EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

HL Deb 23 August 1907 vol 181 cc1290-344

Order of the day read, for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.

Clause 1:—

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Perhaps I may first of all remind your Lordships that the Bill to which reference is made in the Paper containing the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, and the Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments is not the Bill with which they have lately been dealing on Report, but is the original Bill, No. 148. That is the usual practice, and I think your Lordships have that Bill before you. I first have to move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, namely, in Clause 1, page 1, lines 5 to 13, to leave out Subsection (1) and insert a new subsection. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson) has also an Amendment; but probably it will be the most convenient course if I state the reasons on which I ask your Lordships not to insist on your Amendment. And, in doing so, perhaps I may refer to the new Amendment which Lord Atkinson has on the Paper.

LORD ATKINSON

said that although the Amendment was in his name on the Paper, it was a mistake, and he was not moving it.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said that he proposed to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Is that the Amendment in Lord Atkinson's name?

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Yes, Clause 1, page 1, line 5.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

We adhere to our original clause in the Bill with an Amendment, which I will explain to your Lordships. As the clause now stands in the original Bill, it reads thus— If it appears to the Estates Commissioners it is expedent to acquire any land for the purposes of this Act, and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the land a price which appears to them to represent the fair market value thereof. We propose to alter it in this way— If it appears to the Estates Commissioners that it is expedient to acquire any land for the purposes of this Act, and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner a price which appears to represent the value of the land. Your Lordships will observe that we leave out the words "fair market" value. I would now ask your Lordships to turn to Clause 6. The two last lines of Clause 6 ran— Land shall be selected 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. In lieu of that, we propose to substitute these words— Land shall be selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof. I am obliged to trouble your Lordships with those two Amendments together, because I think it will be clear to the House that the whole question of how the value is to be estimated depends on how Clauses 1 and 6 are dealt with. Our reason for making this suggestion is this. Section 49 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, provides that what is given is a sum representing the value of the land to be purchased and also compensation for injury done, or to be done, to the lands held therewith. That, I think, your Lordships will agree to. There was a case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenuev. The Glasgow and South Western Railway Company, which your Lordships will find in the 12th Vol. of Appeal Cases, page 320. In that case, Lord Halsbury laid it down that— The two things, and the only two things which are within the contemplation and ambit of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, are, the value of the land, in the first place, and such damage as may arise to other lands held therewith by reason of the particular land which is taken being taken from them. In an Irish case, Close's Estate (I. Irish Reports, page 381), Chief Baron Palles referred to the above statement of the law made by Lord Halsbury. He made express reference to the words I have quoted, and said— Here, as there, the expropriated owner is to receive the value of that of which he has been deprived. Were the thing in question such that something practically identical with it could be obtained at a money price—in other words, were it something for which there was an open market—the value would be the price at which that identical thing could be obtained in the market. When there is no market for the particular thing, the price must be that of a thing similar in all material respects. My Lords, that is the principle on which we think these lands should be sold. The objection to the words "fair market" value, which, as I understand, has been taken, and I admit taken with some reason, is, that it is very difficult to say what the "fair market value" of untenanted land in Ireland is. As we know, in this country the "fair market value" of land can practically be ascertained, because you can form an idea of what it would fetch if put up for sale. That, no doubt, does not apply in this case; and therefore what we propose is that the words should be " the value of the land " in Clause 1, which means the value of the land as estimated under the general transactions which take place in land in Ireland; that is to say, that the value would be estimated as though an ordinary purchase transaction were going to take place. Then, in addition to that by our proposed Amendment to Clause 6, we take the second half of what Lord Halsbury pronounced to be the only other consideration arising under the Lands Clauses Act— Such damage as may arise to other lands held therewith by reason of the particular land which is taken being taken from them. Our Amendment to Clause 6, as noble Lords will see, says that when you take land under Clause 6, the land shall be selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof. First we said "to diminish as little as possible," which is of course a very much milder way of putting the thing; but it appears to us that when we say that the value of the other land is not to be diminished, it adds an immensely increased safeguard to those whose land is likely to be taken, always bearing in mind that the actual effect of a provision of this kind would be, not that the land would be taken at a high price, but it would simply mean that the Estates Commissioners would have to look for some other land elsewhere. We think that those two changes give practically all the protection which any owner of land in Ireland is entitled to, and practically all that he would obtain under the Lands Clauses Acts. But, what we are unwilling to do is actually to incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, because of a certain degree of odium and additional expense which attaches to those particular Statutes. I hope therefore the noble Lords opposite may see their way to accept this, which we think practically goes the whole way in giving them what they want, instead of adopting the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson).

Moved, "That the House do not insist on its Amendment to page 1, lines 5 to 13."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD ATKINSON

wished to say one word with regard to the Lands Clauses Acts, into which the noble Earl had made an excursus. It was quite true that it was "the value of the land" which was to be taken into account, but it was "the value of the land" to the owner and not to the person acquiring it. If the noble Earl had looked at the case of Reckittsv. Metropolitan Railway Company, he would have seen that it was there laid down that whether the land was profitable or unprofitable to the person taking it was a matter of no concern, and two illustrations were there given of that. One was where an ordinary public-house might be taken, and although the public-house might be worthless to the purchaser, still he had to pay compensation for trade profits and everything of that kind. Therefore, their Lordships would see "the value of the land" must be its value to the man owning it. The other illustration showed that doctrine even more clearly, namely. a case where a vicar owned a graveyard which was of no use to him, but which was of very great value to the railway company who took it. The vicar got no compensation because it was valueless to him. The other matter to which the noble Earl had referred was severance injury, injury to other lands belonging to the same owner by the taking of the land which was taken. That was, of course, an entirely different matter; but, if he was very anxious to give to the landlord who was deprived of his property all that the Lands Clauses Acts would give him, then he would suggest that, instead of attempting to make a definition, the simple way was to say that the compensation would be given upon the principle of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

From what I have said, the noble and learned Lord will understand, and the House will understand, that I am afraid we cannot agree to the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Acts. If I might repeat it once more, so far as this first clause is concerned the Amendment is a very simple one; it is, simply to strike out first the words "of the land"—that is merely a drafting Amendment—and then to strike out the words "fair market," making it read "which appears to them to represent the value of the land."

LORD ATKINSON

said that that did not get rid of the difficulty. He would take the case of an ordinary grazing, where the owner of the land was making perhaps £2 an acre by letting it for grazing. What was the value of the land under the Lands Clauses Acts? The value to the owner would be such loss as he sustained by being deprived of that user of the land which made it worth £2 an acre—that was the value to him — and, if he was deprived of it, according to the Lord President, he ought to be compensated for it. The words which the noble Earl had suggested,"the value," meant the value to the Estates Commissioners, who said that the profit the owner was making was not to be taken into account at all; and that the value, in their estimation, was the fair rent they chose to fix on a hypothetical tenant.

* THE EARL or CREWE

In reply to that, if I may be pardoned for interrupting the noble Lord again, I should say that the fact that the land was producing £2 an acre would be so distinctly an element in the value as to need no affirming, but the degree of security attaching to that £2 per acre would have to be taken into consideration too. You cannot assume that it is necessarily £2 an acre for ever. All those considerations will have, I should think, to be borne in mind in considering what "the value of the land" is.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

