commissioners will be required to prepare schemes dealing with certain areas: schemes which are to be prepared after full local inquiry and which are to be published in such a manner that any persons who may consider themselves aggrieved in any way by them will have ample opportunities of objecting and making known their desire for modifications. I do not think that too much importance can be attached to a proposal of that kind. It seems to me most necessary that at an early stage all parties, and the public generally, should be satisfied that the arrangements for reinstatement and transfer are framed in a fair and equitable spirit, and in a manner not calculated to press too hardly on any particular district or individual. That, to my mind, is the great advantage of this procedure by means of public schemes.
There is, of course, another point as to which we are still left completely in the dark: I mean the Court to which the appeal will lie. I confess that we were a little disappointed when the noble Earl told us that upon this most important matter he was not able to offer us any enlightenment this evening. While I make these moderate complaints, I fully admit, on the other hand, that the general effect of the statement of the noble Earl was to show that he and his colleagues desire to meet us in a reasonable spirit on a point to which we attach very great importance.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved the insertion of a new subsection in Clause 2, which, he said, was in no sense hostile to the Bill, and the object of which was to ensure that there should be no mistake as to the immediate payment of the compensation when it has been finally fixed. He submitted that when it was a case of compulsory purchase the usual practice in regard to such purchase should be followed, and that on the completion of the transaction the money should be at once paid.
In page 6, lines 39 to 42, to leave out subsection (10), and to insert the following new sub-section: (10) If no petition has been presented within the prescribed period, or if such petition has been withdrawn, or if all questions under all petitions have been determined, a binding agreement for the purchase of the lands shall be deemed to have been concluded between the Estates Commissioners and the owner thereof, and the Land Commission shall forthwith pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland; and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.'"—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, I quite appreciate the object of my noble friend's Amendment, but we cannot accept it in the form in which he has moved it. The Amendment provides that the—Commission shall forthwith pay the amount of the compensation.In the first place, we do not agree to the word "compensation"; we regard it as the "price"—And the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.It might happen that on appeal the price of the land would be so much enhanced that the Estates Commissioners would find it impossible to purchase. Yet if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried they would have to purchase the land in any case, even if a decision was given on appeal under Clause 7 that the land should not be purchased owing to its falling within the exemptions in that clause. If the price is raised on appeal to a figure which would make it impossible for the Commissioners to acquire the land without having to find from public funds so large a difference between the 1539 sum they pay and the sum at which they could resell as would make the transaction a thoroughly uneconomic one, they surely ought to be able to retire from the sale at that point, and one naturally assumes that the seller, being always the unwilling party, would have no objection to that course being taken. But there is another objection to the Amendment. It is hardly reasonable to provide that money should be paid at once out of public funds when the acquisition of the land would be unremunerative to the Commissioners. There is no intention whatever of hanging these matters up for an indefinite time, but we do not consider that the position is absolutely analogous to that, for instance, of a railway company taking land; that is an industrial enterprise, and the land is taken for the company's own objects. But if the noble Lord would agree to the words "shall be paid within a period of six months," we would be willing to accept an Amendment to that effect.
§ LORD ATKINSON
thought a period of six months would be reasonable. But that was not the real object which his noble friend had in view. Under the Lands Clauses Act, when a notice to treat was served it constituted an agreement between the promoter and the owner that he would take the land. What was left over was the fixing of the price, but there was the agreement that the promoter would take the land, and if he refused to do so, or if he delayed unreasonably in taking it, a suit could be instituted in the Court of Chancery to compel him to carry out the agreement. What his noble friend wished to guard against by his Amendment was that the Commissioners should have power to back out of their bargain after the compensation had been fixed. What chance would the owner have, in those circumstances, of working the land satisfactorily, in view of the disappointed tenants all round? As sure as that course was taken so sure would the landlord be subjected to all sorts of intimidation to force him to take a lower sum than that of the award. The Commissioners in this matter were playing the game of "heads I win, tails you lose." They could, after the notice had been served and the compensation fixed, retire from the whole transaction if the amount arrived at was higher than that 1540 of which they approved. He held that the Commissioners ought in these circumstances to be compelled to carry out the bargain.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON
agreed to Lord Crewe's suggestion and substituted the words "within six months" for the word "forthwith." He would like to know if the noble Earl accepted the Amendment with that alteration.
