HL Deb 08 July 1908 vol 191 cc1595-612

House in Committee (according to Order.)

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

LORD ATKINSON moved, as an addition to Clause 1, which ran— The proviso at the end of subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, shall not apply in any case where the tenant consents in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioner, the insertion of the following words— Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission, notice of such filing being, in the time and manner prescribed, given to the landlord of the land to which the consent applies, and published in two successive issues of a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situate; and provided further that such consent shall not be acted upon if the said landlord, or any other person interested in or having a claim upon the said lands, shall, after having an opportunity of being heard in the time and manner prescribed, satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means.

In moving his Amendment he recalled the fact that in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill it was stated that noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House refrained from opposing the Bill in the interests of freedom. It was held that the bona fide planter tenants to whom the Bill applied should have conferred upon them the rights that all free men should enjoy in civilised and well-ordered communities. His Amendment was conceived in the same spirit, and directed to the same or kindred ends. If the planters were to have those rights which should belong to free men in such communities as he had mentioned, then protection ought to be thrown round them, so that they could exercise their rights freely, without being driven to abandon them by any form of coercion or intimidation.

In order that the meaning of the Amendment might be appreciated, he would state exactly what the position of the bona fide planter tenant was under existing legislation. The Act of last year enabled the Estates Commissioners to acquire land compulsorily; it denied to them the right to acquire tenanted land, save where the tenant was a new tenant who was not cultivating his farm in a bona fide manner. If he were a worthless planter, idle and neglectful, they could acquire his land; but if he were a bona fide farmer managing his holding according to the custom of cultivation in the district they could not. The present Bill was to enable the tenant to consent to the acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners and when he had given that consent he was in precisely the same position as all the other new tenants. The Estates Commissioners could buy the land, but they could not purchase from him the tenant's interest. What they could do was this—they could evict him, giving him a farm of equivalent value to that of which they had dispossessed him, or full compensation in money. That was exactly his position.

In the present Bill it was provided that the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of last year should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. How the assent was to be given save that it was to be given in writing, where it was to be given, when it was to be given, under what conditions it was to be given, or under what protection it was to be given was nowhere stated. It had occurred to him that it was imperatively necessary that some effort should be made to prevent these planters being made the object of coercion or intimidation. What was the position? The planter held land for which some of his neighbours who were evicted tenants were lusting, and observations, to which their Lordships' attention had been called on the last occasion, had been made by the Leader of the Nationalist Party, which, if he had been correctly reported, could mean little less than an exhortation and an incitement to attack and intimidate the bona fide planters and drive them from the homes they now occupied.

He would contrast the absence of all safeguards in reference to these men with the number of safeguards that were put round the Irish tenant when dealing with his landlord. But no coercion that the landlord could employ could be for an instant compared with that cruel and terrible form of intimidation commonly called boycotting. The crushing nature of that method of intimidation nobody could appreciate who had not seen the misery and sorrow it had brought on its victims. It was expected, when the Act of 1881 was passed, enabling tenants to get fair rents fixed, that many rents would be fixed by agreement between landlord and tenant. It was, however, found necessary to pass rules, to one or two of which he would take the opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention. It was provided that in all cases in which a tenant was a party to any agreement under the Land Act, or to any consent in writing to any document under that Act, his signature should be witnessed by a Commissioner for taking affidavits, or by other persons named in the Act, but no person in the employment of the landlord was a competent witness. If it was necessary to secure that the tenant was a perfectly free agent when he consented to settle a rent with his landlord, it was doubly necessary to see that the bona fide tenant planters were free agents when they were made the object of such remarks as those of Mr. Redmond, to which reference had been made. There were other rules. By Rule 143 power was reserved to any person interested in the farm to apply to have the agreement set aside on the ground of fraud or duress. If this was necessary in such a case, surely it was reasonable that some provision should be made to secure that the consent required from a bona fide planter before he could be turned out of his holding should be a free consent. Rule 169 was practically similar in effect. Therefore they had in Ireland a system of legislation in which the necessity was recognised that when a tenant came to parting with his rights he should be surrounded by every precaution to secure that he was acting as a free agent; and he contended that this was a thousand times more necessary in dealings under this Bill.