hardly thought the intentions of the noble Earl would be carried out when the Estates Commissioners came to estimate the value of the land. After all, what was desired to be arrived at was not the market value in the case in which there was no market value, but the value in the sense of the loss sustained by the landlord in what had been taken away from him against his will—compulsorily. He did not know whether the noble Earl had considered the case of a man farming his own land; he might be making an ordinary profit on 100 acres of land which he would lose, and for which, he submitted to their Lordships, he ought to be recouped if the land was taken away compulsorily. The value of the land would be weighed by a number of circumstances, not merely by the profit he was making, but by the value as ascertained of what had been paid under corresponding tenancies, and other such data, which did not refer in the least to the loss which the landlord himself might sustain. Then again he thought they owed the Commissioners some guidance. There had been a great deal of discussion as regards what might happen in connection with the grazing lands in Roscommon; for instance, lands let for eleven months, and which were "untenanted lands" for the purpose of this section. They had been told by the Estates Commissioners what their idea was of how to estimate the value of such land. But he submitted that the landlord, who would be the loser, not of the estimated value of the land, but of the actual amount which he had been receiving for several years past, had a right to have that taken into consideration in estimating the value of the land. Therefore what he would suggest was that his noble friends should meet the Government by not insisting upon their Lordships Amendment so far as the first portion o the clause was concerned. That Amendmend made it incumbent upon the Estates Commissioners to prove that they had been unable to acquire, by agreement, suitable land for their purpose. And the Commons, in disagreeing with their Lordships, gave as their reason that the effect of the Amendment would be that of causing delay in the first place and increasing the expense in the second place, and so rendering the Act useless. If their Lordships met the other House by surrendering the first portion of the Amendment, and by adopting the words in the Government Bill, they would be making a very great concession to the desire of the Government that the matter should proceed without delay, and at the same time giving, on behalf of the landlords, the great concession that even if the Commissioners should seize upon certain lands which might be of more value to the landlord, and which he might be able to prove that they could have done without, still he would have no appeal from their decision. If their Lordships made that concession he submitted that they had a right to be fully protected in the matter of value, and that the question of whether it would cause additional expense was a question, not for their Lordships, but for the Commissioners. If they chose to take land which caused additional expense, there was no possible argument, so far as he could see, which could be addressed to their Lordships by which it could be shown that the Commissioners should not pay the full value of that land. They had the whole of Ireland before them, so far as the land was untenanted, and if they chose to take land which was bringing in a large revenue to the owner, they were bound, when taking that land, to recoup the owner. That being so, he suggested that the words instead of being "the fair market value," or "the value" as proposed by the noble Earl the Lord President, should be "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof." Those words would represent simply the compensation which in any other Act that he was aware of was given to an owner whose land was compulsorily taken from him. They would not contain any provision, because, if his noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson) insisted upon his Amendment with regard to appeal, which he understood he proposed to do, he had specially limited in a clause of that Amendment the compensation to be given so that it should not include anything for the compulsory taking. Therefore, what would be given would be simply compensation to the owner for the loss which he had sustained; and, where it was declared to be an estate the bonus which followed on a voluntary sale would of course follow on a compulsory sale, for he was sure that nobody in that House would contend that what a man had a right to receive under the law if he sold voluntarily should be withheld from him if he sold under compulsion. And he could not help believing, when they knew that the Commissioners had already in their possession sufficient land to provide for the whole of these evicted tenants, that if they worked with discrimination they would be able to obtain without undue expense the necessary untenanted land to complete this operation. Therefore he thought that the clause as he proposed to leave it would meet the reasons of the Commons in both particulars. Their Lordships would abandon that portion of his noble and learned friend's (Lord Atkinson) clause which might cause delay, and would leave in the hands of the Commissioners such provision as would enable them to work without incurring any expense, except the legitimate expense of recouping the landlords.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not wish to speak again; I merely wish to say that it is clear, from what I have already said, that we cannot in any way agree to this proposition. Of course, it is open to your Lordships to amend the clause in the manner suggested, but it must be understood, although I shall not take the trouble of dividing the House, that His Majesty's Government is not in any way agreeing to it.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It seems to me to be a great pity that we cannot agree upon this point, which is not really one of very first-rate importance. I do not understand that the noble Earl really challenges the view which is held upon this Bench. I am very grateful to His Majesty's Government for having struck out of the clause the words "fair market" value; because our point throughout has been that the "market value" in Ireland, owing to circumstances to which I need not refer, has ceased to be a real "market" value. Therefore, we object entirely to "market" value; and "fair market" value having gone, only "value" remains. What do His Majesty's Ministers mean by "value"? Surely, the value to the owner. What is the value to the owner? The value to the owner is that which entitles him to compensation. "Compensation" is an English word which expresses the idea which is really, I believe, common to our view, and to the view of the noble Lords opposite. Is the noble Earl quite clear that he cannot accept the very reasonable Amendment of the Government Amendment?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid I cannot agree to the insertion of the word "compensation." The noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) did not allude to the very wide concession which we are prepared to make with regard to Clause 6, which ought to be read in with this, in order to understand what it is that we propose to do. If you do not take "the value of the land," it means that you want something more than the "value," that is to say, something more than the sum which the land would fetch in open market, if there were an open market.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said it was obvious from what the noble Earl had said that he desired to approach the question with fairness, but surely he did not want to give the landlord too little. He was perhaps afraid of giving too much; but on the Opposition side of the House there was a fear that His Majesty's Government were not giving enough. As far as he could see, the question pivoted on the difference between the word "value" and the word "compensation." His noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson) had pointed out that "value" in a sense might be equivocal. It could not possibly be intended to mean the value regardless of the value to the owner, yet it might be read, unless qualifying words were used, to be the value to the person who desired to acquire the land. The words might be used perfectly honestly, but they might be read in a way which would bring out an entirely unsatisfactory result.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

They are Lord Halsbury's words.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said it was one thing to use words in a judgment where they were to be read with the context, and another thing to put words into an Act of Parliament in which there was nothing but the words themselves out of which to make an interpretation. He would put it again—although perhaps the noble Earl might not be able off-hand to give an answer—that if the word "compensation" was a word which better conveyed the idea of recognising the claims of the owner to have his interest considered, surely His Majesty's Government ought to be prepared to consider whether it was not a better word to be used than the word "value," leaving out altogether the element of the interest of the owner.

LORD DUNBOYNE

suggested that the difficulty might be got over by using the words, "which represents the fair value to the owner of the land."

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I really do not know what that means. Does that mean the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act? Because, if it does, as I have already explained, we are not prepared to accept it. We do not like the word "compensation" because it suggests the Lands Clauses Acts—I am perfectly frank in this matter—but we do like the word "value" founded on that observation of Lord Halsbury, because it is one of the two incidents in a purchase under the Lands Clauses Acts; and we give the other, to a very great extent, by our proposed Amendment to Clause 6.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

When the noble Earl talks of "value," does he mean the value to the owner?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid I must ask another question: Does that mean what the owner thinks is the value?

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Oh no; the Court has to decide the value. An offer is made to the owner representing what the offerer believes to be the value to the owner; then the proceedings go on and the matter comes before the Court. My question is: Does the noble Earl, or does he not, mean, when he speaks of "value," the value to the owner?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I prefer to put it in the way I put it before. It is what the value of the land would be in the open market if there were an open market.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

But we have dropped "market" altogether.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said that was exactly the point which they were afraid the noble Earl was driving at. In the English Bill, His Majesty's Government had no hesitation, in the case of land they took away from a tenant, in talking of "compensation" to the tenant for the loss of his land; that was to say, the value of the land taken from the tenant. Why was the Irish landlord not to have the same word "compensation," which was so much disliked, for the loss of his land, that was to say, the value to him of the land, the same as in the other case, it was the value to the tenant of the land?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not know the English Bill very well, but I do not think the word "compensation" is used in that Bill with reference to the landlord. In any case, in considering this Bill it must be considered that the landlord is going to receive, over and above the ordinary terms of purchase, a bonus, which is a distinct extra. I am afraid we cannot carry the question further on this occasion, because I cannot agree to the insertion of the word "compensation"; and we are only wasting time in attempting to argue the matter any further.

LORD MUSKERRY

said that in that case it would be better to let the original Amendment stand. If His Majesty's Government would not accept that which their Lordships had put in, then he suggested that Lord Atkinson's original Amendment as passed by their Lordships should be adhered to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said that he happened to know the English Bill pretty well; and he observed that in the first paragraph of the first schedule which governed the compulsory acquisition of land under that Bill it was provided that the Order was to be in the prescribed form, and was to contain provisions necessary for carrying it into effect and protecting the council and the persons interested in the land, and was to incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, and so on, subject to the modification that any question of disputed compensation should be settled by the valuers. So that in the English Bill was the very word "compensation" to which the noble Earl objected.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no Motion before the House at present.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon—I have moved that we do not insist on the Amendment to the Bill.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

wished to move to amend the Lord President's words by inserting, instead of "fair market value? the words "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will first put the noble Earl's Motion to the House.

On Question— That this House do not insist on the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, lines 5 to 13, to leave out Subsection (1) and insert a new subsection to which the Commons have disagreed.

Motion agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said that he would now move his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, to omit the words 'fair market value thereof,' and to insert the words compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof.'—(Viscount Midleton.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

wished to further amend this Amendment by adding, after the words "they may" in the next line of the original Government drafting, the words "subject to the provisions as to appeal contained in this Act." Obviously, His Majesty's Government had themselves admitted an appeal on the question of value. They, on their side, were not seeking to set up an appeal as regards the land to be taken, but simply an appeal as regards the value. Without that indication, no appeal would, as he was advised, appear to lie. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 10, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions as to appeal contained in this Act. —(Viscount Midleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment is in Clause 1, page 2, line 4, alter "Acts" to insert "not exceeding 2,000 in all." I move that the House do not insist on that Amendment. I stated very fully, I think, on a former occasion the objection we have to fixing a limit of 2,000; but there is one consideration which I think I did not sufficiently impress on the House on the last occasion, and which I think I ought to bring before its notice now—namely, that the words "not exceeding 2,000 in all" apply, apparently, to tenants reinstated under this Act; that is to say, reinstated by compulsory power. The 2,000 would not include any tenants reinstated by agreement. It is perfectly obvious that you cannot lay down in an Act of Parliament a limit to the number reinstated by agreement; that would be obviously improper; and therefore what your Lordships have done is to fix a limit of not less than 2,000 who may be reinstated by compulsory powers. I should imagine that nothing like that number are likely to be in a situation which would demand the compulsory taking of land. I have objected all through to a number limit, on the ground that it might be assumed by some people that it would be a standard to work up to, and I still maintain that objection. I now leave the matter to your Lordships to decide.

Moved— That this House do not insist on their Amendment to page 2, line 4, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'not exceeding 2,000 in all."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said that if the noble Earl objected to the number 2,000, he objected entirely to the figures given by the Estates Commissioners and put forward by the Chief Secretary in another place. He (Lord Londonderry) had fixed the limit at 2,000 because those were the figures given by the Estates Commissioners and put forward by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons. He certainly had, at the time of moving his Amendment, drawn their Lordship,' attention to the extraordinary increase in the number of the people who desired to be considered evicted tenants, when compared with the numbers mentioned by Mr. Dillon in 1893, when Mr. Wyndham had brought forward the Land Purchase Bill, and when the question of the evicted tenants was very thoroughly discussed. He was speaking subject to correction, but he believed that at that time Mr. Dillon stated that there were only something like 600. Under those circumstances he thought it was necessary, and he thought the Chief Secretary was perfectly justified in stating, that there should be a limit; and, in fixing the number at 2,000, he thought he had been extremely generous, when that number was compared with the number given by Mr. Dillon. But what he had wished to impress upon their Lordships at the time he originally moved the Amendment, and what he wished to impress upon the House now, was that there should be a limit of some sort. If His Majesty's Government wished to extend it by a hundred or two, he would have no objection; but to leave the number absolutely unlimited, when they had thousands of so-called evicted tenants applying to be re-instated, was, he thought, most unsatisfactory to everyone concerned. It must be hopelessly unsatisfactory to the Estates Commissioners, because they would have to go over again all the different applications which they had gone over before and refused; it was a hopelessly unsatisfactory position to those people who, if there was to be no limit, would hope that their claims would be reconsidered and that they might be reinstated; but worst of all would be the position of those who were called the "sitting" or new tenants, who had for the last twenty years enjoyed the benefits of their tenancies.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am very unwilling to interrupt the noble Marquess, but the point I ventured to make was, that if you leave this Amendment in the Bill, it allows 2,000 tenants to be placed on land compulsorily acquired in addition to the whole number who may be restored by agreement. I cannot think that is what your Lordships mean.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