§ * THE EARL of CREWE
The Amendment to which I agree is that the Land Commission shall, within a period not exceeding six months, pay the money into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON
said that the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper, and as he had moved it, was in substitution for the two Amendments previously circulated, and to one of which the Lord President was evidently referring.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I do not accept the other Amendment. We quite agree that where the sale is actually effected by agreement between both parties the purchase money should be paid within six months, but we do not agree to making it a binding agreement on the Estates Commissioners to deal at any price which may be fixed by the Court of Appeal.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The House is at a disadvantage because the Amendment, as printed, is in a different form. I understand that two points are raised. The first one is whether there is to be prompt payment. Lord Monteagle proposes that payment should take place forthwith. My noble friend the Lord President does not agree to that, but will accept "within a period of six months." That deals fairly with the first point. The second point is, Are the Estates Commissioners to be placed in the position of being able to agree that certain lands are to be taken compulsorily, subject to arbitration, and then, when the price has been fixed, to back out and to say they will not take the land because the price is excessive? My noble and learned friend Lord 1541 Atkinson has shown that a retreat of that kind on the part of the Estates Commissioners at the very last moment would put the vendor in an intolerable position. I think there is a good deal of force in my noble and learned friend's suggestion.
pointed out that the subsection which Lord Monteagle desired to introduce completely contradicted Subsection 7 of Clause 2.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON
said that if his Amendment were carried Subsection (6) would, of course, have to be amended.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The Amendment proposed to Lord Monteagle's Amendment is to omit the word "forthwith" in line 6, in order to insert the words "within six months." I think it would be convenient that I should put that Amendment first, as it is generally accepted, and after that has been carried I will put the Amendment standing on the Paper as so amended.
§ On Question, That the word "forthwith" stand part, resolved in the negative.
§ On Question, That the words "within six months" be here inserted, resolved in the affirmative.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The Amendment I now have to put is to leave out the present Subsection (10) and to insert the following new subsection—If no petition has been presented within the prescribed period, or if every such petition has been withdrawn, or if all questions under all petitions have been determined, a binding agreement for the purchase of the lands shall be deemed to have been concluded between the Estates Commissioners and the owner thereof, and the Land Commission shall within six months pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.
§ THE EARL OF ARRAN moved an Amendment similar to that moved by the Earl of Mayo in Committee providing that on the requirement of the owner by notice to the Estates Commissioners the reinstated tenant should have the 1542 status of a present tenant and not of a purchaser. The objection to the course proposed in the Bill was that it would make patchwork and cause great discontent. The noble Earl the Lord President had suggested that the fact of discontent on the part of the other tenants would lead to their purchasing. On first hearing that sounded very plausible, but on further consideration he did not think the result would be so advantageous, because the tenants would only consent to buy on precisely the same terms as the Estates Commissioners had sold to the evicted tenants, and in disturbed parts of the country the landlord might not get one penny in rent until he had agreed to sell on those terms. That would mean that the whole of the estate would be compulsorily sold at a price fixed by the Estates Commissioners. In that way a price would be fixed for the whole estate which might have been calculated on a derelict farm. He did not think the Estates Commissioners would object to this Amendment, as they had in some cases offered to reinstate evicted tenants as present tenants. The Amendment was not aimed at preventing evicted tenants being reinstated, but was designed to remove possible discontent.
In page 6, line 42, after the word 'order' to insert the words 'Provided always that in every case in which the owner of the said land shall, by notice in writing to the Estates Commissioners within the prescribed time, so require, the person or persons whom it is proposed to place in possession of said lands shall be placed there with the status of present tenants instead of purchasers, and shall from the date of being so placed in possession be subject to such rent as the Land Commission failing agreement between the owner and such person or persons, may upon the application of either party determine to be the fair rent of such land pursuant to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, 1881 to 1896.'"—(The Earl of Arran.)
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
The noble Earl will excuse me if I do not reply at length, because what I had to say on this matter I said in reply to Lord Mayo when he moved a similar Amendment in Committee. The noble Earl dealt with one set of arguments that I used—namely, what I may call the commonsense argument that, in the first place, the Commissioners obviously would not desire to reinstate a tenant in the middle of a tenanted estate if it was likely to cause 1543 friction of the kind the noble Earl fears, and the further fact that a tenant being placed in this way in the middle of an estate might in some cases lead to purchase arrangements for the estate as a whole being arrived at. The noble Earl did not deal with the practical difficulty I mentioned, which was that persons returned in this way as present tenants cannot by law receive any assistance. The particular sort of evicted tenants whoso case this Bill is intended to meet are in the main people without any particular means, and I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that you could not do a worse thing for a landlord or for an estate, than to put an evicted tenant back without some kind of equipment, because he would not be able to pay his rent and would soon become an evicted tenant again, and this would not contribute to the settlement of the question. I appreciate the hypothetical difficulty raised by the noble Earl, but I do not believe it will occur in practice. The last objection I have mentioned seems to me overwhelming against the acceptance of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO
said that noble Lords from Ireland felt very strongly on this matter. The object of the Amendment was to guard against the danger of making a price against themselves, and one at which the other tenants would demand to purchase. He knew there was the question of the bonus to be considered, but he maintained that the position of the landlord remained very unsatisfactory.