His Amendment was, to a great extent, drafted on the lines of the rules to which he had referred. He admitted that the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Donoughmore was more logical than his own, but his (Lord Atkinson's) Amendment was the simpler. The Estates Commissioners acquired the land, evicted the tenants, and paid compensation. The Commissioners, therefore, were one of the parties to the negotiations and the bargain, and it seemed to him preposterous to refer to them for decision the question whether the other party was intimidated. That would be doing what was done to some degree in the Act, but which had a peculiar abhorrence for him—it allowed one of the parties to be a judge directly in his own case. Love of gain was not the only passion that warped human judgment; pride, vanity, and a desire to carry some idea had often equally actuated people in, this direction. Though the Estates Commissioners had no pecuniary interest in the matter, they were not fit persons to decide whether the bargain into which they themselves had entered was a free one.

His Amendment provided for the decision of the question by an independent authority, the Judicial Commissioner. The adoption of that course would not impede, matters in any way, and would prevent a man being judge in his own case. It might be that the protection would not be altogether effectual. Intimidation such as existed in Ireland was often a subtle and all-pervading thing, alienating a man's friends, following his path, thwarting his action, lurking in every corner and cranny of his life, and no machinery that could be set up would effectually protect him from it. But the more subtle its character the more imperative was it the duty of their Lordships to provide means by which the tenants might exercise in some degree the rights of free men. The noble Earl who would reply on behalf of the Government might say that this could be done by rules. That would not be strictly accurate. Rules might regulate the mode in which jurisdiction was exercised, but jurisdiction could not be conferred by rules. There was no provision on the Statute-book which enabled the Judicial Commissioner to act in these matters, and, therefore, it was necessary, if he was to have that jurisdiction, that a provision to that affect should be introduced into the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission, notice of such filing being, in the time and manner prescribed, given to the landlord of the land to which the consent applies, and published in two successive issues of a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situate; and provided further that such consent shall not be acted upon if the said landlord, or any other person interested in or having a claim upon the said lands, shall, after having an opportunity of being heard in the time and manner prescribed, satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

My Lords, the issue raised by the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord in a clear and exhaustive speech is a very simple one. The object of this Bill is to prevent a planter from being coerced or intimidated into remaining on his farm when he wishes to go. The object of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to prevent his being coerced or intimidated into going if he wishes to stay. One hopes that occasions of this kind are not likely often to arise. As the noble and learned Lord has stated, the inducements offered by the Act as it stands are very considerable. A man either receives an equivalent farm elsewhere or else he receives the full value of his holding if he likes to go out of farming altogether.

The noble and learned Lord spoke of intimidation, which I abhor as much as he does, but, of course, it is impossible to overlook the fact that no law, though it may protect a man from violence, can protect him from unpopularity and from the hundred disagreeable incidents which accompany local unpopularity even though no violence be used. Consequently, I think it, may fairly be said that in most cases the inducements for a planter to go are at any rate considerable. The noble and learned Lord desires to ensure that the planter should not be intimidated into going, and, so far as the earlier words of his Amendment are concerned, we agree that there can be no possible objection to the tenant signing such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, or to the filing of the consent. I would suggest that, after the word "witnessed," the words "the said consent" should be inserted, because, as the Amendment stands, it looks almost as if either the tenant or the witnesses were to be filed in the office of the Land Commission, which would be possibly a painful and certainly a tedious process for them. There we should like to stop. We think that that ensures the necessary formality and publicity which the noble and learned Lord would desire to give to the tenant's act of renouncing his farm. We do not think it is necessary for the notice to be published in two successive issues of a local newspaper. That adds to the expense connected with the matter, without, in our opinion, contributing anything very material to the security of the tenant.