urged that some figure ought to be fixed_ He would be happy to agree to any reasonable figure suggested by the Government, but he did not think they would be justified in leaving it open to the whole of the possibly 4,000 or 5,000 evicted tenants who might desire to be included. He was perfectly willing to make the number an elastic one; but, in the interests of all concerned, some limit ought to be placed on the number, and he invited the noble Earl to state a number.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said he quite understood the point of the Lord President, but it must be remembered that the other offer was made with 80,000 acres of land. They knew very well that if a limit of that sort was put into the Bill it would mean the most awful ructions, if he might be pardoned the vulgarism, in Ireland; and he thought it much safer that there should be a limit to the number. The noble Earl had said that there was a danger in 2,000 evicted tenants being compulsorily put back on the land. They were quite willing to reduce the number to a lower number than 2,000. They were rather on the horns of a dilemma, because the Government would not give them a number, and yet they hinted that there were 2,000 of these evicted tenants who would have to be compulsorily reinstated; and the other horn of the dilemma was, that there were 80,000 acres to be taken. They who lived in Ireland could not accept that, because they knew what it meant, and if the noble Earl would reduce the number some arrangement might be come to. He really did not know what the Government was driving at.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

felt bound to point out that the objection now brought forward by the noble Earl to this Amendment was entirely different from those which had been urged for the last three or four months. The objection of the Chief Secretary in another place, as he understood, was that there might be another dozen or two over the 2,000 who would be deprived of the advantages of this Act. It was now suggested that the number to be put back by compulsory machinery would be very much less than 2,000, and that the Government did not want to be forced to throw open the gates to 2,000. If they were going to restore a great many more by voluntary arrangement what was the case for the Bill? The case for the Bill, as he had understood, was that the Commissioners said that they could not get any more land upon which to put back these evicted tenants, and he did not think he had misunderstood the case as it had been put. The argument the noble Earl had just put forward seemed a very curious commentary upon the case previously put before them in the Report of the Commissioners presented to Parliament and in the debates that had taken place.

* LORD ASHBOURNE

was not sure that the noble Earl had not knocked the bottom out of the reasoning for the Bill. They had great difficulty on that side of the House in understanding this absolutely new departure with regard to the statement of figures. They had had three stages o the Bill—the Second Reading, the Committee and the Report Stage—and it was reserved for a discussion on Amendments coming back from the Commons to take up a perfectly new starting point as to the number of tenants who were to be restored. They had been told that the Bill was urgent and vital, because of the great number of tenants to be restored, and after a certain winnowing down process the number was said to be about 2,000 more or less. Now it was sought to graft upon that a qualification which at present he did not follow, but he would state his appreciation of it whether right or wrong. He understood the noble Earl to say that 2,000 was a figure that was misleading, and apparently it had misled the Government. What he understood the noble Earl to say now was that 2,000 might be an entirely extravagant figure, because the Bill was intended to be confined to tenants for whom land was acquired compulsorily under this Act, and that there would not be anything like 2,000 for whom land was needed compulsorily, because they expected to get so much land voluntarily that they might be utterly overstating the case by saying that 2,000 needed compulsory treatment, when possibly the needs of a large number might be supplied by means of voluntary action. That was the meaning he gathered from the noble Earl's words, but if that was the true meaning, it knocked the bottom out of much of the argument for his Bill. Instead of 2,000 people needing this drastic and urgent treatment, without which the Government could not be responsible for Ireland, it turned out that the 2,000 was an entire over-statement. He ventured to think that the noble Earl was forgetful of what took place in Committee, which was absolutely inconsistent with his now starting this new point. Now Subsection 2(b) dealt with new tenants, and exactly the same observation would apply to them just in the same way. He (Lord Ashbourne) had put down an Amendment in terms saying in reference to 2 (b) that that was a clause which applied to new tenants, whether they were voluntarily or compulsorily dispossessed, and he was told, after consultation with the Irish Office and after looking into the matter, that his Amendment was not required, because the clause was framed so as to include voluntary as well as compulsory cases of treatment. They had discovered either what his noble and learned friend Lord Robertson called the other evening a "mare's nest," or something which knocked a tremendous lot out of the force behind the Bill in the way of reasoning. He did not see how it should in the slightest degree affect his noble friend's moving his Amendment, because he was of opinion that whether voluntary or compulsory, 2,000 in all was the maximum. It could not be confined to those who were compulsorily deprived of land, but it applied to all. The whole drafting of the Amendment showed that all the 8,000 tenants, or whatever number it was, who for whatever reason were dispossessed before the Bill, and sent in applications before 1st May, were the people to be dealt with, and it made no difference whether they were dealt with by voluntary or compulsory acquisition of land. That figure was a figure which was exhaustive and inclusive of everything. Therefore, as far as he could understand the statement of the noble Earl, his noble friend was quite right in moving his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

said that in the House of Commons it had been stated that 2,000 was not a high enough figure.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I have not the faintest objection to the insertion of the Amendment, but as I said originally I felt bound to state my view. The point had not occurred to me at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I understood the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) does not think it a good point.

* LORD ASHBOURNE

said he thought that if it was a good point it knocked the bottom out of much of the reasoning for the Bill.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I think I can show that it does not. The point I ventured to put was that this Bill deals with compulsory powers and compulsory powers only. Therefore, if you put a figure of this kind into the Bill, it means that that number of persons can be replaced by compulsory powers. Then the noble Earl the Earl of Donoughmore and the noble and learned Lord said, "If you do not want to restore all these people compulsorily, what is the use of the power in the Bill?" It never was contemplated that compulsion would be necessary for every person under this Bill. The Lands Clauses Acts and a great number of private Acts empower land to be taken compulsorily, but it does not follow that all the land scheduled in a Railway Bill is necessarily to be taken by compulsion. Very often nine-tenths of it is taken by agreement. The fact of compulsory power being put into an Act enables agreements to be made, and that is what will happen in this case. I have no doubt that a very large proportion of the land which changes hands under this Act will be exchanged by agreement, but agreements will be made because the compulsory powers are in the Act. But I have no wish to discuss the matter further, and if noble Lords like to insert the Amendment I have no objection.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he spoke, of course, with the indulgence of their Lordships, but while he gathered from the noble Earl that 2,000 was the maximum required, still if the Government desired another 100 or 200, he had no objection.

Motion, "That the House do not insist on their Amendment," negatived.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment to be considered is on Clause 1, page 2, line 15. This is what we have been in the habit of calling Lord Robertson's Amendment— Provided always that no lands shall be acquired compulsorily which have been purchased or agreed to be purchased under the Land Purchase Acts prior to the first day of May one thousand nine hundred and seven, nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of abona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in a husbandlike manner.

As I pointed out before there are two distinct issues involved in this Amendment. In the first place there is the issue with regard to the time up to which the fact that the tenant had made a purchase agreement should be a protection to him which would prevent his being removed in the character of a new tenant. We originally fixed "January" and the noble Lord moved that "May" should be inserted. As y our Lordships will see on the Paper we agree in so far as the date of May in place of January is concerned. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose to amend the Bill by leaving out "Estates Commissioners" and inserting the words "any two of the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner ? (that is more relevant to the whole question of appeal), and in page 2, line 19, to leave out the word "January," inserting the word "May" instead thereof; and in page 2, line 21, to insert a new subsection: "(5) No land shall be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts." This was put in according to our promise to make it quite clear that no purchase tenant should be liable to be removed under this Act. Then the further question is as regards "the possession or occupation of abona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in a husbandlike manner." We have not succeeded, I am afraid, in getting over our dislike to that phrase. Your Lordships will remember that we were prepared to leave the general question as to whether it was just from the point of view of a Judge that a particular tenant should be removed. We offered the words "consider that such reinstatement can be effected without injustice to the new tenant," not as a mere matter of a rough opinion which a man might form as to whether the removal of a particular tenant was generally fair or unfair, but on the responsibility of a Judge sitting as a Judge, and I am afraid, therefore, I must move that the Commons Amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Moved— That the Commons Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 15, be agreed to.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