commented on the statement of the noble Earl that landlords would have to standardise the price by that paid by the one evicted tenant who was put back on the estate, and said that where the planter had been placed on a farm it had not been necessary to standardise the rents at the figure derived from that particular planter.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I think the case which has been put by my noble friend behind me is really a very hard one, because there can be no doubt that in many cases it would be a great hardship and inconvenience that in the middle of an estate which was in a peaceful condition, with nothing but good feeling between landlord and 1544 tenant, one of these evicted tenants should be reinstated, and replaced, as my noble friend has pointed out, on conditions which give him a position considerably more advantageous than that enjoyed by all his neighbours, who perhaps, during the whole time have been paying their rent regularly. While I say that, I am bound to add that I can scarcely advise my noble friend to press his Amendment to a division. I regard the matter as of some importance, but not as of first-rate importance; and I think my noble friends behind me have shown great judgment in concentrating their attention upon points which really were of cardinal importance. This being of less importance, I would counsel my noble friend not to put the House to the trouble of dividing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
drew attention to what he considered an inconsistency between Clause 5, Sub-clause 3, and the provisions of the earlier part of the Bill. The sub-clause in question began—all costs and expenses in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioners necessarily and properly incurred by any petitioner in respect to a petition under this Act or by any new tenant on a hearing before the Estates Commissioners,while in the earlier part of the Bill, in the Appeal clauses, the costs were to be dealt with by the Judge of Appeal. In order to remedy this inconsistency, he suggested that the following words should be inserted—at what particular point he thought did not much matter—"except as hereinbefore provided, the Courts shall have discretion."
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly put it on the Paper for tomorrow. I have very little doubt that he is perfectly right; but I rather dislike accepting Amendments, even from him, offhand.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON,
in the absence of the Marquess of Londonderry, moved to leave out Clause 6. He said it was necessary to make that Motion for the technical reason that without a Motion in their Lordships' House it would not be practicable for His Majesty's Government to introduce in the other House a limitation of the clause which the Lord President had announced they desired to 1545 introduce for reducing the amount of the bonus to be applied for the purposes of the Bill to £100,000. Therefore, as a technical matter—and he believed in doing this he had the consent of His Majesty's Government—he begged to move the omission of the clause.
To leave out Clause 6."—[Viscount Midleton.]
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
We entirely agree to this course, which is the only possible one, because if it were not followed the other House could not really deal with the clause at all.
§ *LORD CLONBROCK moved an Amendment to extend the restriction on the acquisition of land to land possessing an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner in connection with his farming. He explained that that Amendment and the other which stood in his name were the same Amendments as those which he had proposed when the Bill was in Committee. The noble Earl the President of the Council had then said that he would consult with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, to see if any words could be introduced to meet part of the difficulty which he had pointed out. That was, he thought, more particularly in connection with his second Amendment referring to "any home farm." In addition to that he wished again to press that land which possessed any exceptional or accommodation value to the owner should be exempted from the operation of the Commissioners. He had given the noble Earl notice that he did not intend to move the words "or owing to proximity to a town or otherwise," thinking it sufficient to exempt the land which possessed "exceptional or accommodation value to the owner." He had been advised by a noble and learned friend who was more skilled than himself in the strange and mysterious language of Acts of Parliament that it would be prudent to insert after the word "possesses" the words "for any reason," so that it would read "or which possesses for any reason an exceptional or accommodation value," and so on. And, although he himself could not see 1546 any particular force in those words, he wished to insert them. But he wished to point out the difference there was between "exceptional" and "accommodation" value. In a work compiled by the right hon. Gentleman the present Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Cherry, on the Land Act, he had pointed out the difference. He did not think that the learned Gentleman had used the word "exceptional," but he had pointed out the difference between "proximity" and "accommodation" value; and had pointed out that the land might be valuable when in proximity to a town from the increased prices which anybody farming it would receive by reason of that proximity and for various other reasons, whereas accommodation land would be that which the people of the town were in the habit of using. He wished to exempt any land with any exceptional value of the kind; and, among others, as he had mentioned when the Bill was in Committee, land which was held and worked by the landlord in connection with his home farm. Such land might be at some distance, or it might be at a considerable distance, and it might be of considerable extent, but it formed part of the landlord's system of farming, it entailed a great expenditure on the landlord's part in the employment of a number of labourers, and it was valuable for both tillage and also sometimes for what was called "winterage," where animals were put in to winter. If that land were taken away, or if part of it were taken away, it dislocated the whole system of farming, and the landlord would probably have to give it up altogether. That was not only a great loss and a great injustice to him, but it was a serious loss to the neighbourhood, from the loss of employment to his labourers, and also from the loss of the advantage now gained by having farms properly worked as an example to the people—who very much needed it—as to how land ought to be treated. He therefore moved to insert the words which he had read, and also in line 18 to leave out the words "immediately adjoining and"—which of course referred to the home farm and demesne.