Then comes the question of the appeal. I fully admit that, if you are to have an appeal at all, the appeal suggested by the noble and learned Lord is the best that could be devised. It is infinitely preferable, in our opinion, to the very much more cumbrous process of a double appeal suggested by the noble Earl on the front bench opposite, which we think would really stultify the action of the Bill altogether. But even as regards the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, unobjectionable if you will in itself, I should like to appeal to the noble Lords opposite whether it is really necessary. It must be remembered that it is bound to involve considerable delay and necessitate great expense. It will be necessary, I suppose, to make rules limiting some time within which a landlord may lodge an appeal. I confess that there is something to my mind almost ludicrous in the notion of a judicial inquiry taking place in a case whore a man asserts that he has not been intimidated, and somebody else asserts for him that he has. I can find no parallel of that in any sort of judicial procedure that takes place in any civilised country.

I should like to put it to your Lordships whether this appeal is really necessary at all. I can quite understand that it may be argued that this act on the part of the planter should be seriously and somewhat ceremoniously carried out, but how it is possible to go behind an act of that kind and to insist that the man is being intimidated when ex hypothesi he says he is not, is a matter which, I confess, passes my comprehension. I hope, therefore, that on consideration the noble and learned Lord would be willing to move only the first part of his Amendment down to the words "Land Commission," and would, in consideration of the great trouble to which the parties would be put if the whole Amendment was carried, consent to withdraw the rest.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,

who had given notice of an Amendment to amend Lord Atkinson's Amendment by leaving out the further proviso and inserting after the word "situate," the following words— And provided further that the said consent shall not be acted upon if the landlord or any other person having an interest in or claim upon the said lands shall satisfy the Estates Commissioners, after having had at the time and in the manner prescribed an opportunity of being heard, that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means, and the determination by the Estates Commissioners of this question shall be deemed and taken to be a determination by them of a question arising under provisions imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land within the meaning of Section 2, subsection 11, of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, and shall be subject to appeal accordingly, said he did not think the noble Earl in his final words had fairly described the position. The noble Earl had said the position was a ridiculous one that when a man had said he had not been intimidated somebody else should come forward and say that he had. But did the planter say he had not been intimidated? Unless the Government had in their mind some form of consent that the planter was to be made to give to the effect that he had not been intimidated when he gave his consent, he failed entirely to see the force of the noble Earl's argument. Their whole contention was that this consent might be obtained in some cases by intimidation, and it was in order to safeguard the planter himself in such case that they asked their Lordships to give this appeal. His reply to the noble Earl's Question, Was this appeal really necessary? was "Yes," and that it was more necessary now, owing to the administration of the law in Ireland by His Majesty's Government, than it was twelve months ago. A very peculiar case was mentioned in The Times about ten days ago. The statements made so surprised him that he took the trouble to obtain a copy of the local paper which contained an almost verbatim report of the case, which was concerned with cattle-driving on the De Montalt estate at Ballintemple, and the claim for compensation by the victims of that proceeding. He did not know whether it was as the result of cattle-driving or not, but the land was now to be sold, and Mr. Ryan, the solicitor for the victims, made the remarkable statement that his clients— Were, on the division of the demesne lands, to be allotted a portion of them by the Estates Commissioners, but the landholders resolutely opposed the Hickeys getting any portion of the estate, and the result was that the Land Commissioners gave way to them, and the Hickeys got none of the land, for the Commissioners pandered to the Crown. That action was a practical encouragement of cattle-driving. That was the spirit in which the law was being administered at this moment, and it was this which made some such Amendment as this absolutely necessary.

LORD ASHBOURNE

admitted that if a man denied that he had been intimidated it was not easy to get over that. There was nothing so hard to ascertain in districts where feeling ran high as whether or not a man was acting as an absolutely free agent or was yielding to the insidious form of intimidation so well known in Ireland. The provision in the Bill that the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of last year should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners was a rather bald one. The mere consent in writing was hardly sufficient, and could not without an addition of some kind be deemed satisfactory. He gathered that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies practically admitted that, for he had stated that the first part of Lord Atkinson's Amendment, providing that the tenant should sign the consent in the presence of two witnesses who should attach their names thereto, was conceived in such a reasonable spirit that he was prepared to give a ready assent to it. He (Lord Ashbourne) did not suppose it would be a common case at all, but it was conceivable that there might be cases where, although the man had signed the consent in the presence of witnesses and expressed his desire to accept the terms offered him and to go, objection could still be made that that act was not quite free and that at some point or other undue pressure was exercised. It was therefore claimed to be reasonable to provide means in such a case for the matter to be investigated and decided by a fair tribunal.