* LORD ROBERTSON

could not help thinking that the House, and he believed the country, would learn the decision of the Government and the House of Commons with profound regret. His object in rising was not to re-argue a question which had been very fully considered by the House in a former occasion, but rather to state to, and to remind the House of what was the precise position taken by the Government. He could summarise that in a word. It was a total and absolute denial of the rights of the planters. It was a very singular thing that, taking advantage of the forms of procedure on those occasions, there was no reason assigned for the refusal of the clause. What was done was that the Commons disagreed to their Amendment but proposed to do certain things. He wished to point out how absolutely futile were the things which were proposed to be done by the Commons as an answer to the claims of the planters. The House would remember that it was careful, on a former occasion, to define and limit the class of men whom it was proposed to protect. The word "planter" had been loosely and generally applied to a number of persons who held a position, not of independent tenants, but of caretakers and, so to speak, agents for the landlords, and their Lordships were scrupulous in limiting the class of men who were to be protected by this Amendment to those who were simply tenant farmers on their own feet. Accordingly there was no excuse for evading the question which was thus formulated by their Lordships' House, the question being put whether the Legislature was to disregard the contract rights of those poor men and to treat them as if they might be affected as much as anyone who had no claim of right at all. The House of Commons had seized hold—he must say a little ingeniously—of one part in the Amendment which was carried in their Lordships' House. Their Lordships had said that not merely were those men in the ordinary case tenants holding as tenant farmers, but some of them had actually got so far that they were inchoate proprietors. That was to say they were not formally seized in the property, but they had got all the substantial steps taken towards becoming proprietors, and that had been put in the Amendment in order to dare all concerned to touch them. Now the concessions made by the Government were these—that the word "May" was inserted instead of the word "January," and that "no land shall be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts." All that was "leather and prunella" in the present question. These were matters of form, and were a complete ignoring of the claim substantially put forward, namely, the claim of the tenant farmers. This was merely on the fringe of the subject, and did not at all mitigate or take the edge off the denial of right to those tenant farmers. Now he would take another point, and really again it waspour rire. They were told, "Oh, but you are to be consoled with this—that each case of the compulsory acquisition of land where a farmer is to be affected will be consider by two ordinary Commissioners and a Judge." That was all very well if the Commissioners and the Judge had got any basis or footing to go upon, but in this case these people were denied all right, and accordingly the question to be decided by those two Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioner was merely whether they liked the man. That was the whole story, and therefore he returned to the position with which he began—that what had been done was to deny, out and out and from beginning to end, the rights of the planters. He was not going to make a speech on the present occasion; he had confined himself entirely to the explanations of what was the question between the Commons and their Lordships' House. But he hoped their Lordships would stand to this Amendment. It was a question of principle, of conscience, and of honour, and he could not imagine that when the country was apprised of the true issue between the two Houses there would be any doubt about their election.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I agree with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Robertson) that in respect of this Amendment your Lordships' House is under an obligation from which it is quite impossible for us to recede. If I wanted to justify my case I should do so out the mouth of the noble Earl opposite. On 10th July he used these words— The view which His Majesty's Government also hold is that where it is shown that a man is abona fide farmer working his farm to advantage, and desiring to retain it, he ought certainly not to be dispossessed. Those are the words which we have virtually embodied in the Amendment which we are now discussing. Now let me ask this question. What is the objection of His Majesty's Government to this Amendment? What is the difficulty which looms so large in their way? They urge that a great many of these planters are men of straw, that they are "caretakers," and that the number ofbona fide farmers who would come within our definition is a very small one. Very well. That shows, I think, that the difficulty which they will have to deal with is a very small difficulty, although the total number of cases is a large one. The "caretakers," the nondescripts, the birds of passage, will not be protected under the terms of our Amendment. Then there are other of these planter-tenants who no doubt will be perfectly willing to move elsewhere, under the liberal inducements which are to be offered to them; those men are willing to go and need not be considered. What then remains? Only thatresiduum—that handful of courageous men —who are farming their land properly, who have their farms stocked, who are paying their rent, and who wish to remain where they are. Those are the men you want to be able to turn out in order to make room for the agitators who have been concerned in the discreditable events of the last few years. The noble Earl himself does not want to get rid of these men. He himself has stigmatised the idea of removing them as monstrous. Those were his words. It is the agitators who wish to dispossess these men, and the noble Earl, who knows Ireland as well as I do, knows perfectly well the reason for which it is sought to turn out this handful of loyal and courageous farmers. Of course, for every one of those men turned out there will be a local triumph achieved by those who have been promoting illegality and agitation for so many years past. You could not proclaim in a more aggresive manner the triumph of the forces of disorder than by permittting the men belonging to this very small and limited category to be compulsorily expropriated from their homes. Therefore I hope that the House will adhere to this Amendment which I regard as absolutely vital.

On Question, Motion negatived.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

moved to insist on the Amendment to page 3, line 23, to leave out Subsection 6, which was simply consequential on the words already passed with regard to "compensation."

Moved— That the House do insist upon their Amendment to page 3, line 23.—(Viscount Midleton.)

Consequential Motion agreed to.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON

moved to amend the Commons Amendment which provided that the purchase money should be paid within the prescribed time into the Bank of Ireland by the Land Commission by substituting ?amount of compensation" for "purchase money" and "six months" for "the prescribed time." He said the noble Earl had met them very fairly in the question of time when the Bill was in Committee. The first words he moved were merely consequential on the adoption of the word "compensation" in an earlier clause, and therefore he need not dwell upon that. But the second point was to amend the Commons Amendment by substituting the words "six months" for the words "prescribed time." He thought it would be in the noble Earl's recollection that he made an offer of six months when the Bill was in Committee and he was sure he would not wish to go back from a Parliamentary bargain.

Moved— To amend the Amendment made by the Commons in page 3, line 23, by leaving out the words 'purchase money' and inserting the words 'amount of compensation,' and by leaving out the words 'the prescribed time' and inserting the words 'six months.'—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon).

* THE EARL OF CREWE

As far as regards the consequential Amendment—to leave out "purchase money" and insert "amount of compensation"—I have no doubt your Lordships will insist upon it, but of course it will be understood from the long conversation we have already had on Clause 1 that His Majesty's Government do not, agree with it. As regards the second part of the Amendment—the insertion of the words "six months"—the noble Lord will see that his Amendment is to a certain degree incomplete, because he does not say from what period the six months are to run—there is no starting point. If the Commons Amendment were taken it would be, of course, in pursuance of what the noble Lord very properly called a Parliamentary bargain. A rule would have been made that the money should be paid within six months, and it would also set out the different times from which the six months would run in the different clauses as they arose—for instance, where a petition had been presented, and in another case where a petition had been presented and possibly not proceeded with.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON

reminded the noble Earl that this was a case where no petition had been presented.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

But I think the noble Lord included every case.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON

Yes, on the subsequent Amendment.

* THE EARL of CREWE

But if the noble Lord presses for his term of six months in the Bill we would give it him with this condition: "Six months after the expiration of the time limited for the presentation of petitions." Will the noble Earl take those words?

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON

did not profess to be an expert in drafting but he thought that that would meet the case.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble Lord will find that those words are all right—therefore perhaps the noble Lord will move his proposal with that addition.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The first thing will be to deal with the Amendment of this House with which the Commons disagree. I take it the House does not insist upon that Amendment.

On Question, "That the House do not insist on their Amendment on page 3, lines 22 to 27, to leave out Subsection (6)," agreed to.

On Question, Lord Monteagle of Brandon's Amendment, with the addition of the words proposed by the Earl of Crewe —"six months after the expiration of the time limited for the presentation of petitions," agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next set of Amendments are the Amendments to page 3, lines 29 and 30—the long series of Amendments moved by Lord Atkinson at the earlier stage of the Bill. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, and the noble and learned Lord, in the Paper which has been circulated since the Amendments were returned, also moves not to insist on that Amendment but substitutes another. We admit, of course, that in some respects the Amendment is free from certain objections which we took to it in its first form. We are not able to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, but we are prepared to do this. If noble Lords will look at the Amendment proposed by the Commons in page 3, line 34 (it is on page 6 of the printed Amendments), they will see that the proposal of the Commons was to leave out from the word "shall" to the end of Clause 2, and to insert the words— Subject to the provisions of this subsection, be final: Provided that any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners fixing the price of the land proposed to be acquired, or any determination of a question arising under the provisions of this Act imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land, may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, who shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine the appeal.' That is the form of appeal which we consider to be a reasonable one in these cases. The substantial difference is that instead of cases being heard by the Judicial Commissioner alone he should be supported by two outsiders acting as assessors—people who would sit with him, and who naturally, one might suppose, would be of the highest class of those who are qualified to judge in these matters and to assist him in arriving at his decision. The reason that we make this proposal is that we understand that what noble Lords particularly object to in this appeal is its being left, so to speak, entirely within the ambit of the Estates Commissioners, and we believe that we have met this objection by the proposal we have made. We have placed the number at two assessors in preference to one. Whether it would be necessary for the two always to sit I do not know, but at all events it would give an opportunity of one always sitting, and they might be men who would be busily engaged in other ways. But the intention is that they should be people who would be regarded as clear of whatever objections are supposed to attach, in the minds of noble Lords opposite, to the Estates Commissioners as the only body to deal with these matters, and we have really endeavoured to meet the wishes of the noble Lords opposite in that respect. We maintain that on these questions of value a Judge of Assize, or a Judge of the High Court, is not a valuable tribunal of appeal. He obviously is not a person with particular knowledge of the facts or circumstances, and he has to depend upon the information supplied to him by some valuer whom he calls in in all probability to, give an expert opinion, which opinion he is almost practically bound to take, because the chances are that he does not himself possess any very great share of the expert knowledge necessary to arrive at such a conclusion. We think that the Judicial Commissioner—who I think by common consent, as a person, whatever noble Lords opposite may think of his office, is regarded with great respect by all parties in Ireland—with his peculiar knowledge, assisted by two independent men of this kind, would form the best possible tribunal that could be found for a decision on a question of value.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

asked who would appoint the assessors.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I think Mr. Justice Wylie is to appoint them. They are to be nominated by Mr. Justice Wylie.