As to home farms, he had mentioned on the Committee stage the case of a noble Lord a Member of that House—Lord Gough—who had an 1547 extremely picturesque demesne—a really beautiful place—in the county of Galway. But, and perhaps for that reason, the land was not fit for tillage. He had held for years in connection with his demesne a tillage farm some distance off, but the Commissioners, in the exercise of the great powers they had in that particular way, refused to recognise the rest of his property, though it was very extensive, as an "estate" unless he threw in this tillage farm, and he had had to do so very much to his inconvenience. He submitted that it could make no difference whether the land was "immediately adjoining," and whether there was only a fence between, or whether there were a number of fields intervening. It was worked together with the demesne, and it was exceedingly hard that the landlord should be deprived of it. As the Estates Commissioners exercised the indirect compulsory powers they now had in so stringent a manner, it was much to be feared that they would adopt a similar course with the much extended power of compulsion conferred upon them by this Bill. He begged to move the Amendment as it stood with the exception that he desired to leave out after "in connection with his farm" the words "or owing to its proximity to a town or otherwise"; and in line 18 to leave out the words "immediately adjoining and" so as to let it run "any home farm or land customarily occupied with his residence."
In page 9, line 12, after the word 'sites,' to insert the words 'or which possesses for any reason an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner in connection with his farm.'"—(Lord Clonbrock).
§ * LORD ARDILAUN
desired to support the Amendment, and said that perhaps their Lordships would not consider it unduly egotistical on his part if he instanced his own case, as it had a bearing on this point, and was typical of many others which existed. He farmed between 3,000 and 4,000 acres, most of which he had inherited, some of which he had bought, and some of which he had acquired in consequence of moving (at their own request) tenants from it to an adjoining estate, giving them double the amount of land which they had before, and subsequently selling the 1548 holdings to them. He wished to point out that if any land were taken from him it would doom his farming. If the mountainous part were taken, he would have no place for his stock in summer, and if the lowlands were taken, he could not carry on his farming at all. He had created this farming industry himself, and he thought it would be a very hard thing that having put very large sums of money into the farms which he held in his own hands, he should be at the mercy of Commissioners, or the Appeal Court, or anyone else, who would have power to take them from him, and to destroy the industry which he had created at large cost, expense, and trouble. It would be a loss, not only to himself, but to the poor people who were engaged in carrying on this work—herders, carters, and labourers. He would be obliged immediately to disemploy these people, and to give up farming. These farms were in a district which was well known in the West of Ireland. It was a wild country, and a country in which employment was very scarce, and where there were many people, besides those men whom he employed, who were desirous of having work. The proposal in the clause was, he thought, very unfair, because what was proposed to be done was to be done for the purpose of putting in people who had failed everywhere else, either through their own fault or through the fault of those agitators who had urged them on to their own ruin, and these men were to come in and injure the men who at present had employment, and were satisfied with their condition. That was an unjust thing, and one which he thought their Lordships would probably not sympathise with. He might add that he had no evicted tenants, and therefore any evicted tenants who were brought in would be brought in from other estates, perhaps a hundred miles off. He would like to put what appeared to him a fairly parallel case. Supposing that in England a man created an industry, say a factory, and perhaps brought it to a successful state of working, and suppose that in another factory perhaps 100 miles off the employees struck for higher wages, and the whole thing broke up. Would it be fair that the factory which had been a success should be saddled with those 1549 people from the other factory, and that they should be told that they were to have the advantages of the factory which was a success, because they had struck and were out of employment? He thought that was a very fair parallel to draw, and he really did not think that the House ought to consent to force landlords to give up an industry which had been started—as in his case—at considerable trouble and great expense.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I think that both he—because he is always fair-minded—and the rest of the House must admit that the situation is somewhat altered by the announcement I made of an appeal in all these cases. If the noble Lord will look at the last words of the clause, he will see that it was provided that the Estates Commissioners should "avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the land, or with any home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with his residence, and land shall be selected" (this is the point I particularly wish to draw attention to) "with due regard to the general situation and convenience of the owner's property so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible." Take the case of the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Ardilaun). If he were able to show, as I have no doubt he could, that the general situation and convenience of his property would be interfered with by any part being abstracted from the large amount which he has in hand, or that the value thereof would be diminished, he would have, I should have supposed, an extremely good case. Now even supposing that the Estates Commissioners, inspired by diabolical sentiments, wished to pick out the best part of the noble Lord's farm, it does surely alter the case if an appeal of the kind I have mentioned is given, and in our opinion the interests of the landlord are sufficiently protected. After all, we have not the slightest wish to attack the landlords, or to compromise them in any way. There is no conceivable reason why we should, because we wish to settle the whole of this question of evicted tenants on the most pacific lines, and if possible to establish contentment in the matter, and in our opinion this Clause 7, strengthened by an appeal, gives the 1550 most absolute protection to the landlords in every conceivable way.