LORD CLONBROCK

trusted that the Government might be induced to accept the Amendment in its entirety. No one doubted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies condemned intimidation as much as any one in the House. The object of the Amendment was to prevent intimidation. The fact that a planter had given in writing his consent to go did not at all imply that he had given it of his own free will, and it was perfectly legitimate to inquire whether direct intimidation had been applied Owing to the exceedingly light and airy manner in which agitation had been treated by His Majesty's Government, intimidation prevailed very widely in Ireland. The mere placing on record of the written consent in the office of the Estates Commissioners would be an absolutely nugatory proceeding, the more especially as the bargain was being made with them. Noble Lords from Ireland desired that there should be an appeal to some independent authority such as the Judicial Commissioner. He hoped the House would adopt the Amendment and reserve freedom of action to these planters.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said the Amendment would not be necessary but for the open intimidation and boycotting existing in Ireland. The whole spirit in which their Lordships debated the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act of last year was that the bona fide planters should be adequately protected; but in the Bill now before them it was provided that the proviso inserted in the Act of last year for the protection of the planters should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. The noble Earl apparently did not object to the provision in Lord Atkinson's Amendment about the two witnesses, but only to the publication in the newspapers. Noble Lords might be inclined to concede that point, because personally he did not attach great importance to the newspaper publication. The question of appeal, however, was more important. It had been fully debated last year, and now, when an Amendment was moved to protect the planters, why should not the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner be granted? No argument had been submitted against the right of appeal. The truth was that the present Government wanted to fire out the planters as quickly as possible. It was much better to be candid about the matter. Personally, he thought that there would not be many appeals; but, at any rate, the chance of making an appeal should be given. He suggested that "any person interested" might be a better phrase to adopt than that in the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments of noble Lords opposite although I fully recognise that what they have in their minds is the interest of the tenant. If I believed that this Amendment would have a serious effect in protecting or making happier people who otherwise would be intimidated, I could not refuse to accept it. But what is really going to happen suppose this Amendment is carried? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a man has been intimidated into signing a consent. After having announced his intention of leaving, is it likely that, before Mr. Justice Wylie, he will recant and say he was intimidated, and go back to the occupation of his holding? It seems the most improbable thing to happen in practice that could be conceived. On the other hand, you have the alternative possibility, in every case where the planter wants to go, of the landlord who has a strong personal objection to the Bill, putting this unhappy man into Court, the tenant asseverating that he wants to go and the landlord assuring the Court that he ought to be allowed to remain.

LORD ATKINSON

was of opinion that as the landlord would be mulcted in costs such a case would not be likely to occur.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am not sure that all landlords would be deterred by that fact. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment. I am anxious not to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing, which I should have to do if the Amendment before us at the moment was the one standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore; but I am bound to say I cannot hold out any hope of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary accepting this Amendment in another place.

LORD ATKINSON

expressed his willingness to omit the word "landlord" and to insert the words "persons inter- ested His Amendment was not conceived in the interest of the landlord. The term "landlord" came in because he had, in drafting his Amendment, copied the rules to which he had referred.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not take it that that would lead to any change in practice, because the words "persons interested" would include the landlord. Therefore, I do not see much object in striking out the landlord in this case.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I take it there is no doubt as to the position which the great body of the Members of this House desire to take up in reference to this question of the bona fide planter. We desire that he should be effectually protected; but I think I may add that we only desire to protect him if he himself wishes to be protected. I take that as our point of departure. Then arises the question what evidence is to be regarded as sufficient to show that the bona fide planter really does desire to invoke protection.

In the Bill as presented to the House the simple consent of the tenant in writing was to be sufficient. On this side of the House, at any rate, we do not think that so imperfect a guarantee as that is sufficient for the purpose. To rely on the mere signature of the tenant, given under circumstances of which no one is very fully aware, would be, indeed, a very slight precaution. It will be within the recollection of many of us that, in the case of Lord Clanricarde's estate, signatures were appended by a great many of the tenants to statements recording their strong objection to be moved elsewhere, and that within a few days we had in our possession other signatures from the same tenants recording their desire to be allowed to accept the terms offered them by the Estates Commissioners. Therefore, I venture to think it is clearly established that the mere signature of the tenant by itself is not sufficient. I think we may also call attention to the argument used with so much effect by my noble and learned friend behind me, when he reminded the House that whenever the tenant is called upon or is allowed to part with any portion of his rights to his landlord, the transaction is shielded by any number of precautions of the very kind which my noble and learned friend desires to introduce in the present case.