LORD ATKINSON,

in moving a new Amendment providing for an appeal to the High Court, said he had some difficulty in understanding the position, because the Amendment proposed by the House of Commons was not the Amendment which the noble Lord now proposed. The Amendment proposed by the House of Commons was that— Any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners fixing the- price of the land proposed to be acquired or any determination of a question arising under the provisions of this Act imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land may within the prescribed time appeal to the Judicial Commissioner who shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine the appeal. It then gave him, in exercise of that jurisdiction, all the powers conferred by Section 48 of the Land (Ireland) Act, 1881, one of which was that he might appoint an independent valuer in any case, if he so desired, to visit the land and report to him. He understood now that instead of that it was provided that the Judicial Commissioner was to sit with two assessors. What those assessors were—who they were—did not appear, and most strangely of all it did not appear what their tenure was to be. If they were to be persons—to use a vulgar phrase—employed "by the job." what became of all the arguments that the Estates Commissioners in these judicial matters were to have a permanent tenure, when the assessors were only to be employed from time to time to decide upon appeal the very matters which were so judicial in their character that the Estates Commissioners could not possibly decide them without this tenure? It was a refutation of every word that had been said in reference to the elevation of the Estates Commissioners into the position of ordinary Judges. There was some difficulty, therefore, in dealing with the Amendment as now proposed, but as far as he could he would endeavour to deal with it. He might recall to their Lordships the fact that upon the Second Reading he had ventured to say that according to the Bill as introduced the Estates Commissioners might acquire any land they pleased, where they pleased, at what time they pleased, and at what price they pleased. That was an impossible position to defend. It was a thing that did not exist in the whole of the British dominions. The nearest approach to it was the case in England, where, under the Local Government Act of 1894, for Government purposes the Government might acquire land. But even then the compensation was decided by the very tribunal which was supposed to be unfit to decide the compensation in Ireland—namely, the Civil Court. It was impossible to defend that position, and accordingly an appeal was proposed, and he thanked the noble Lord for having proposed it. He did not propose for a moment to re-argue the question which was then discussed, but, as there must be an appeal, the subject for their Lordships' present consideration was, which was the best appeal—the appeal which he had sketched, or the appeal sketched by His Majesty's Government. First of all, with regard to the latter, there was no certainty whatever that Mr. Justice Wylie would sit at all. He joined in everything that had been said with reference to Mr. Justice Wylie; he was a recently appointed Judge, and he was not aware that he knew much about land; but he knew him to be a man of learning, and he believed him to be a man of honesty, courage, independence and strength—and he thought he would require all those qualities in the place where he was. Therefore, he had no objection whatever to Mr. Justice Wylie personally. But first of all Mr. Justice Wylie had a great deal more to do than he could possibly do at present in dealing with agreements with regard to over £30,000,000 worth of land which had been entered into. It had been asserted in the time of his predecessor that, as he had the important duty of distributing the purchase money, and he only could distribute it, considering that every estate in Ireland—at all events 75 per cent. of them—were in settlement, and that it was necessary to consider the provisions of wills and marriage settlements in the matter of each estate, it was impossible that the Judicial Commissioner could distribute the purchase money to a greater extent than about £5,000,000 a year. So that whoever the Judicial Commissioner was, he would be obliged to devote his entire time to disposing of that £5,000,000 a year, and putting it through the sieve of marriage settlements and wills which overlay the land to be sold, or else he must be taken away, now from the one duty, and then from the other. First of all, there was no necessity that Mr. Justice Wylie should hear these matters at all. Under Section 28 of the Act of 1870, as well as under Section 23 of the Act of 1896, and again under Section 86 of the Act of 1903, the Lord Chancellor could appoint any Judge he pleased to do the duty of the Estates Commissioners; and, if that was so, there was nothing whatever in the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl to show that those duties might not be discharged by nominated Judges as well as by the Judicial Commissioner. And therefore, to take this Amendment as it was, unless it was read with those earlier Statutes, was to play a perfectly blind game. It might be such a person as the Lord Chancellor of the day might designate to discharge the duties of the Judicial Commissioner. But that was not the main objection. The main objection was of a different character altogether. The Land Commission was a corporation consisting of three members: there were three Estates Commissioners, and they were members of the Land Commission co-ordinate in every respect with their brother members, the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. FitzGerald, and Mr. Moragh O'Brien. There were six of them altogether, and they were all Land Commissioners, and all co-ordinate. It so happened that Section 23 of the Act of 1903 enacted that the three Estates Commissioners should work the preceding sections of the Act of 1903 coupled with this provision—that on matters of law they might appeal to the Judicial Commissioner on any difference between them. It might well be that as they were not lawyers, and could not pretend to any legal knowledge which the public had ever recognised, they might submit to his decision on matters of law. And, accordingly, Section 23 of the Act of 1903 provided that questions of law might be referred to the Judicial Commissioner —who was a distinguished lawyer—for decision. But, with regard to matters of fact, it was preposterous to put one member of a body composed of six to decide questions of fact on appeal from two of his own colleagues, especially as those two colleagues claimed to be men with special expert knowledge. The two special expert people with expert knowledge—the two Estates Commissioners—were to be appealed from to the Judge who was supposed to have no expert knowledge with two journeymen brought in from time to time who were called "assessors." A more ridiculous tribunal could not be imagined, and it would be quite impossible to work it with the constant friction there would be. He could imagine a case turning up where the question was whether a planter-tenant wasbona fide in possession of his farm or not; and he could imagine the difficulty which the Judicial Commissioner would have in dealing with his own two colleagues who, in the next half-hour, might be associated with him on other business as his equals in all respects. What he and those who thought with him wanted was an independent appeal from the proceedings of the Land Commission, outside the Land Commission, into the investigation of which fresh minds would be brought, new publicity given and external light let in; and no other appeal could be successful, or could win the confidence of those whose fortunes depended upon the decision of such tribunal. He had heard with amazement that Judges were not fit to try cases unless they had expert knowledge. Why, there was not a Court of Chancery in the three Kingdoms that was not an answer, and a conclusive answer, to that. Vice-Chancellors, Masters of the Rolls—

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble and learned Lord is slightly, without any intention of doing so, misrepresenting what I said. I did not say the Court was not fit to try a case; I said that the Judge who tried the case had to depend upon what valuers happened to tell him.

LORD ATKINSON

said that the Judge n this case would have to depend upon what the Judge in every other case had to depend upon, namely, the evidence given before him.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am speaking of what happened under the Act of 1870. As the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well, the Judge used to decide the question on the advice of a particular valuerad hoc, not on the question of evidence at all.

LORD ATKINSON

said that so much did he appreciate that that by his Amendment he expressly provided that the Judge should have an independent person to give him assistance. But to assert that no man could try a case dealing with the value of land unless he was himself an expert agriculturist was to contradict the whole legal system of the country, which was that a Judge had to decide upon the evidence before him and not from his own technical knowledge. Therefore, there could be no objection in the world to a hearing before a Judge of Assize or before a Judge of the High Court. Any contention to the contrary was extraordinary, particularly considering that that was the very thing that the Judge of Assize had to decide under Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1870, under provisions for appeal identical with these. Any man who could decide what was the fair rent of land could necessarily decide what was the value of the land. Anybody who could decide what was the value of improvements upon land ought to go a great way in deciding what was the value of land, and it was difficult to see why a Judge of Assize, because he happened to sit in the King's Bench Division, could not come to as true and as right a conclusion as to the value of a piece of land, or as to whether a planter wasbona fide occupying his holding, as Mr. Justice Wylie sitting with two assessors or assisted by a valuer. He therefore submitted that the appeal which he suggested was more satisfactory in every way. It brought to the proceedings of these Estates Commissioners and to the proceedings of the Land Commissioners new minds; it threw new light upon them; it brought them to the test of publicity; it brought justice to the home of the peasant by means of the Court he was most accustomed to, where all his litigation was really settled. As to the trial by a Judge upon the rota, that was merely introduced to meet the objection that might be made that during the interval between two Assizes, there might be no Court where the e cases could be tried. The noble Earl would recognise that he had, in the Amendment which he now proposed, struck out the part which dealt with the question of assessors. Of course, since the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Midleton was carried, he could not insist upon that. He had also introduced a provision that the landlord, or the vendor, were to receive the ordinary 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase, and as he had said upon another occasion, he did not think he could possibly claim that in addition to what was already secured to him. He did not wish to waste time by going over ground which had been already traversed. He submitted that as between the two appeals which had been laid before their Lordships to chose between, an appeal to an independent outsider on the proceedings of these Commissioners which would bring their justice and fairness of methods to the test was a much more satisfactory appeal than an appeal to one of those gentlemen who was in daily touch with the very Commissioners from whose decision the appeal was taken. He was not quite sure, according to the Amendment proposed in the House of Commons and now supplemented by what the noble Earl had said, exactly what he meant to cover by his Amendment. Did he mean that the planter should have a right of appeal if he was dispossessed on the ground that he was abona fide owner inbona fide occupation of the farm, or did he mean to restrict the question of appeal only to Section 6? The wording was rather difficult to follow— All questions arising under the provisions of this Act imposing the restriction on the acquisition of land may within the prescribed time. He really did not know whether that was intended to be confined to Section 6 of the Act or was intended, as amended, to extend so as to apply to the case of a planter who would be dispossessed, because he never for a moment could take any share in passing any Amendment that would leave the planters at the mercy of the Estates Commissioners to determine whether they werebona fide farmers occupying the farm and to shut them out from all appeal. He thought it was most essential that whatever appeal was given should extend to them, and that if they were dispossessed they should have an opportunity of bringing their case before a higher tribunal. If there was no other reason why their Lordships should give prefernece to his Amendment over that of the noble Earl, he would say that the reason lay in the fact that under his Amendment it was made plain that the planter was protected, while under the noble Earl's Amendment the position of the planter was left in doubt.