§ * VISCOUNT MIDLETON
was sorry that the Lord President did not see his way to make the concession of the words which the noble Lord behind him had moved, and he pointed out that although he (the Earl of Crewe) was of opinion that the words in the Bill sufficiently safeguarded the landlord's rights in that respect, yet there was very grave doubt as to whether the words had as great force as the noble Earl had assigned to them. They were not endeavouring, by this Amendment, to encroach upon the main object and purpose of the Bill as regarded untenanted land, but if he might be allowed to reinforce what had already fallen so forcibly from Lord Ardilaun he would like to do it by giving one instance to their Lordships which had come to him that morning in a letter from Lord Ashtown, written after the occurrence of yesterday at his house—an occurrence which he was sure every Member of their Lordships' House deplored. In that letter he pointed out what would be the effect, as he was advised, upon him of the Bill as it at present stood. Lord Ashtown, as he had pointed out to their Lordships on a former occasion, was probably the largest owner of untenanted farm land in Ireland; he farmed 4,000 acres of land in the West and had done so for a great number of years, and he stated that—In the West of Ireland there are two sorts of land—summer land and winter land. I farm about 1,400 acres of winter land which is light rocky land, no good at all for young stock, but most valuable for old stock.He proceeded to say—I cannot but believe that if any of my summer land be taken away it will decrease the value of my winter land. I do not think anyone in their senses would interfere with the winter land, because it cannot be tilled on account of rocks, and there is no water on it in summer at all. All I want is fair play, so that I may make the best of my land when I can, and drive plenty of labour to the people about. I am not an ordinary grazier, as I breed the whole of my own stock.He thought their Lordships would feel that that was a case where consideration should be shown, not merely to the interests of the landlord, but to those of the whole locality, which, if these two classes of land were divided, would certainly suffer. And yet that was precisely 1551 one of the cases in which the Estates Commissioners said the other day, with regard to the whole of Galway, that every acre of untenanted land in that county ought to be taken. The words which his noble friend Lord Clonbrock proposed—"which possesses an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner"—were specially designed to meet all cases of that character and certain other cases which were familiar to all their Lordships which must occur—cases where land was not precisely building land or a home farm but was in the neighbourhood of a town—he could mention many such places—and had an accommodation value to the owner which was not provided for in the Bill.
desired to say one word, as being even a larger farmer than Lord Ashtown. He had close upon 5,000 acres in his own hands at the present moment. When he said in his own hands, he meant that he was actually farming that amount himself; the actual amount he had in his own hands was nearly 6,000 acres. A great deal of that land was at a distance from his home, but was nevertheless most important to him for the purposes of farming. He sent most of his cattle away in the winter to land which Cromwell had described as not having trees enough to hang a man, water enough to drown him, or earth enough to bury him. At the same time he sent all his cattle up to that land, and they came home fatter than those he had at home feeding on hay. The whole of that land was a sheet of rock from end to end—many noble Lords knew it well—and on the small patches of earth between those rocks, strange as it seemed, valuable cattle would fatten in the most extraordinary way. He merely mentioned that incidentally to show that those distant lands were equally valuable to him as the lands immediately adjoining his residence. Last year he had saved about 600 ton of hay. Naturally that could not be grown inside his demesne, and therefore it was absolutely essential to him to have land outside of it. With that large amount, no doubt he could find untenanted land which he would be willing to give to the Commissioners, but he objected very strongly to their coming down and taking his best parts. As he had told their Lordships on Committee stage, he received as much as £6 10s. per acre 1552 for meadowing last year, and he objected very strongly to anyone having a right to come in at any place and take any land they might think fit. He was therefore highly in favour of the present Amendment, and urged its adoption.