I must say I was a little astonished when I heard the noble Earl who leads the House say to us, at the beginning of this discussion, that whereas we desired that the tenant should not be intimidated into leaving his farm, noble Lords opposite desired that he should not be intimidated into remaining upon it, the suggestion being, I presume, that the kind of pressure which the landlord who desires to retain a bona fide tenant can put upon him is comparable to the kind of pressure which is put upon these people by the Land League when they desire to drive them from their holdings. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that, shows a certain absence of perspective in the view with which these questions are regarded by noble Lords opposite.

The Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend has three limbs. In the first place, he desires that the consent of the tenant of the tenant should be given in the presence of witnesses who are to attach their names thereto, the consent being filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission. That, I understand, is accepted by His Majesty's Government, and I gladly acknowledge the indication of their admission that the case of my noble and learned friend is to that extent a strong one. Then we come to the second limb of the Amendment, which is to the effect that notice of the filing of the consent is to be given to the landlord and published in two successive issues of a local newspaper. I think I caught a suggestion from my noble friend behind me that he and those who act with him do not attach great importance to that particular part of the proposal. I therefore do not dwell upon it.

Then I come to by far the most important part of the Amendment—namely, that which provides that in these cases there shall be an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. I observed with satisfaction that the noble Earl admitted that if there was to be an appeal that was the proper appeal to provide; and, personally, I should prefer that appeal to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore. I ask myself, however, whether the appeal thus provided is really one which is likely to be of any great substantial value, because it seems to me clear that if precautions of this kind are to be mere paper precautions and are not to be of substantial value the fewer of them we put into this Bill the better for all concerned. My noble friend Lord Mayo admitted, I think, that appeals of this kind would be very rare. We may, therefore, assume that we are only dealing with quite a small number of cases.

Let us consider what is likely to happen in that small number of cases. You appeal to the Judicial Commissioner and you endeavour to show that the tenant has been subjected to some form of coercion. Upon whose evidence are you going to rely in order to establish your case? Remember that it is one in which the tenant ex hypothesi has been effectually intimidated. He has been intimidated up to the point of putting his name to a document in which he formally states that he desires to give up his farm. Is it very likely that after he has done that, after he has been so effectually coerced that he has given his consent with all these formalities—is it very likely that you will get him to recant that consent before the Judicial Commissioner? I doubt it very much. Then let us suppose that you are going to rely, not upon the evidence of the tenant, but upon the evidence of other parties. The landlord produces evidence to show that there has been cattle-driving in the neighbourhood, and that the tenant and his family have been boycotted. The evidence may be unanswerable, but the fact will remain that the tenant himself desires to leave his farm and to go to a farm in another part of the country. It will be impossible for the Judicial Commissioner or for anybody else, so it seems to me, to determine whether the consent of the tenant is really due to the boycotting and the persecution, or to the fact that he has been offered, as we know some of these people have been offered, by the Estates Commissioners extremely liberal inducements to move elsewhere.

I frankly confess that, much as I regret to differ from my noble friends who sit behind me, it does not seem to me that this part of the Amendment is likely to serve any substantially good purpose, and, for that reason, I really would put it to them whether they might not be content with the earlier portion of it, perhaps fortified by some other words, and whether, at any rate, they might not stop short of insisting either upon the full-blown Amendment of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore or upon the latter part of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.

LORD CLONBROCK

pointed out that they had to consider not only the case of a man who had, whether from intimidation or not, given his consent, but the effect on the people round about. What they desired to do was to make it as difficult as possible for a man to be intimidated, and if the people who were inclined to intimidate knew that there was an appeal and that the whole matter would be threshed out from the beginning before a fair tribunal, they might not be so ready in indulge in intimidation. With such a provision as that contained in the Amendment, intimidation, though it might be successful in the end, would not be so easy to practise.