Amendment moved— Not to insist on the Amendment in page 3, line 30, to which the Commons have disagreed, but to insert the following new Amendment in lieu thereof. To leave out from the word 'thereon' to the end of the Subsection (7) and insert the words:—`(a) Any person aggrieved by any order or proceeding of the Estates Commissioners under this Act may within the time and in the manner prescribed by rules to be made as herein-after provided, apply as he shall elect, either to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, or to the Judges of Assize for the county in which the lands sought to be acquired, or the greater part thereof, are situated, to hear and determine any question of law or fact arising out of any such order or proceeding, including any question of law or fact under Section 1, Subsection 3, and Section 6. Every such application shall be heard and determined by one of the Judges of Assize for the said county, or by one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division, to be selected by the said Judges according to a rota to be framed by them at the commencement of each sitting of the said High Court. Upon hearing of every such application the Judge shall have power and authority to hear and determine all questions of law and fact that may arise, including the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the said order, and he may give judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the said order of the Estates Commissioners, and may make such order as to the costs of and incidental to the said petition, and the hearing of the said application, as he may think fit; (b) Upon the hearing of every such application the said Judge shall have the jurisdiction, power, and authority possessed by a Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland when presiding at a trial at Nisi Prius, including the power to administer an oath, and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. He shall also have the power to direct that an independent valuer, to be nominated by him, should report to him his opinion upon any matter the Judge may think fit to refer to him, and he may make such order in reference to the costs of any such report as he may deem just; (c) In the determination of any question as to the adequacy of the compensation offered, the Judge shall have regard to the principles of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, applicable to the compulsory purchase of land, and for the purposes of the said application before the said Judge, the Estates Commissioners shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking within the meaning of the said Act. Provided that no additional allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory; (d) The Estates Commissioners shall be competent, but not compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application, and they shall furnish to the Judge hearing the same all such particulars and documents as shall by him be required, including a schedule in the form prescribed by Section 7 of the Act of 1903, together with a statement of the superior interests, any, to which the lands sought to be acquired, or the estate of which they form a part, may be subject; (e) The inspectors and other officers of the Land Commission, other than the Land Commissioners themselves, shall be competent and compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application; (f) The said King's Bench Division and the Judges of Assize, respectively, may order that all applications pending before them in respect of the same petition or order as aforesaid may be consolidated and heard together, and for the more convenient, speedy, or proper hearing of any such applications, may order that the hearing of the same may be transferred from the said Division to the Judges of Assize, or from the Judges of Assize to that Division, as the case may be, and the said application, when so transferred, shall be heard and determined as if it had originally been made to the tribunal to which it has been transferred; (g) The Judge before whom any such application is heard may, where he deems it expedient, reserve any question or matter arising upon such application, by way of case stated, for the consideration of His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland; (h) All cases stated for the Court of Appeal shall be prosecuted, heard, and determined by such Court in such manner and form, and subject to such rules and regulations as the Court may from time to time by rules direct. The said Court of Appeal shall give such judgment as ought to have been given in the Court below by the Judge thereof, and such judgment shall be of the like effect as if it had been the judgment of the said Judge, or the said Court of Appeal may remit the case with such directions as they think fit to the Court below; (i) In the interval between the lodging of any such application to the Judges of Assize and the opening of the Assizes for the county in which such application is to be heard the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall, on the motion in the prescribed manner of the applicant, the Estates Commissioners, or any party interested, have jurisdiction, power, and authority to make any order of an interlocutory nature in the matter of the said application, as if the same were an action at law pending in the said division; (j) The provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1903 shall apply to this Act so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the latter. Provided that a question of law which has been decided by a Judge of the High Court or of Assize, or by the Court of Appeal under the provisions of this Act shall not after the date of such decision, be referred for decision to the Judicial Commissioner nor while a question of law is awaiting decision in any application pending before such a Judge, shall the same question of law be referred for decision to the Judicial Commissioner, unless at the request of some person who is neither a party to nor interested in the matter of the said application; (k) The compensation to be paid to any owner of land in respect of the loss thereof shall for the purpose of the Land Purchase Acts be deemed to be the price to be paid for the purchase thereof; (l) Rules of Court regulating and prescribing the practice, procedure, and the costs of and incidental to the hearing of all proceedings under this section before the King's Bench Division, or any Judge thereof, or any Judge of Assize, may be made by the authority having power to make Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; (9) If all questions under all petitions have been determined in such a manner that the Estates Commissioners would be entitled under the order of the Judge of Assize, or of the King's Bench Division, or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, to acquire the said lands, and if it appears to the Estates Commissioners that they cannot re-sell the land for the purposes of this Act without incurring a greater loss than that authorised by the Lord-Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, they may at any time within six weeks after the determination of the amount of the compensation by notice in writing signify to such owner that it is not their intention to acquire the land, and in such case the Estates Commissioners shall pay to the owner compensation for any loss or expenses which he may have sustained or incurred by reason or in consequence of the proceedings, but if no such notice is given within the said period, the Land Commission shall, within six months after such determination, pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners shall make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.' —(Lord Atkinson.)

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I suppose I ought not to speak again, but as the noble a nd learned Lord has asked me certain questions perhaps the House will allow me to do so. As regards the question he last asked, as to the planter, the noble and learned Lord will remember that we provided for the planter in another way—that any two of the Estates Commissioners and the Judicial Commissioners were to be the final authority to inquire if it was just that he should be moved—and as we have not assented to the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite relating to the planter, the question whether our appeal would apply to him is scarcely germane to the present discussion. The noble Lord still—quite naturally, and as I should have expected—adheres to the charms of his own infant and considers that the best possible tribunal that could be found is that of a Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court. And he said that after all this was the tribunal Mr. Gladstone had instituted under the Act of 1870. That is perfectly true, and the same statement was made in a leading article inThe Times a day or two ago. But what neither the leading article nor the noble and learned Lord maintained was that as soon as any further legislation took place in that direction dealing with the subject of land —that is to say in 1881—this appeal was taken away from the Judge of Assize, —on the ground presumably that this tribunal had not been found satisfactory, —and was given by the Act of 1881, Section 47, to the Land Commission. Then came the 1903 Act, and under that Act, Section 88, it was provided that— All re-hearings under Section 47 of the Act of 1881? (that was the one which amended the Act of 1887), and all rehearings shall be heard and determined by one Judicial Commissioner with the assistance of one specially qualified lay assessor who shall hear the evidence and on the application of either party inspect the holdings and report thereon. Therefore in that Act of noble Lords opposite that appeal was still maintained to the Land Commission in preference to the Judge of Assize, who, for this particular purpose, has been extinct since the year 1881. I think the noble and learned Lord ought to bring some strong evidence—

LORD ATKINSON apologised for interrupting the noble Earl, but the Judge of Assize had been revived in 1898 and he was now the tribunal to determine the value of land taken by county councils.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, but not for this purpose.

LORD ATKINSON

No, but for a more important purpose.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Of course nobody disputes the possibility of a Judge of Assize trying a case of this kind, and, I daresay, arriving at a very fair decision by the aid of the information which he gets in the course of the case. I have never intended for a moment to lay down, or even to suggest, that a Judge, or an arbitrator, or anybody else, in order properly to decide upon a case need necessarily be an expert—indeed it often happens that the less he knows of the case he has to decide the better. But the whole question is one of comparison, and what we say is that as a matter of fact and knowledge the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie —who is a man of very great experience in these matters, and who has had a long experience, as noble Lords know, in matters connected with land—assisted by these specially- qualified assessors, is as good a tribunal as you could wish to have. The noble and learned Lord paid a very pleasing tribute to Mr. Justice Wylie's personality, and spoke of his independence and all the rest of it, but I am bound to say that I think he drew a somewhat lurid picture of the sort of terror which Mr. Justice Wylie is likely to be in towards his colleagues the Estates Commissioners. For my own part I do not believe that Mr. Justice Wylie, if he formed an opinion, would care a brass farthing what the Estates Commissioners said if he did not agree with them. And if he thought it necessary, in the exercise of his judgment, and with the assistance of the assessors, to revise some conclusion at which they had arrived, I do not believe he would be in the least deterred from doing so by the fact that he and they were also Land Commissioners. Because, after all, he is what they are not—a Judge of the High Court—and in that capacity, although in one sense they might be described as co-equals, yet in this sense, sitting as a Court of Appeal, they would be only too glad to admit he was their superior in trying a matter of that kind. The noble and learned Lord, also, I think suggested that there was no certainty that Mr. Justice Wylie would sit at all. I scarcely think that that is a fair suggestion to make. It was ingenious, no doubt, but to my mind it was more ingenious than fair, because, after all, this Act, as we know, is to have a somewhat short life—we hope these transactions will be completed within a limited period —and I think it is almost too much to make a suggestion that the Lord Chancellor would deliberately set Mr. Justice Wylie aside when the words of the proposed clause are that "the Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of the assessors, hear cases in the prescribed manner," and would appoint some other Judge possibly unpalatable to landowners in Ireland. I think it may be taken as certain that the intention which we have shown in suggesting these words—that the Judicial Commissioner should be the person to be assisted by the assessors—will be carried out as far as it is humanly possible. Under those circumstances I am afraid that we cannot assent in any way to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, and I should like to think that some of the points I have ventured to lay before the House may assist noble Lords opposite—although I am bound to say I have not much hope of that—in arriving at the same conclusion as we have arrived at ourselves.

* THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

desired to say at the outset that he had no evicted tenants, neither had he any untenanted land. In any remarks that he might make with regard to the Commissioners he had not the slightest intention of casting any aspersions on that body of gentlemen. It seemed to him, however, that the appeal which His Majesty's Government had offered was hardly an appeal which they on that side could accept. It seemed to him that the Commissioners had a great deal of work to do, and that the Judicial Commissioner would be in a very unpleasant position if the duty were cast upon him of hearing appeals from the body of which he was a member. The noble Lord the President of the Council had alluded to the Bill as being of a finite character. He clearly understood that it was so, but he very much doubted whether the principles laid down and the precedents created therein would not be of an everlasting character. For those reasons he entirely supported the Amendment of his noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson, which secured an appeal to an outside tribunal.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I have been much impressed during this discussion by the testimony which has been borne to the high character of Mr. Justice Wylie, the Judicial Commissioner, and speaking for myself, I think I should be very much inclined to say that if I had to refer my interests to an appellate tribunal I should be very well content to leave myself in his hands. But on the other hand there is, as the noble Earl will have seen, a very strong and, I think, a very natural feeling that in matters of this importance, and considering the extremely unusual character of the provisions of this Bill, there should be an appeal to some tribunal entirely outside the Land Commission. I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl whether it might not be possible, while retaining the Judicial Commissioner as the appellate court, to give to the parties, as an alternative, the right of going to the Judge of Assize. I think if people were aware that such an alternative were open to them a good many of those misgivings which have been expressed would be removed. I am not myself wedded to any particular proposal. I think it is extremely difficult for a layman to take upon himself to say how judicial business of this kind can best be conducted. We are all, I am sure, grateful to my noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson) for bringing forward a self-contained proposal for dealing with these appeals, but I am not prepared to say that I regard his proposal as better than any other, and if noble Lords opposite could offer some alternative which fulfilled the conditions which I have described I should certainly recommend my noble friends from Ireland to consider it favourably.