said it was a most usual thing for people to have farms at considerable distances away to which they sent their cattle. It seemed to him that if the Amendment was not accepted by His Majesty's Government the proper title of the Act would be "An Act to increase the number of absentee landlords in Ireland." It seemed to him that that sort of legislation would drive out of the country all the people who were most valuable to it, which, he was sure, was not the intention of the Government, although it might possibly be of some of the people behind them—and whether or not that was for the benefit of Ireland he would not say. His own impression was that the people of Ireland were as loyal to the landlords as anyone else if they were only left alone.
* THE EARL OF CEEWE
I do not propose to divide the House against the Amendment, but we do not accept it.
In page 9, line 18, to leave out the words 'immediately adjoining and.'"—(Lord Clonbrock)
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I think I need only say that we cannot accept this Amendment for the same reason that we I were unable to accept the last, namely, that we consider that any ease of hardship such as that mentioned by the noble Lord—assuming, of course, a real hardship to exist, which no doubt it did in that particular case—would be covered by the appeal which we have given; because it is important to notice that the two things are not absolutely analogous. It is quite possible, in that particular case, that the Estates Commissioners may refuse to declare a property an estate without the addition of that particular farm, but that is by no means the same thing as their saying they will take that particular farm or any part of it compulsorily under this Act if it is a hardship to the landlord to do so.
on Clause 9, said that he wished to make three small alterations in the sporting clause, two of which were merely verbal, and would make very little difference, but after consultation with his noble friend Lord Denman he proposed to move his Amendment in a form more acceptable to His Majesty's Government. The clause began, "Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken." He proposed to leave out the words "purchased or taken," and to put in the word "acquired." He thought nobody could form any grave objection to that, as it was merely a difference in the wording. The clause went on "Where any land is compulsorily acquired under this Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor," and so on. In place of those words he would prefer to put in the words "therefore vested in the owner of the land." He called their Lordships' attention to one word in that, namely, the word "vested." Vested might refer to two things: either tenanted land or untenanted land. In the case of untenanted land undoubtedly the sporting rights were vested in the owner; but in the case of tenanted land they might possibly not be vested in the owner, and very often they were not so vested in Ireland, because it was in many cases not customary to put in a lease the fact that the fishing and sporting rights were reserved, although they might possibly have been reserved. There was just a slight concession there which he did not think need give any great anxiety. The Bill applied to two classes of land, tenanted land and untenanted land—the untenanted land did not matter—and he thought that if their Lordships accepted the words be proposed no harm would be done to any interests in Ireland. The remaining words were those which came after "if he so desires," viz., "remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase." He proposed to leave out the words "remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase"; and to insert the words "be expressly reserved to him." Those words equally carried the point; and he was told by his noble friend that they might make it a little more acceptable to His Majesty's Government. He begged to move.
In page 9, line 25, to leave out the words 'purchased or taken,' and insert the word 'acquired.'
In line 26, to leave out the words 'hitherto enjoyed by the vendor' and insert the words 'therefore vested in the owner of the land.'
In line 27, to leave out the words 'vested in him notwithstanding such purchase' and insert the words 'be expressly reserved to him.'"—(Lord Inchiquin.)
said that so far as the Government were concerned, they regarded these Amendments as of a purely drafting nature. They improved the form of the clause, and of course the Government were perfectly prepared to accept them, but, he must add, without prejudice to any course that might be taken in the other House in regard to that particular clause.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
pointed out that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had expressly said that fishing rights were included in sporting rights.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I do not think the noble and learned Lord is quoting any words of mine. I mentioned fishing rights as a point which in my opinion would be covered, where damage was done to the owners of the property, by the appeal given under another clause.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said he had mentioned in his few remarks in Committee that under the term "sporting rights" fishing might be the most valuable thing in Ireland—the best places on the Shannon for salmon—and the Estates Commissioners might take a piece of land which abutted on the Shannon at that place; that showed the tremendous importance of seeing that they were adequately protected.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved the insertion, in Clause 14, of a proviso giving the original vendor the first option of re-purchasing surplus lands acquired under the Act, and not required for the purposes of the Act. He would not detain their Lordships at any length because he had said all he wished to say about the Amendment in Committee. It was practically the same Amendment as 1555 he had moved in Committee, but it had been re-drafted in order to try and meet the wishes of the Government. The Government were very difficult to please, but he sincerely hoped that he had satisfied them on the present occasion. He begged to move.