THE EARL OF MAYO

submitted, in regard to what had been said by Lord Lansdowne, that there were planters plucky enough to stand up and say they had been intimidated into giving their consent. If these planters did not possess that determination, he could assure their Lordships that many of them would not be where they were now. The very word "planter" was well known in the history of Ireland and spoke for itself. He admitted that the cases might not be many, but held that that did not make their argument any the weaker. The few men who had taken up this position and were farming their land in a husband-like manner were entitled to every protection. There was an important principle involved, and he hoped his noble friends from Ireland would divide on the Amendment.

LORD ATKINSON

called attention to the fact that his Amendment was not confined to intimidation. Other unlawful means might be resorted to, such as bribery and violence, to coerce a tenant into giving his consent. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that a person who had no evidence to bring before the Judicial Commissioner would proffer a charge of this kind when he was certain to be beaten and to have to pay the costs. He did not suggest that the Amendment set up perfect machinery. If they were never to legislate unless they could devise perfect machinery they would never legislate at all. The value of the proviso in the Amendment was that in cases of gross intimidation means would be open for resorting to a tribunal to defeat it, and to prevent the intimidators reaping the fruits of their illegal act. For himself, he did not see any great difficulty in the Judicial Commissioner's ascertaining whether a man was acting of his own free will or not. For instance, if a man said he had made up his mind not to go and was then boycotted, and his cattle driven, and on the third day signed a consent, would any one have difficulty in saying that that consent was extracted by intimidation? Although it might not frequently be resorted to, the existence of this appeal would be of great value.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)

I propose to put the Amendment down to the words "Land Commission" which, I understand, is accepted by the Government.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Would the noble and learned Lord agree to insert after the word "witness," the words "the said consent"?

LORD ATKINSON

I think it is quite unnecessary, but I have no objection to it.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Amendment is to add the words, "Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed the said consent shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Question I now have to put to the Committee is that the words "notice of such filing," etc., down to the end of the Amendment, be there inserted.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 133).

On Question, "That those words be there inserted."

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Knutsford, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Somerset, D. Portman, V. Harris, L.
Wellington, D. Heneage, L.
Peterborough, L. Bp. Hindlip, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Hylton, L.
Ailesbury, M. Addington, L. James, L.
Camden, M. Alverstone, L. Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Zetland, M. Ashbourne, L. Kenyon, L.
Atkinson, L. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Cairns, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Cathcart, E. Biddulph, L. Lawrence, L.
Dartrey, E. Brougham and Vaux, L. Muskerry, L.
Denbigh, E. Calthorpe, L. Newton, L.
Devon, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) Oranmore and Browne, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Castlemaine, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Halsbury, E. Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Hardwicke, E. Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) Rathmore, L.
Harrowby, E. Clonbrock, L. Redesdale, L.
Ilchester, E. Colchester, L. Robertson, L.
Londesborough, E. Cottesloe, L. Saltoun, L.
Malmesbury, E. Crawshaw, L. Sandys, L.
Manvers, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Savile, L.
Mayo, E. De Mauley, L. Seaton, L.
Morley, E. Digby, L. Sherborne, L.
Rosse, E. Douglas, L. ((E. Home.) Sinclair, L.
Waldegrave, E. Dunboyne, L. ([Teller.] Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
Cross V. Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.) Stalbridge, L.
Hampden, V. Forester, L. Stanmore, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]
Wemyas, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Iveagh, V. Grey de Ruthyn, L. Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Wolverhampton, V. Headley, L.
Herschell, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) Allendale, L. Joicey, L.
Craven, E. Ampthill, L. Lochee, L.
Crewe, E. Armitstead, L. Lucas, L.
Cromer, E. Colebrooke, L. Lyveden, L.
Jersey, E. Denman, L. (Teller.] Manners, L.
Liverpool, E. Eversley, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Onslow, E. Faber, L. Pirrie, L.
Fitzmaurice, L. Sanderson, L.
Glantawe, L. Sandhurst, L.
Althorpe, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Weardale, L.
St. Aldwyn, V. Haversham, L. Welby, L.