THE EARL OF MAYO

wished to make it clear at the outset that he did not desire to say anything about Mr. Justice Wylie. The real truth was that they who lived in Ireland and had dealings with the Commissioners felt that as this Bill was a compulsory Bill they would like to remove themselves, if there was an appeal, entirely from the atmosphere of the Land Commission. It resolved itself into that. The truth of the matter was that Mr. Justice Wylie and the other Estates Commissioners were, practically speaking, a firm who dealt in land, who had the power of acquisition of land, and who could do practically more or less what they liked with land. The appeal that the Government had offered amounted to this—that it was an appeal from the junior partner to the senior partner in that firm—and for that reason he thought they were perfectly justified in seeking to remove themselves entirely from that atmosphere. They knew as well as possible that if Mr. Justice Wylie was to be allowed to sit as an appellate Judge in this matter he would have frequent conflicts with his colleagues. That would not facilitate Commissioners in any way whatsoever, nor would it facilitate the hearing of an appeal in a satisfactory manner. There was another thing to remember which he hoped noble Lords from England would take to heart, and that was that if this kind of appeal were admitted in this Bill they knew perfectly well that a very much larger Bill was looming in the future, and, as coming events cast their shadows before, if they were to have compulsory purchase—and it had been foreshadowed that compulsory purchase would be the mode of dealing with the congested districts in the West of Ireland. If that were to be so, they must insist upon getting outside the atmosphere of the Land Commission when they desired to appeal. He did not wish to say anything about Mr. Justice Wylie. He believed him to be a strong man and a just man, but if such an appeal as that now proposed had been granted in no other Act in the United Kingdom, surely they in Ireland, where compulsion was being put upon them for a certain purpose, ought not to be asked to accept such an appeal. After all that had been said about the smallness of the number of evicted tenants, and now that this extraordinarily larger number had cropped up, and now that this Bill had been brought up in such a hurry to deal with the question, the least they could do was to ask for a fair, honest, and just appeal.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

said there was one point in which this appeal bore a strong resemblance to a similar provision in the English Land Bill. In the debate last night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agreed that where the Board of Agriculture were interested parties it was not fair that the Board's valuer should act in the manner provided in the Bill, but that an independent arbitrator should be appointed to settle the price of the land. He appealed to the noble and learned Lord now to state whether he thought the Judicial Commissioner was not in some degree an interested party in the present measure. A very strong opinion was held by noble Lords from Ireland that there should be an appeal outside the Land Commission, so that they would have an independent appeal unconnected with the Estates Commissioners.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

May I quote, in support of what I said a moment ago, a very interesting passage which I have extracted from a paper put in by Mr. Commissioner Finucane before Lord Dudley's Commission the other day. I think that some injustice has been done to Mr. Finucane, as well as to his colleague, by the quotation of isolated passages from their evidence which, taken apart from the context, perhaps do not quite adequately represent their general views. I now quote this passage as bearing upon what we are at the moment discussing. It is in a Memorandum which your Lordships will find on page 317 of the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission. Mr. Finucane said— No individual, official or non-official, and no board or body of men, whether official or non-official, should be invested with absolute power of acquiring land compulsorily without an appeal on questions of price and of law to a judicial or quasi-judicial body. Here we have a case of a board—these gentlemen are really all members of a board—and if that very sound doctrine be adopted it would follow logically that there should be an appeal, at all events in some cases, from that body to some tribunal external to it.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Lord (the Earl of Leitrim) prayed in aid the English Land Bill as showing that people ought not to be judges in their own case. If it is seriously maintained that Mr. Justice Wylie, because he is a Judicial Commissioner, and these other gentlemen the Estates Commissioners are also Land Commissioners, are in any sense a party to the transaction in the case of a particular sale of land—if that could be maintained there might be something in the contention. But the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said that these gentlemen constitute one Board. It is not in the least true to say that they are one Board. The three Estates Commissioners no doubt are; but the Judicial Commissioner is absolutely outside of them for this particular purpose. It is only by implying, as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Atkinson) did, that they exercised some sort of terrorising influence over the Judicial Commissioner that that argument could be main- tained at all. It is perfectly obvious that so far as these transactions are concerned the Judicial Commissioner cannot be said by any degree of straining of language to be at all an interested party. On this question of appeal upon value I confess that we do not find it possible to meet noble Lords opposite. Noble Lords will remember that at an earlier stage of the Bill I spoke of the possibility of finding a single Judge to undertake this work. I still think there might be something to be said for that course, if noble Lords opposite imagine that such a Judge can be found, but unfortunately the compulsory powers of this Act do not extend to taking a learned Judge by the scruff of his neck—if I may be allowed to use a rather disrespectful expression—and placing him on the bench and insisting on his trying certain judicial matters, and I am afraid it would be exceedingly difficult to get any member of the High Court of Ireland to undertake this work. I confess that in spite of all the elaborate and ingenious arguments which have been advanced I do not appreciate the objection which noble Lords seemed to take to the Judicial Commissioner in this matter. As far as regards the other questions—those arising under Clause 6—the same objections, in our opinion, do not apply. On all the questions which arise in Clause 6 with regard to the acquisition of land, we should be prepared, if noble Lords preferred it—and it would also have the advantage of not throwing the same amount of work on the Judicial Commissioners—a point which the noble and learned Lord put with great force, if I may say so—we should be prepared, I say, to submit all the appeals which arise under Clause 6 to a rota of Judges to take the words of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment on page 3— One of the Judges of the King's Bench Division to be selected by the said Judges according to a rota to be framed by them at the commencement of each sitting of the said High Court. We should he prepared, so far as all the questions under Clause 6 are concerned, to give that kind of appeal if noble Lords preferred it instead of the other form of appeal, but I am afraid we must adhere to our own proposal so far as questions of value are concerned. I regret that I cannot go beyond I the offer we have already made to noble Lords opposite.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Would the noble Lord's proposal include a reference to the Judge in cases arising with regard to new tenants?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid I cannot answer that question off-hand. The question of the new tenants rests in this way. We have made a proposition with regard to new tenants, and noble Lords have inserted a different clause. As long as that clause remains in the Bill it is impossible for me to give an answer to the question which the noble Marquess has just put.

* LORD ASHBOURNE

said that they were advancing, but it was obvious, at the same time, that they had arrived at a point at which the matter could not rest. One thing had been made abundantly plain in the course of the debate, and that was that the House—the Opposition side of the House at all events, and he thought possibly that they had the concurrence ,of many noble Lords sitting on the other side—was of opinion that the Amendment put in at the instance of his noble and learned friend (Lord Robertson) was one to which extreme importance ought to be attached, and there was not the slightest possibility that he could see of their receding from that position. That being so, the question arose, were these new tenants to be excluded from appeal? If the words of Lord Robertson were acceded to there was protection where protection was sought, but supposing that a man who was abona-fide tenant farming his land was disregarded and his land taken away, he was surely entitled to be protected by a right of appeal. That was a matter of importance. It might be that the noble Earl had not considered it; but obviously it was a matter which could not be left in doubt. The protection of the planter was a question which they had regarded throughout as one of extreme importance, and it was impossible for them to desert or abandon those men. The appeal was necessary to validate, strengthen, and support the clause now standing in the Bill. He felt, as he had said, that the position had advanced, because, originally, there was no Court of Appeal for any purpose in the Bill. His noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson) had prepared with great completeness and ability the appeal section which was before their Lordships. That led to the introduction of the appeal proposed by His Majesty's Government, and it was obvious that although that was an advance which was recognised as showing a desire to deal with the question, still it was absolutely incomplete in its subject matter, for it excluded from the appellate jurisdiction the case of the new tenant and the planter. Mr. Justice Wylie was greatly respected, and enjoyed the confidence of his profession, but the matter was not to be treated as at all a personal question with regard to him. There was a desire to see the introduction of some authority which would represent an outside view of the case, and that desire existed without the slightest reflection upon Mr. Justice Wylie. In reference to the rota and the distribution of business, the suggestion to give the appal as to value, and appeals under Section 6 to Mr. Justice Wylie and a rota of judges, that, of course, was a matter which had now been stated for the first time; and that was an advance to some extent; he did not say that it was not entitled to consideration, but there had not yet been much time to consider it. On the subject of the rota, he considered that the King's Bench Judges would scrutinise with very great attention, and with some anxiety, the course of legislation upon this matter. It must be borne in mind that unfortunately this provision was brought in in the middle of the vacation, when all the Judges were away, and were not accessible, and, therefore, they were not in a position to send forward their views, which otherwise they might possibly have done. The question of rota was not an easy question; it would have to be considered and criticised; and he would suggest, as a possible Amendment to the clause of his noble and learned friend, that, instead of putting in that a rota should be cast for sittings four times a year, which he did not see any necessity for, it would be wiser to leave to that great tribunal, the King's Bench, the power of regulating their own times of sittings and the fixing of the rota. That was a mere matter of detail; but there was another matter with reference to the rota which, he thought, would be possibly put forward as a matter of judicial examination and criticism. The King's Bench Judges might say, "Why do you pick out the King's Bench Judges alone? Are we the only Judges to be employed in this not particularly agreeable and attractive duty? You have got Mr. Justice Ross, who certainly has not as much to do as many of us, and who is closely connected with land administration and is given distinct powers under the Act of 1896. Why is he not to bear his part, at all events, as a judge on the rota?" And then it might be suggested, if he was to go on the rota, why not his colleague the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie? He ventured to think that as the Judges were away, and unable to put forward their case and their criticism, it would be well to bear in mind these things, and to make sure that in the constitution of the rota they should engage all the Judges who might be legitimately asked to take a share in work which would not be looked upon as of the most agreeable character. That was a matter which he would not dwell upon at any length, but would only indicate as one worth consideration and attention. He was more anxious, if possible, to have something like a clear view as to the question which his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had asked as to what was to be the position of affairs with regard to this appeal. That was a matter of first-class importance. The Amendment of his noble and learned friend Lord Robertson was admirable; it gave protection by announcing what was to be the governing policy; but it must have powder and shot behind it, it must have the sanction of a Court, and if it was departed from or violated by mistake, inadvertence, or otherwise, there must be a method of setting it right by appeal. With regard to the other matter, which had now been suggested for the first time, it was a matter of novelty and one that he had not had time to consider. It proposed practically two appellate tribunals, without saying exactly what were to be their denominations or limitations. He would, of course, be glad to have the opportunity of considering that question; but, in the meantime, there was a proposal before them for consideration in addition to His Majesty's Government's proposal. The Government proposal was incomplete, because it did not contain any decision whatever in reference to an appeal for the planters. His noble and learned friend's (Lord Atkinson) Amendment was not open to that charge, and, whether they liked it or not, as a means of deciding one way or the other, for the purpose of coming to a conclusion at the present stage, it was complete in itself; it gave an appeal to the planter; it gave an appeal on the price, and it gave an appeal in reference to the other questions which might arise. It was, therefore, complete in regard to its subject matter, and it provided an appellate, tribunal above all impeachment as to character and competency. Therefore, whatever criticism might be made as to various parts of it, no one could question that it was complete, exhaustive and self-containing, and that was a matter which they could not lose sight of when they came to a division.