In page 10, line 19, after '1903,' to insert 'or may be re-sold to the vendor: Provided that no such land shall be sold to any person other than the original vendor, unless it shall have been offered to such vendor at a price corresponding to the price paid for any portion of such acquired land as has been re-sold under this Act, and unless he shall have failed to accept the said offer within a period of one month from the date thereof.'"—(Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am sorry not to be able to agree with the noble Earl, because I feel that the drafting of this Amendment must have caused him at least one sleepless night, if not more, owing to its extreme elaborateness and complication. But, honestly, I cannot see what is the meaning, or what can be taken to be the meaning, of the phrase "offered to such vendor at a price corresponding to the price paid for any portion of such acquired land as has been resold." I am entirely unable to appreciate what is meant by the words "price corresponding" and so on. What is going to happen under these circumstances? A piece of land has been acquired by the Commissioners at a price. A certain part of it is not wanted, and therefore the original landlord, the vendor, would like to have it back. But he is to get it back at a price corresponding to that at which the rest has been sold. Does the noble Lord mean that it is necessarily a proportionate ratio per acre, because it seems to me in that event he might be in a very bad case. It might be a very cheap piece that was not required and a very valuable piece which would be kept by the Commissioners and he would have to take the cheap piece back apparently at the average price of the whole. Or, again, the rule might operate in the opposite case far too greatly to the landlord's advantage, I confess that I think it would be better if the noble Lord would strike out the whole of the latter part of his Amendment, and agree to leave it in these terms, "or may be resold to the person for whom it was acquired." The price would then become a matter of 1556 ordinary bargain, and I think in that ease the land could probably be secured at a fair price.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said he would be willing to accept that, provided the original vendor was given the first choice. He thought that should be done, and that it should not be left to the Estates Commissioners to say whether they would sell the land back to the vendor or sell it to somebody else. He quite appreciated the difficulty that was in the mind of the noble Earl, and it would be better, no doubt, to leave the price to bargain.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said he did not differ from that, subject to this—that he thought it was a legitimate Amendment of his noble friend to deal with this case, because it was to prevent improvidence on the part of the Commissioners in getting a great deal too much land compulsorily, and then being overstocked and working it off in a way to suit their own will—he did not use the word "will" offensively, but their own unmeasured discretion; and therefore the original vendor was entitled to say, "If you have taken too much land compulsorily I am entitled to purchase it back in priority to anyone else." Then there was the question about terms. He had not thought it out, but, supposing there were 100 acres bought by the Commissioners, ten of which were not wanted, the original vendor should, in his opinion, get that back at the same price as that given for the land all round; he should be given back his land at the same price at which it was taken from him. He thought some words ought to be inserted to show that the original vendor was entitled to the first offer, and also, if possible, words indicating that the price he received should be the measure at which he should take the land back again. That, however, was a question for his noble friend.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I have no objection to that, but I think the noble Earl had better bring up the Amendment to-morrow.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
Might it not run something like this: "Unless it shall have been offered to such vendor at a price corresponding pro rata to that at which it was acquired"?
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I can only speak by the indulgence of the House, but I very much doubt whether that would be an acceptable suggestion. Supposing the Estates Commissioners acquire a considerable tract, including some very bad land and some very good land, and then find that they do not want all the very bad land and they hand some of it back to the landlord. Then the unfortunate landlord, under the suggestion which has been made, will have to pay the pro rata price, and will thus be paying far too much. On the other hand, if the opposite case occurs, he may be getting some of the very good land back far too cheaply. I think it must be left to agreement.
§ LORD ASHBOURNE
said that if nothing was clone it would be the Estates Commissioners making their own bargain but as he had already spoken to the Amendment he was unable to amplify the point.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said that he would not press the Amendment; and he would take an opportunity of discussing the point with his noble friend between then and to-morrow.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF MAYO moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 17 to the effect that the provisions of the Act should continue and remain in force for two years after the passing thereof and no longer. He desired to put some finality to the operations 1558 of the Bill; and he believed the Government were willing to do so. He thought it would help matters very much in Ireland to have this question settled. He spoke on his own behalf and on behalf of a great many people in Ireland whom their Lordships neither saw nor heard of, all of whom really wanted to have finality to this question. The Estates Commissioners had now issued their Report, and their Lordships had put into the Bill the number of tenants that were to be put back. Now, he and those who thought with him asked, with all moderation, that the Bill should come to an end in two years. That, they thought, was a sufficient time for the Commissioners to deal with the matter. He thought he need say no more on the point, as he believed the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was anxious that there should be a time limit.