On Question, "That this House do not insist on their Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed," Motion agreed to.

On Question, "That this House do, disagree with Commons' proposed Amendments,"Motion agreed to.

On Question, "That Lord Atkinson's new amendment be there inserted," Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

On page 4, line 14, there is a small Amendment by the Commons to your Lordships' Amendment. Your Lordships proposed after "holding" to insert "and shall at the same time offer to such new tenant such sum as may be reasonably necessary to cover any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family, as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels to such parcel_of land." The Commons propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "other" before "chattels."

Moved, "That this House do agree to Commons Amendment of their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

With regard to the next Amendment, which was originally Lord Barrymore's, I am afraid I was a little over precipitate in accepting it, as I think I did when it came before us as a Committee. As a matter of fact, the circumstances are not really the same as those applying to the Amendment in line 14. This is an Amendment on line 19 to insert similar words where a man does not take a farm, and also to compensate him for moving. I think, on consideration, your Lordships' House will see that it is one thing to say that a man should be compensated for moving his goods to another farm which he has taken, but if he retires to, say, Australia, it would be rather a strong order. Perhaps noble Lords would agree to that.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on their Amendment to page 4, line 19." —(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next is in page 4, line 22, where your Lordships proposed after "1881" to insert— Provided that the Estates Commissioners may, if they think proper, and the new tenant so desires, award a sum as full compensation under this Sub-section 3, without making an offer of a parcel of land under Sub-section 2.

To this the Commons disagree, but they propose to amend the Bill by inserting in page 4, line 22, the words— (4) Where the new tenant applies within the prescribed time for compensation under the last preceding subsection, the Estates Commissioners may, if they think proper, award him such compensation without having offered to put him into possession of a parcel of land.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on their Amendment to page 4, line 22."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to. Moved, "That the House agree to the Amendment of the Commons at page 4, line 22."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment of your Lordships to which the Commons disagree is at page 5, line 5, at the beginning of the sub-section to insert "except as hereinbefore provided." The Amendment proposed by the Commons is consequential, and I do not think we need discuss it.

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought the Amendment of his noble friend (Lord Dunboyne) was, in a sense, not of first-class importance, but it arose in this way. It left, as well as he recollected, all the measure of the costs to the Judicial Commissioner; but, under the Amendment of his noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson), other Judges were brought in to deal with the costs, and therefore the word "except" was put in at the beginning in order that the matter might be referred to the Judicial Commissioner.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not quite know what the Motion before the House is.

LORD DUNBOYNE

moved to insist upon the words "except as hereinbefore provided" standing part of the Bill.

Moved, "That the House do insist upon their Amendment to page 5, line 5, with which the Commons have disagreed."—(Lord Dunboyne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE.EARL OF CREWE

I think it is useless to attempt to insert here the Commons' Amendment, because the form of the Bill would be changed by it; but it is almost necessary, I think, your Lordships having put the Bill into the shape in which it is, to disagree with the Amendment.

Moved, "That the House do disagree with the Commons' consequential Amendments in page 5, lines 6, 7 and 8."—(The Earl of Crewe.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment of your Lordships' House with which the Commons disagree is to leave out Clause 5. The Commons propose to amend the restored clause by adding at the end the words— Provided that the total amount paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund under this section shall not exceed £100,000. I think we are all agreed upon that.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

agreed with the noble Earl.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on their Amendment to leave out Clause 5."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That the House do agree to the Commons Amendment at the end of Clause 5."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment is in page 5, line 25, after the word "farm" to insert the word "townpark." The Commons have amended this Amendment by inserting after the word "townpark" the words "within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts." I beg to move that that be agreed to.

Moved, "That this House do agree to the Commons Amendment of their Amendment to page 5, line 25."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment is in page 5, line 26, which was originally Lord Clonbrock's. Your Lordships inserted after the word "ground," the words "or ground suitable for building sites or which for any reason possesses an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner." So far as the sentence to the first comma is concerned, we prefer the word "adapted" instead of the word "suitable"; and I am afraid we cannot agree to the words "excep- tional or accommodation value to the owner." I do not know whether the noble Lord will think it worth while to proceed with that, as he has got so much already in the form of Lord Atkinson's Amendment.

LORD CLONBROCK

said he was afraid he must ask the House to insist upon his Amendment. When he originally brought up the Amendment, cases were mentioned of very large farms, some being instanced to the number of several thousand acres, and he quite adhered to the view that it was desirable that farming operations of large extent should be carried on, both because of the amount of labour in the country and because of the example it gave to the people of the proper method of tilling. But he wished to point out that those were not the only cases, by any means, which he had had in view. It was not the cases of the large landowners which had induced him to put down the Amendment; those cases might be counted upon the fingers probably; but there were a great many small, needy landlords whose income had been reduced by the perverse and faulty legislation of recent years, and whose principal means of livelihood was in farming their land; they farmed their own demesnes, but it was impossible to farm them in most cases without also farming land outside, land which was not necessarily in the immediate vicinity, but might be at a distance off—wintering land and so on. If that land was taken from them, not only would the demand for labour cease, which he thought was a matter of great importance to the country; but they would be absolutely unable, in many cases, to live where they were now. He need not point out to the House the advantage of having a certain number of men of education living in the country, and the misfortune it would be to the whole country if they were driven out. He was convinced there were a great many people to whom the loss would be very serious if land of that description was taken from them, even if it was not of a large amount, by the compulsory action of the Estates Commissioners, and in many cases it would mean ruin to them. He must therefore urge the House to insist upon the Amendment which he had put down.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Perhaps the noble Lord on the Woolsack, in putting the Motion, will put the words "or ground 'adapted' for building sites," instead of 'suitable.'"

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Lord accept the word "adapted"?

LORD CLONBROCK

Yes.

Amendment moved— That the word 'adapted' be substituted for the word 'suitable."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Moved, "That this House do insist upon their Amendment to page 5, line 26, as amended."—(Lord Clonbrock.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment is also Lord Clonbrock's—to leave out "immediately adjoining and." I think in this case we can give the noble Lord the words he wants. I am still a little obscure about the meaning of the words "immediately adjoining," but I will not press their being struck out.

Moved, "That this House do insist upon their Amendment to page 5, line 32."—(Lord Clonbrock.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Did not the noble Earl (the Earl of Crewe) intend to add some words to the last lines of Clause 6, which he mentioned earlier in the evening? Is not the clause to run, "land shall be selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof"?

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Those words hinged, I am afraid, upon the acceptance of our general proposition. Noble Lords have adopted the Lands Clauses Act, and those words, therefore, are clearly not needed. I was quite prepared to restore them if the words in Clause 1 were accepted; but the two things hang together. I think the noble Marquess will see that, from his point of view, the words are not wanted.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I simply regarded it as better drafting.

After Clause 6:—

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Your Lordships will remember that your Lordships' House inserted a new clause to the effect that— Where any land is compulsorily acquired under this Act all sporting rights theretofore vested in the owner of the land shall, if he so desires, be expressly reserved to him. This is not a point upon which we desire to lay the greatest possible stress, but at the same time I am not in a position to say that I accept the clause, although I think I have before indicated there are certain points in it which might, at any rate conceivably, create hardship. I am not able to say that we agree to the new clause; but I have no doubt your Lordships will insist upon it.

Moved, "That this House do insist upon their Amendment to insert new clause after Clause 6."

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

The next Amendment is the omission of Clause 13, and upon that I beg to move that this House do not insist upon this Amendment. I do not wish in any way to argue over again the question about thestatus of the Estates Commissioners. It is enough, particularly at this hour of the night, to say that we adhere to the views which I stated at considerable length, that it is necessary for the protection of the Estates Commissioners that they should have the more or less judicialstatus provided for them in Clause 13.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon their Amendment to leave out Clause 13."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

All I have to say about this clause is that, as the noble Earl is aware, we attach considerable importance to the point. But I am bound to add that, to my mind, the question is very closely mixed up with the question of appeal which we were discussing earlier in the evening; and, if it were possible for us to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the appeal difficulty, I think many of my noble friends who sit beside me would be inclined not to press this particular clause too far.

On Question, Motion negatived.

After Clause 15:—

* THE EARL OF CREWE

There is only one further Amendment, and that is a new clause as to the duration of the Act— The provisions of this Act conferring power for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies shall continue in force for three years after the passing of this Act. The Commons have amended that to "four" years; and I move that this House do not insist on the Amendment.

Moved, "That this House do not insist upon their Amendment after Clause 15."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

said that he had moved the Amendment originally, but he was willing to give way, and accept "four" years.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, there is one point upon which I am afraid I am out of order, and we shall all be out of order, but as a matter of fact I ought to have reminded the House before that the omission of Clause 13, if insisted upon, has a serious effect upon the Bill. If your Lordships wish to take the course of amending Clause 13, then the Bill would go back to the House of Commons with the clause as amended, but the insistance on the omission of the clause will, I understand, have a disastrous effect upon the life of the Bill.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

If I am not out of order, I would move that the Estates Commissioners shall hold office by the same tenure as heretofore as if they were county court Judges in Ireland.

The Marquess of Lansdowne.

LORD ASHBOURNE

"During and after the passing of this Act."

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

"The same tenure as heretofore" and strike out the rest of the clause.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Does the noble Marquess move those words?

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Yes.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

Perhaps the noble Marquess would give the words to the noble Lord on the Woolsack.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

First of all, so that the House may be in order, I will move that the decision of the House in regard to Clause 13 be superseded.

Moved, "That the House do rescind their Resolution to insist upon the omission of Clause 13."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, "That Clause 13 be amended by inserting after the word 'shall' the words 'from and after the passing of this Act."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Committee appointed to prepare reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments and for disagreeing to certain of the Commons Amendments. The Committee to meet forthwith.