To insert the following new Clause: '18. The provisions of this Act shall continue and remain in force for two years after the passing thereof, and no longer.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I think it would give general satisfaction to everybody concerned, including the Estates Commissioners themselves, that there should be a limit to the operation of the Act. The Commissioners, however, are of opinion that the term of two years, named by the noble Earl, in view of the notices which have to be given, determination of tenancies, and matters of that kind, is too short, and they ask for four years. The suggestion we make is, that the clause should run in this form:—The provisions of this Act for the acquisition of land, and for the determination of tenancies, shall continue for four years after the passing of this Act.It is necessary to put it in that form, because there are certain matters in connection with the Act which are not temporary but permanent. It is the power for the acquisition of land that the noble Lord means; and I am afraid we must ask for a term of four years, because the Estates Commissioners say it is necessary.
* LORD CLONBROCK
asked whether the noble Earl would adopt the old Irish plan of "splitting the difference," and agree to three years.
§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I need not tell noble Lords that I have no personal opinion on the matter. One is obliged to be guided upon this question by the Estates Commissioners, and they are afraid, they say, of having a shorter term than four years. I hope, therefore, the noble Lords will not press for a less period.
§ word "three" be inserted in place of the word "two."
§ * THE EARL OF CREWE
I move it in this form—The provisions of this Act for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies shall continue in force for four years after the passing of this Act.
§ On Question, whether the word "three" be inserted, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 31.1561
|Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)||Wicklow, E.||Dunboyne, L.|
|Northumberland, D.||Dunleath, L.|
|Wellington, D.||Churchill, V. [Teller.]||Ellenborough, L.|
|Goschen, V.||Estcourt, L.|
|Ailesbury, M.||Hampden, V.||Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)|
|Camden, M.||Hill, V.||Fermanagh, L. (E Erne.)|
|Lansdowne, M.||Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)||Forester, L.|
|Salisbury, M.||Inchiquin, L.|
|Camperdown, E.||Addington, L.||Kenyon, L.|
|Cawdor, E.||Amherst of Hackney, L.||Lamington, L.|
|Cowley, E.||Ampthill, L.||Lawrence, L.|
|Dartrey, E.||Ardilaun, L.||Lovat, L.|
|Devon, E.||Ashbourne, L.||Massy, L.|
|Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)||Barrymore, L.||Muskenry, L.|
|Belhaven and Stenton, L.||Newton, L.|
|Eldon, E.||Braye, L.||Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)|
|Haddington, E.||Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)||Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)|
|Hardwicke, E.||Carew, L.||Penrhyn, L.|
|Ilchester, E.||Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)||Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)|
|Lauderdale, E.||Cheylesmore, L.||Rathdonnell, L.|
|Mayo, E.||Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)||Ritchie of Dundee, L.|
|Morley, E.||Clifford of Chudleigh, L.||Seaton, L.|
|Morton, E.||Clonbrock, L.||Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)|
|Plymouth, E.||Cloncurry, L.||Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)|
|Powis, E.||Colchester, L.|
|Saint Germans, E.||Collins, L.||Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)|
|Stanhope, E.||Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)||Talbot de Malahide, L.|
|Verulam, L.||Digby, L.||Ventry, L.|
|Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]||Douglas, L. (E. Home.)||Waleran, L.|
|Westmeath, E.||Dunalley, L.||Zouche of Haryngworth, L.|
|Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Dartmouth, E.||Denman, L.|
|Onslow, E.||Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)|
|Crewe, E. (L. President.)|
|Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)||Eversley, L.|
|Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)||Fitzmaurice, L.|
|Airedale, L.||Glantawe, L.|
|Allendale, L.||Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]|
|Beauchamp, E.||Blyth, L.|
|Carrington, L.||Castletown, L.||Hamilton of Dalzell, L.|
|Craven, E.||Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]||Haversham, L.|
|Headley, L.||Lyveden, L.||Sanderson, L.|
|Hemphill, L.||Nunburnholme, L.||Stanley of Alderley, L.|
|Herschell, L.||Pirrie, L.||Weardale, L.|
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD CLONBROCK moved to insert two new headings at the end of the Schedule. He said that the Government had accepted on the Committee stage his Amendment for a periodical return by the Commissioners; but it had since been represented to him that the Schedule would be improved by the addition of two more headings under the heading of "Poor Law Valuation," namely, "Former Holding—New Holding." He hoped the noble Earl would have no objection to that Amendment.
In page 12, at the end of the Schedule, to insert
|Poor Law Valuation.|
§ —(Lord Clonbrock.)
§ Bill to be read 3a To-morrow and to be printed as amended. (No 179.)